# Breaking into Bruckner



## fugueforthought (Nov 28, 2013)

In the past year or so, I have made a point of familiarizing myself with the Mahler symphonies. 
(Also, I feel like I've posted this before but I don't have the ability to search or view or change *my own* profile, so that's out. Anyway...
Over the past year I've managed to study and listen to and digest most of the Mahler symphonies (still working on 7-9) and haven't really touched _Das Lied_ yet, but I feel like I 'understand' the language and ideas for the most part.
Understanding that Bruckner was at least somewhat of an influence on Mahler (in his expansion and treatment of the symphony), I am also interested in coming to appreciate Bruckner's (also) nine symphonies. 
However, to this point, I really can't do it. There are moments I enjoy (the scherzi of the first and third symphonies, and the first movement of the ninth come to mind), but on the whole, when listening, my minds tend to wander and forget I'm listening. It's so different to me from Mahler, which isn't unexpected; that's not the issue. Bruckner is Bruckner, not Mahler, but am I missing something?
Mahler's 90+ minute second symphony is one of the greatest pieces of art ever created, and I listen to every riveting minute of it. Bruckner has some pieces nearing that length, but they cannot hold my interest. They seem broad, expansive, wide-open, and kind of.... I don't want to say dull, but wander-y, perhaps. 
I've listened through different symphonies from different conductors and orchestras (Solti, HvK, Maazel, Barenboim [just today, and I quite like it], Chailly). Is there something I'm missing about this guy, or is it just not my cup of tea. People (other than Brahms) rave about this guy, and I spent a lot of time cracking into Mahler, but it slowly paid off, and I really came to appreciate it. I haven't gotten very far with Bruckner yet. Thoughts? Ideas?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Maybe not your cup of tea.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Bruckner provides some of the most uplifting, grand and stunning music out there. Many compare his musical structures to Medieval cathedrals. Indeed they are, though cathedrals dressed in Romantic garb moreso than Medieval attire.

I first came to Bruckner by way of the Seventh Symphony, which remains my favorite of his nine. The scherzo is absolutely unforgettable, but the entire work is awesome (in the best meaning of that word). The Seventh is the symphony which features all the tubas which bring a low end profundity to the second movement.

From the Seventh I went to the Fourth, and after some half century of enjoying Bruckner, it continues to be the Seventh and Fourth I most visit (and which recordings I most collect of Bruckner). 

Still, each of the symphonies offers surprises and gifts aplenty. I wouldn't want to live without any of them, really. This is what the symphony is all about.

Don't get too concerned about "missing" something when you listen to a classical piece. Just settle into the experience for the sound of it all. Most likely, Bruckner is painting a sound picture of heavenly revelation -- but if you don't get that, don't worry. His climaxes are still splendid, his slow movements poignant, and those scherzos! Wow. They gallop one along on a joyous, and usually brassy, ride. What's not to like.

This is serious music for serious people. But I often find myself smiling, and sometimes even laughing out loud, from the joys inherent in Bruckner's music. Some of the most sublime moments in the repertoire -- that's how I think of Bruckner.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Mahler is much more intellectually engaging. Bruckner left the head and specialized in religious raptures. Both visceral and beautiful.


----------



## fugueforthought (Nov 28, 2013)

Thanks guys, for your replies. I have heard the comparison to the cathedral, and yes, I definitely understand the spacious, soaring, towering melodies and sound produced in his symphonies, and the religious nature that Vesuvius mentioned. 
I think perhaps what's easier to 'grasp' with Mahler or to hang onto (for me) is the greatness in contrast, where for example, even in the first symphony, there's the very pastoral kind of ethereal opening, the funeral march in the third movement contrasted with the Klezmer-folk-like theme, etc. His orchestrations of huge towers of sound against almost-chamber-like passages makes for fascinating textures and contrast, where I feel Bruckner to be... less so.



> Bruckner left the head and specialized in religious raptures.


Well said, there, Vesuvius. I do intend to give more time to his symphonies, as they are undoubtedly hugely significant works. I don't want to get into a discussion of recordings and cycles, but Sonnet mentioned the jumping off points for you being the 4th and 7th. Would you recommend any recordings of those that you particularly love? I started with the 5th and 2nd of Mahler, and perhaps having a good starting point would help. 
I guess I don't mean 'missing something' as much as perhaps not having the right expectations. Listening to Bruckner and expecting Mahler will obviously lead to disappointment, but I do understand Bruckner's much greater religious nature. 
Thanks so much for your thoughts, guys!


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2014)

Try Bruckner's sacred works. The Te Deum will hook you more easily, making you crave more Bruckner, and thus allowing you to be more patient with the symphonies.


----------



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

Listen to the 1st movement of the 4th symphony. That's the first piece I ever listened to by Bruckner and it remains one of my favorite symphonic movements of all time. Each of the themes are like planets in a harmonious, celestial orbit, and when they are seen in their full form, at the final crescendo, the beauty is blinding when they all come together. The chorale is so beautiful it hurts. 

Mahler is more intellectual. His music was inspired by his own personal struggles; that is, he is universalizing his own particular experience. Bruckner's music, on the other hand, comes from a divine, universal source. Even though Bruckner and Mahler are often paired together because they are both late Romantics and wrote long symphonies for giant orchestras, their musical personalities cannot be any more different.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

fugueforthought said:


> Well said, there, Vesuvius. I do intend to give more time to his symphonies, as they are undoubtedly hugely significant works. I don't want to get into a discussion of recordings and cycles, but Sonnet mentioned the jumping off points for you being the 4th and 7th. Would you recommend any recordings of those that you particularly love? I started with the 5th and 2nd of Mahler, and perhaps having a good starting point would help.
> I guess I don't mean 'missing something' as much as perhaps not having the right expectations. Listening to Bruckner and expecting Mahler will obviously lead to disappointment, but I do understand Bruckner's much greater religious nature.
> Thanks so much for your thoughts, guys!


Gunter Wand's cycle with the Kolner Rundfunk Sinfonie-Orchester is unparalleled, to me.


----------



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> Gunter Wand's cycle with the Kolner Rundfunk Sinfonie-Orchester is unparalleled, to me.
> 
> View attachment 48739


Hm, I'm obsessed with Bruckner and I've never even listened to that cycle, usually preferring Furtwängler, Abbado, and Sawallisch for Bruckner. Have I not lived?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Celloissimo said:


> Hm, I'm obsessed with Bruckner and I've never even listened to that cycle, usually preferring Furtwängler, Abbado, and Sawallisch for Bruckner. Have I not lived?


Yes, you're a walking zombie, but you should be brought back to life with a good dose of some Wand.


----------



## fugueforthought (Nov 28, 2013)

> Try Bruckner's sacred works. The Te Deum will hook you more easily, making you crave more Bruckner, and thus allowing you to be more patient with the symphonies.


Thank you for this suggestion, Arcaneholocaust. I will give that a go as well. I think patience is also something I perhaps need, in addition to 'focused' or 'directed' listening. Thanks!



> Even though Bruckner and Mahler are often paired together because they are both late Romantics and wrote long symphonies for giant orchestras, their musical personalities cannot be any more different.


Also, sorry for the poor formatting; I'm still learning how to reply to posts. Thanks, Celloissimo, for the above. I have heard Brucker's and Mahler's respective approaches to the expression of the human experience as being that of the universal, and the very personal (even self-centered). Quite interesting.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

fugueforthought said:


> Thank you for this suggestion. I will give that a go as well. I think patience is also something I perhaps need, in addition to 'focused' or 'directed' listening. Thanks!


There are plenty of great cycles out there. I've also really enjoyed Chailly's, Stokowski, Karajan, Titner, etc... But none have the fire of Wand's cycle. All have ups and downs.


----------



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

> Thank you for this suggestion, Arcaneholocaust. I will give that a go as well. I think patience is also something I perhaps need, in addition to 'focused' or 'directed' listening. Thanks!


For me, that "focused" listening you're talking about actually hampered my appreciation of Bruckner when I started listening to him. Because I didn't like it at first but was trying to , it was like I was hitting myself on the head with a brick telling myself "Appreciate this! Appreciate this!" I was trying so hard to listen for counterpoint, modulation, form, etc that it got in the way of me just enjoying the music. I'm not saying not to pay attention to the theoretical aspect because that is integral to fully appreciating a work of music, just don't get bogged down in it, that's all.This isn't just for Bruckner, for me it holds for a lot of music. Just relax and get into a mindful 'zen' mode and absorb all the gorgeous themes and orchestration and let it finally unfold.


----------



## fugueforthought (Nov 28, 2013)

I can understand that no single box set of any composer's works will be perfect. Each one is bound to have strengths and weaknesses. I learned that with Mahler, and am still compiling my 'best of' cycle (best first, best second, etc). I'm working on picking out a third, and 7-9 for Mahler, but haven't gotten that detailed yet with Bruckner. Still kind of breaking in so far, but thanks for everyone's suggestions and ideas!
Much of my listening adventures, thoughts, ideas, and experiences are all catalogued here:
www.fugueforthought.de
I'm working on getting through as much of the standard (and non-standard, eventually) repertoire as possible. Bruckner has yet to make a (worthy) appearance. I did a measly little bit on his sixth, but I'll be redoing that one.


----------



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

I'm risking getting banned for this post, but I highly recommend smoking a bowl of good ol' Mary Jane and then listening to Bruckner. It does wonders; if you're about that life, of course.


----------



## fugueforthought (Nov 28, 2013)

Celloissimo said:


> I highly recommend smoking a bowl of good ol' Mary Jane and then listening to Bruckner.


I can see how that would make for a very different listening experience. I'll probably try to stick with a less focused, less analytical listening. I will say in the past that the music that has taken the most effort to come to understand and enjoy has also proven to be some of my favorite in the long run.


----------



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

The Scherzo from the 2nd is really catchy and might grab your attention better as well.

32:22


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Also, the Adagio to the 7nth is one of the most beautiful pieces of music I've heard.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Mahler is much more intellectually engaging. Bruckner left the head and specialized in religious raptures. Both visceral and beautiful.


Ouch!

I couldn't disagree more.

Bruckner was apparently quite a religious guy. Not sure how much of that gets into the music, though. I wonder. If one didn't know that Bruckner was religious, would one hear that in his music? Oh, wait. I don't wonder. I already know. I didn't know anything about Bruckner's putative spiritual life when I first heard his music. (And for me, for a long time, only the scherzos stuck in my head.) The first symphony for me was his fourth. Nothing religious there, so far as I could hear. And the same went for several more symphonies until the inevitable happened, and I happened to glance at a wee bit of writing that talked about Bruckner's religiosity. Damn those wee bits of writing! Well, I can certainly hear some organ-like sonorities from time to time. But they're not all that frequent or essential. And they certainly don't translate into "religious."

Bruckner's symphonies are every bit as tightly constructed and intelligent as Mahler's are, maybe even more so. (And no, I don't think "tightly constructed" is approbation. Just description. And I like loosely-constructed just as much if not more. I'm just responding to the "left the head" comment.)

I find that both these guys, for all their differences (and what, really do they have in common? not much), are intellectually engaging. Yes indeed.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

some guy said:


> The first symphony for me was his fourth. Nothing religious there, so far as I could hear.


You know, there are people who set out to take photographs of ghosts, and they always do so with great success.
All depends on one's notion of religious, of course. Doesn't need to be organ/church music. If one knows what to listen for, one will know it when one hears it. I hear it in Bruckner everywhere, but I also hear it in Sibelius, though I have no clue as to his believes, if any.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Celloissimo said:


> I'm risking getting banned for this post, but I highly recommend smoking a bowl of good ol' Mary Jane and then listening to Bruckner. It does wonders; if you're about that life, of course.


If a composer is great, the music should stand on its own merits. Something's wrong if one must get drunk or high to "hear" what the composer is saying.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> If a composer is great, the music should stand on its own merits. Something's wrong if one must get drunk or high to "hear" what the composer is saying.


I disagree--in fact, sometimes one has to be drunk to _perform_ a given work.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> I disagree--in fact, sometimes one has to be drunk to _perform_ a given work.


Mercifully presented in full audio; no visual.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

some guy said:


> Ouch!
> 
> I couldn't disagree more.
> 
> ...


We apparently have very different ideas of what 'religious' means. I don't mean it in a slight at all. But comparatively... Mahler was much more of an adventurous intellectual. And Bruckner was much more one-track minded. All of his symphonies feel like they are aiming at the exact same thing, in a very similar way.... a spiritual rapture, as I see it. I don't think he's near the complexity of Mahler's orchestral writing... but again, that's not a slight, as I find simplicity can be equally - if not more - beautiful.

He was an amazing composer with exceptional skill, but he honed it all in to a single-pointed concept.... and he didn't waver from that at all. There's an undeniable 'sameness' in all of his symphonies. While Mahler will take you through different worlds in one movement.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Andreas said:


> All depends on one's notion of religious, of course. Doesn't need to be organ/church music. If one knows what to listen for, one will know it when one hears it. I hear it in Bruckner everywhere, but I also hear it in Sibelius, though I have no clue as to his believes, if any.


I'm not sure about Sibelius's religious beliefs, but I know he loved Bruckner more than almost any other composer.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> I'm not sure about Sibelius's religious beliefs, but I know he loved Bruckner more than almost any other composer.


I had no idea Sibelius even liked Bruckner.

I would have lost money on that one. _;D_


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Sibelius was religious and also a freemason. He tended to identify himself with literary characters in an emotional and almost mystical way. He was a bit inclined to the pantheistic perspective of 'God'. 

Sibelius once said: "Yesterday I heard Bruckner's B-flat major symphony and it moved me to tears. For a long time afterwards, I was completely transformed. What a strangely profound spirit formed by a religious sense. And this profound religiousness we have abolished in our country as something no longer in harmony with our time" 

Kullervo has a number of passages clearly Brucknerian and echoes of Bruckner appear in all his symphonies. His whole developmental technique stems directly from Bruckner's motivic technique. In stylistic terms, Bruckner was to Sibelius what Wagner was to Bruckner or Beethoven to Brahms. Pretty much the only composer Sibelius held over Bruckner was Beethoven. I think that when Rautavaara sounds like a genuine continuation of Sibelius's very late style (Tapiola, The Tempest, Surusoitto) it's because his own music also stems from Bruckner.


----------



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

hpowders said:


> If a composer is great, the music should stand on its own merits. Something's wrong if one must get drunk or high to "hear" what the composer is saying.


I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. All I was saying was it can potentially enhance the listening experience or give you a different perspective.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Celloissimo said:


> I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. All I was saying was it can potentially enhance the listening experience or give you a different perspective.


It certainly does give a different angle. I was quite fond of marijuana back in the day. I still find it to be a lovely plant.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

I love (read: annoyed) how most of the first posts in this thread attempted to corner Mahler and Bruckner into these distinct, opposing perspectives. One is more "intellectually engaging," the other deeply "religious." One was founded on "persona struggles," another on a "divine, universal source."

Stop.

These are all generalizations--subjective generalizations, really. We may know what was written and said by these composers or their peers, but declaring one is more "intellectual" and based upon "personal struggles" while the other was simply adhering to a "divine, universal source" only demeans (1) the music and (2) the OP, or any listener, beginning to listen to this music, reading this junk, and assuming, Oh, wow, I guess I prefer _that_ guy because I appreciate the "personality" and "intellectual" nature of it all.

All of that comes off as ego-stroking, showing off that you prefer one over the other because of certain _facts_ or _history_ you choose to put value in.

In short: I can listen to *Bruckner* and hear "intellectual" art, speaking from "personal struggles" with a "divine" spirit; I can turn to *Mahler *for a "universal source" that gives me "divine" respite for "personal struggles."

And anyone else can do the exact opposite, or the same, despite these ridiculous labels we throw around as fact.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Avey said:


> I love (read: annoyed) how most of the first posts in this thread attempted to corner Mahler and Bruckner into these distinct, opposing perspectives. One is more "intellectually engaging," the other deeply "religious." One was founded on "persona struggles," another on a "divine, universal source."
> 
> Stop.
> 
> ...


I'll stop my opinions... if you stop yours. How about that?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

As Mahler alluded to in his quote - "a simpleton, and a god"... Bruckner was a one-track mind, but he fulfilled it in such a beautiful way through his compositional skills. I don't find Mahler to be "ABOVE" Bruckner because of his intellectual explorations... I just find it to be a worthwhile and obvious mention. Being intellectual doesn't automatically put you above a more simple disposition. It's what you do with it... and both Bruckner and Mahler worked with their respective traits in a glorious way.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Bruckner left the head and specialized in religious raptures. Both visceral and beautiful.


I actually agree with you, I hear it in his music as well. My former professor Alessandro Carrera with whom I discuss classical quite often, has even said that sometimes Bruckner made his orchestra sound like a massive Church Organ. He meant this is no negative way whatsoever, Bruckner seems to be his favorite composer!

Carrera is a Italian Department Director and Graduate Director at the University of Houston.. He wrote his dissertation on "_dissertation on poetry and music in Arnold Schönberg_".

From part of his email of our discussions: "La "base" delle sinfonie di Bruckner è, come tu hai visto giustamente, la Sinfonia n. 9 di Schubert. Quello è il modello che Bruckner ha seguito, più la Nona di Beethoven e l'orchestra di Wagner, che in Bruckner però suona come un gigantesco organo da chiesa (Bruckner è stato per molti anni organista)."

Which translate like this: "The "base" of Bruckner's symphonies is, as you've justly noted, Schubert's 9th symphony. That is the symphonic model that Bruckner followed, as well as Beethoven's 9th and Wagner's orchestration, which in Bruckner's case sounds like gigantic church organ (Bruckner was an organist for many years)"


----------



## chalkpie (Oct 5, 2011)

For me, Bruckner is a deity for adagios and largos...some of his other movements are hit/miss for me. Mahler pretty much nails everything for me on multiple levels, and I think in all fairness his training and ability to hear more 'modern' (for the time) compositions helped him further develop his art. I think if you were driving through the Austrian alps with Bruckner CRANKED, you might develop a new appreciation for him :cheers:


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

I broke into Bruckner once. But breaking out was much harder, I must say.


----------



## Nevum (Nov 28, 2013)

The music of most composers reflects life experiences and concepts. In other words, most composers have written "earthy" music. Bruckner's music is very different than anything else. It is from another dimension and has no "earthy" concepts. It is an attempt to understand existence.

In my opinion, Bruckner was the most inspired composer ever. Very few other composers reached that "out of earth" inspiration in a limited number of their compositions. Maybe Bach in Matthias passion and Mozart in the Coronation mass and Requiem. But Bruckner's music is all at that level. Every single piece he wrote.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

We could cut with all this nonsense and define religiousness in music as anything with a constant reference to the phrygian mode. All happy with that? LOL


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Carrera is a Italian Department Director and Graduate Director at the University of Houston.. He wrote his dissertation on "_dissertation on poetry and music in Arnold Schönberg_".
> 
> From part of his email of our discussions: "La "base" delle sinfonie di Bruckner è, come tu hai visto giustamente, la Sinfonia n. 9 di Schubert. Quello è il modello che Bruckner ha seguito, più la Nona di Beethoven e l'orchestra di Wagner, che in Bruckner però suona come un gigantesco organo da chiesa (Bruckner è stato per molti anni organista)."
> 
> Which translate like this: "The "base" of Bruckner's symphonies is, as you've justly noted, Schubert's 9th symphony. That is the symphonic model that Bruckner followed, as well as Beethoven's 9th and Wagner's orchestration, which in Bruckner's case sounds like gigantic church organ (Bruckner was an organist for many years)"


Schubert's 9th, but I think also his late piano sonatas and, maybe even more, the string quartets. The g major one, no. 15, for instance: after a few introductory bars, there are tremoli in the 2nd violin, viola and cello, and the 1st violin presents the theme, afterwards repeated by the cello. This always sounds really "brucknerian" in character to me, and quite like the opening of the 7th (only there the celli go first, and then the violins).


----------

