# Bruckner Symphonies...What am I missing?



## Keemun

I've tried listening to Bruckner's symphonies (4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th), but I get bored with them. I know that some find them deeply spiritual, moving, etc. Not me. They have some nice movements, but as a whole the symphonies that I've listened to didn't keep my interest all the way through. 

I know I'm not the only person who feels this way, but I still wonder if I'm missing something since there are so many people who love Bruckner's symphonies. Should I consider my lack of interest in his symphonies a matter of personal taste, or keep trying and hope that I too will grow to love his symphonies?


----------



## captaintim

Hours and hours of music and not much interest if you ask me, although I did like bruckner 4 a few years ago. Haven't heard it for a while though.

Good luck getting into them though - I'm sure there are people who can appreciate them, but I just haven't got there yet! Maybe you're right, maybe it is just personal taste.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Bruckner is a little like a religion... to the newcomer, it can be unbelieveable, huge, frightening, awe-inspiring, confusing, contradictory, exhalting and all-encompassing all at the same time.

There usually comes a breaking point. Once people have heard the symphonies that you list, they are either won-over to this faith, or they are absolutely sure that it's just not for them. I don't think there's anything wrong for not liking Bruckner, because 80 minute symphonies are simply not for everybody. But people who like Bruckner usually love him in a fanatic way, and take the bad with the good as a total (long winded) package.


----------



## Keemun

captaintim said:


> Hours and hours of music and not much interest if you ask me. . . .


This is what I suspect my ultimate conclusion will be, although I haven't quite reached that point yet.


----------



## Keemun

Kurkikohtaus,

Your comparison to a religion is interesting. It would certainly explain the level of admiration some have for Bruckner's symphonies, and the way in which they defend his supposed genius.

As for 80 minute symphonies, I do like Mahler's symphonies quite a bit, and they tend to rival Bruckner's in length. Perhaps Mahler's symphonies have somehow hindered my ability to like Bruckner's?


----------



## johnnyx

Have you listend to Celibidache conducting Bruckner? To me, Bruckner is the greatest symphonist ever, and in my opinion nobody interprets it better than Celi! But, as best I can tell that is not a widely held opinion. However, those that agree with me do so in a very big way.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Celibidache (Munich) never actually made any commercial recordings, he was opposed to the whole concept (I happen to admire him for that).

There are however archive recordings of his performances with the Munich Philharmonic, and after his death, his wife and son released these recordings, with part of the proceeds going to a children's charity. They were of course all the rage when they were released, I bought a whole bunch of them in the mid-90's, especially Bruckner.

I find them absolutely undigestible. Celibidache had an incredible sense of pace, his tempos are so slow that they are complete and total distortions of the music. BUT, this CAN work in the concert hall for a live performance, if the conductor has a strong enough presence and musical personality, as Celibidache certainly had. It just doesn't translate onto a recording, _and Celibidache knew that_. That's why he never made any.


----------



## Keemun

johnnyx said:


> Have you listend to Celibidache conducting Bruckner?


No, I haven't listened to Celebidache. Thanks for the recommendation. I'll keep him in mind, but considering the price for most of his Bruckner CDs, I'll see if I can find a bargain first.


----------



## Lisztfreak

I've heard only two of his symphonies, nos. 4 and 5. I must say that:

The 4th and especially 9th symphonies scherzos are unbelievable. 
The first movement of the 9th is something I expect will be heard as herald music before the end of the world.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

lol ... something doesn't line up in your post, Lisztfreak...

Do you mean the 9th or the 5th? Although the 9th is certainly a monument (too bad about the missing finale), I really, _really_ like the 5th with its (super)natural use of counterpoint, but without the intellectual stigma that usually comes with that type of writing (as in Brahms).


----------



## Lisztfreak

Well yes, I meant the no.9 - sorry! I sometimes have this little problem with numbers 5 and 9 (well what?  they're quite alike!). So I don't know about the 5th. You did intrigue me now... I'll try to find some money for that CD.


----------



## sebastianglabo

never heard any of his stuff.


----------



## Krummhorn

I listened to Bruckner at a live concert ... once ... fell asleep ... I don't remember which symphony it was, but it was awfully boring ... again, roses or fertilizer for some. Just getting into Mahler ... never ventured into him before in my life - but certainly lots more interesting than Bruckner ... lol


----------



## Keemun

Krummhorn said:


> Just getting into Mahler ... never ventured into him before in my life - but certainly lots more interesting than Bruckner ... lol


Try Mahler Symphonies Nos. 2, 5 and 9.


----------



## ChamberNut

I'm probably in the minority, but I seem to be able to "get into" Bruckner's symphonies more than I can Mahler's.

Overall, I mildly enjoy them both, but not enthusiastically.

My enjoyment will probably increase upon hearing a live symphony of theirs.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Keemun said:


> Try Mahler Symphonies Nos. 2, 5 and 9.


While I like these Mahler symphonies, are you sure that this is the way to go for someone who is "just getting into Mahler?"

I think the *1st *and *4th *are better choices for Mahler beginners.


----------



## opus67

I think I like the early symphonies, or should I say style, of Bruckner.


----------



## Keemun

Kurkikohtaus said:


> While I like these Mahler symphonies, are you sure that this is the way to go for someone who is "just getting into Mahler?"
> 
> I think the *1st *and *4th *are better choices for Mahler beginners.


I listed the 2nd, 5th and 9th symphonies because they're my (current) favorites. Perhaps the 1st and 4th are better choices for a Mahler beginner because of their length. The first Mahler symphony I listened to was the 5th, and I'll admit I had to listen to it more than once before I was hooked.


----------



## Keemun

As an update to my continuing quest to appreciate Bruckner's symphonies, I have been listening to the 7th (Karajan/VPO) and I actually like it. I notice that, while I enjoy the music, once it is finished, I can barely recall what I heard. Most of the melodies aren't memorable in the way that other composers' melodies are (Beethoven and Mozart, for example). I still have a long way to go before being converted into a Brucknerite, but I'm determined to keep trying.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Actually, as far as Bruckner's symphonies are concerned, the slow movement of the *7th* is probably considered his _most_ memorable melody, an Elegy for the death of Wagner.


----------



## Giovannimusica

*Bruckner Symphonies...*

Imho Bruckner's best symphonies are the 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, and 9th. One of the posters to this forum used the analogy of religion. That is a good starting point since Bruckner had a fervent Christian Weltanschauung.

Apropos Mahler, I had my Mahler *kick* almost twenty years ago. What remains of that period is his 8th symphony and *Das Lied von der Erde*. Those two works sum up Mahler for me - they are the ultimate of Mahler's oeuvre.

Giovanni


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

The 8th and _Das Lied_ are surely the summit of the Mahler Mountain, but what is more interesting to me are the fact that Mahler's in earlier works, for instance the 1st symphyony or _Des Knaben Wunderhorn_, *It's All There*. The 8th and _Das Lied_ expand "it" and take "it" to unimaginable heights (and lengths), but "it" was all there from the beginning.

An interesting parallel lies between Mahler and Bruckner in this vein. Bruckner approached his music from an almost artificial theory ("general bass" and "natural counterpoint") and that remained in its essence unchanged for his entire life. His works develop from Symphony 00 to Symphony 9, but again, as with Mahler, "It's all There", well, at least from Symphony No. 3 onwards.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Kurkikohtaus said:


> Bruckner approached his music from an almost artificial theory ("general bass" and "natural counterpoint") and that remained in its essence unchanged for his entire life.


So that's the reason! Since I first heard a Bruckner symphony I thought how... yes, artificial - his music seemed to me. As though it's just - music, that is. It annoyed me at first, because I came all poetic and programmatic from Liszt's and Debussy's works, and I felt a piece of music HAS to have a story in the background. I still prefer them to, but I came to like a lot Bruckner and Brahms too, however purist and anti-Weimar-school their music seems.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Although Bruckner is as you describe, I would not call him "anti-Weimar" for the simple fact that he adored Liszt and Wagner. He certainly did not write like them, but critics in Vienna nevertheless had him labelled as a "Wagnerian", whereas Mahler was the "Brahmsian" exponent of the time.

BTW, I do not mean "artificial" in a derogatory way, nor do I mean to say that his music is derivative. To clarify, I mean that wheras much of musical theory has come from a codification of well-established practices, Bruckner's music is much more founded in a pre-conceived theory from which a practice emerged than the other way around.


----------



## Lisztfreak

So in other words, his music was a philosophy.

Then we're back to the nice comparison of Bruckner's symphonies with religion!


----------



## Keemun

Here is an interesting discussion of Bruckner and Mahler by Bruno Walter: http://www.uv.es/~calaforr/walter.html


----------



## Giovannimusica

*Bruckner Symphonies...*

Lisztfreak,

Methinks you're *cerebrating* too much, ergo, making it too difficult for yourself and others. Yes, Bruckner has a Christian faith and worldview - Bach has a Christian faith and worldview. These two giants were men of the Church - you can't extract that fact from them no matter how much you try. Yes, you could then say: I won't listen to anymore of Bach's or Bruckner's music because they were Christian.

That would be horribly churlish and might I add *bigoted* and boneheaded to take such a position. I listen to and play the music of Wagner, Richard Strauss and others who were not Christian. Wagner was a master at orchestration as was R. Strauss. My point being: Open up your mind - don't close it down. Even Liszt became Christian in his later years. He was quite the gigolo in the fire of his youth, bedding down the prettiest ladies. So did St. Augustine of Hippo.

Humbly submitted,

Giovanni


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Giovanni, I think maybe you have misread Lisztfreak's ideas, I don't think he is against Bruckner because of religion.

As far as the _abbé Liszt_ is concerned, I think we have to take his Christianity with a grain of salt. Liszt was a Lisztian first and foremost.


----------



## Giovannimusica

*Bruckner Symphonies...*

Kurkikohtaus,

Methinks you're right. Dear Lisztfreak, I apologise if I stepped on your toes


----------



## ChamberNut

I listened to Bruckner's 7th Symphony yesterday. I enjoyed it very much, especially the Scherzo 3rd movement.

In my opinion, Bruckner has some of the best scherzos in the symphony genre.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Agreed on the Scherzos.

While I love the scherzo of Beethoven's 3rd and 9th, Sibelius 1st and 5th, my favourite scherzo of all time is the 3rd mvmt of *Bruckner's 4th*. Hands down, no contest in my mind.

Gives me an idea for a new thread...


----------



## Lisztfreak

Giovannimusica said:


> Dear Lisztfreak, I apologise if I stepped on your toes


No problem .


----------



## Lisztfreak

Kurkikohtaus said:


> While I love the scherzo of Beethoven's 3rd and 9th, Sibelius 1st and 5th, my favourite scherzo of all time is the 3rd mvmt of *Bruckner's 4th*. Hands down, no contest in my mind.


I know this is ignorant... but where's the scherzo in Sibelius' 5th?


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Thanks for teeing that one up for me, Lisztfreak, I love any chance I can get to explain this type of thing.

Originally, in 1914-15, Sibelius conceived the 5th in 4 separate movements and the premiere was actually given that way. After the premiere he withdrew the piece and produced 2 more versions. I don't think the second version was ever performed, and the 3rd version from 1918-19 is the one we know today.

In the original version, which has actually been recorded by Osmo Vanska and the Lahti Symphony Orchestra, the second movement is a self-contained scherzo. In the final version, the first and second mvmts of the original are melded together structurally and thematically. The sonata recap serves as a transition to the scherzo, and the scherzo proper begins with the dotted-rhythm trumpet solo. The whole scherzo then proceeds as a giant 4 or 5 minute _accelerando_. The final bars of the movement provide special excitement for my simple mind, and the last bar, as if ending on an upbeat, is a nice touch.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Oh, I would like to hear that version!

It's interesting how composers tend to be perfectionist with their works. I don't think it's bad or something, but with Bruckner, for example, one always has to point out which version of a symphony of his is one listening to - at least in serious musical debates. Seems the 'revisions' fashion was very popular not only with Bruckner, but with many other authors too (and with Liszt, after all  ).

It is also interesting how it's extremely hard to buy or to listen in a concert hall to some of the previous versions of a work - the only thing we hear is the final version, in almost every case.


----------



## Keemun

Kurkikohtaus said:


> In the final version, the first and second mvmts of the original are melded together structurally and thematically. The sonata recap serves as a transition to the scherzo, and the scherzo proper begins with the dotted-rhythm trumpet solo. The whole scherzo then proceeds as a giant 4 or 5 minute _accelerando_. The final bars of the movement provide special excitement for my simple mind, and the last bar, as if ending on an upbeat, is a nice touch.


Interesting. Does this explain why the version of Sibelius' 5th that I have by Bernstein/NYPO (found here) actually has the first movement separated into two tracks? The first track (Tempo molto moderato - Largamente) is 8:22 long and the second track (Allegro moderato - Presto) is 4:52 long. The other versions I have of the 5th only have three tracks for the three movements.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Yes, they probably did that to allow listeners to jump to the transition.

The clip available for listening on the link you gave (click HERE for a direct link to the clip) doesn't actually quite make it to the scherzo itself, but it does show how Sibelius melds the 2 sections together. The thematic material you hear in the woodwinds is the 1st theme of the sonata, but here it is set in a "scherzo-like" rhytmic frame.

Incidentally, for a discussion about these Bernstein/Sibelius recordings, click HERE.

Getting back to Bruckner, I find it interesting that Bruckner never attempted to link movements in the way that Beethoven and Schumann did before him, Bruckner's attempt at unity across movements comes from a recycling of motivic material, much like Tchaikovsky. Of course, Brahms didn't link movements either, but with Brahms we have much more than mere thematic recycling, we have a sense that the motives he re-uses are _going somewhere_ each time he restates them.


----------



## Guest

You're definitely missing something. Bruckner's symphonies are all pretty good, though it takes a special touch to make numbers 6 and 7 come off. Most people would disagree about the 7th, which is the most popular. I like it the least, but oh well.

Best thing I can recommend, if _you_ feel like you're missing something, is sit down with a handful of Bruckner symphonies and just listen over and over again. Won't kill you, I'm sure, and (since Bruckner's vastly entertaining--pun intended) you might end up with a new fave.

Since they are longish (I guess--they all seem way too short to me), you might want to start with the earlier, shorter ones. Number 1 or number 0. (I don't think the earliest study symphony, as he put it, almost always called 00, is a good place to start. But 1 and 0 and 2 (which is a bit longer) should get you started just fine.)

I started with 4, myself. Instantly fell in love with it.

(There is another guy who almost always gets mentioned along with Bruckner, I've never understood why. In fact, he's been mentioned in this thread already. The only thing they have in common is length. And big orchestras. Aesthetically they're quite different. That other guy is quite fun, too, though. His 6th will pin you against the wall, I'm sure. Good times!)


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

I will spill the beans and say that I am finally performing my first Bruckner Symphony tomorrow, Friday April 13th. As a listener, I have always liked Bruckner, #4, #5 and #9 especially.

For my first performance, I chose *#4* given its "reasonable" orchestration and length, compared to the rest of them. The orchestra and our audience are new to Bruckner, as we play late-classic / early-romantic + Dvorak most of the time... The orchestra has grown to appreciate Bruckner over the course of this week, and several members have asked me whether there are any other symphonies that would be within our orchestra's range and scope.

A little point for all you performers out there, I have decided _not_ to run the entire piece on the Friday morning dress rehearsal. I will give it about 20 minutes, playing the beginnings of movements, transitions and other tricky spots, but that is all. The brass cannot play the symphony at full power 2x in one day, and honestly, I cannot concentrate enough to go through it 2x in one day either. I planned this from the beginning of the week and paced the rehearsals so that this morning (Thursday) we did a complete run through... and *THAT* is where you feel the majesty and grand, grand, grand breadth and pace that Bruckner had such a command over. I feel that Bruckner mastered length and pace in a way that the oh-so-sprawling Mahler never achieved.


----------



## Keemun

Kurkikohtaus, Bruckner's 4th was played at the first real orchestra concert I ever attended (Chicago Symphony Orchestra, early 1990s). I remember thinking that it was a really long symphony, but I liked the scherzo.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Wow... Chicago / Bruckner... that must have been awesome. In the early 90's it still may have been Solti conducting? Am I right?


----------



## Keemun

Kurkikohtaus said:


> Wow... Chicago / Bruckner... that must have been awesome. In the early 90's it still may have been Solti conducting? Am I right?


From what I can find online, Solti's last year at the CSO was 1991. I would have been there in late 1992 or early 1993, so it was likely Barenboim.

And yes, it was awesome.


----------



## ChamberNut

some guy said:


> (There is another guy who almost always gets mentioned along with Bruckner, I've never understood why. In fact, he's been mentioned in this thread already. *The only thing they have in common is length. *And big orchestras. Aesthetically they're quite different. That other guy is quite fun, too, though. His 6th will pin you against the wall, I'm sure. Good times!)


And really, they don't even have that in common. Bruckner's 9 symphonies average approx 62 minutes, while "this other guy's" 9 symphonies average close to 79 minutes per.

That's like an extra movement in each symphony! (Or 1/2 a mvt. for that other guy )


----------



## Guest

Touche, ChamberNut!


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

My Bruckner performance is over, it went well, some senior citizens even got up out of their seats at the end, and not just for the purpose of making a hasty escape.

There is one thing I would like to add to this whole Bruckner/Religion thing that dawned on me during the performance...

Through his music, Bruckner is not writing simply _about_ faith, Bruckner is not just _showing_ his faith... Bruckner's work is a musical personification of _Faith Itself_.


----------



## Keemun

Kirkikohtaus, glad to hear the performance went well.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Since I never learnt to play an instrument, I've always admired all those in the musical business - players and conductors alike! Congratulations, Kurkikohtaus!


----------



## Keemun

Keemun said:


> Kirkikohtaus, glad to hear the performance went well.


My apologies for misspelling your name, Kurkikohtaus.  (It's too late for me to edit it now. :angry


----------



## Lisztfreak

Here's a 'Bruckner problem' question:

How much is Bruckner's original version of his Symphony No.8 (1884-1887) different from the final one?
I've purchased a recording of this version, but I haven't heard the later ones. Is it less memorable, monumental, long, loud or whatever than the final version?

Kurkikothaus once said that this symphony is 'big-daddy Bruckner'. 
It is huge, but I find the No.9 more apocalyptic than _'The Apocalyptic'_.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Here follows an example of why I had earlier (on the Mahler 6 thread) describe Bruckner 8 as the "Bruckner-geek's Bruckner symphony!"


Lisztfreak said:


> How much is Bruckner's original version of his Symphony No.8 (1884-1887) different from the final one?


I could make sure my pocket-protector's in place, put on my anorak outerwear, and give a response to this question that would approach the typical word count of a post from Bob (not that there's anything _wrong_ with that). Still, I should force myself to be brief, and enhance my likelihood of remaining coherent.

There are at least FOUR versions of Bruckner 8. The one most easy to dismiss is Bruckner w/Schalk 1890. Consensus opinion on Schalk & Lowe brothers interventions in the Bruckner canon include the words "mutilation," "vandalism," and "falsification." The next least popular one is Bruckner 1887 (Novak), which is evidently the one referenced in the previous post. The most major difference is in the conclusion of the first movement. (Other editions contain music that holds more back here.) It has its fans, but in runs in 3rd place in terms of general esteem of the editions. Bruckner 1887/1990 (Haas) is a bold hybrid that purports to weld the best of the earlier and later Bruckner texts, while still expunging Schalk influences. It had/has many reputable champions (Karajan, Bohm, Wand) and support from scholars whose opinions I respect (e.g.: Robert Newman & Deryck Cooke). It's said that this edition is held in lesser favor in no small part because Haas had cozied up to the Nazis back in the day. I acknowledge that this should have nothing to do with the case.

Finally, there's Bruckner 1890 (Novak). This seems to be the version one is most likely to hear today. In addition to its merits as a "from-the-pen-of-Bruckner" work, I prefer it musically as well (sorry HvK, Deryck, _et al_). In short, I think that it's a tauter musical construct. [Taut being an incredibly relative term when discussing a Bruckner symphony.] What can I say... try 'em both!! If you like the Haas better, you'll be in agreement with a galaxy of musical titans. If you like the Novak 1890, a similar galaxy of giants (and your humble correspondent) will see it the same way as you.

Finally (with respect to your feelings on the 9th), if Maestro K said that the 8th is "big-bad-daddy Bruckner," I guess you could say that the 1st & 2nd movements of the 9th are "'who's-your-daddy' Bruckner."


----------



## Lisztfreak

Thanks for a detailed explanation. I will definitely try to get the latest version. 

I must say that A-Hundred-Or-So-Versions-System is quite annoying. Write the symphony and then leave it be, I say.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Unfortunately, Bruckner was given to bouts of extreme lack of self-confidence, bordering on suicidal despair, and so fell prey to the influence of people who, although believing that they were acting in his best interests, exerted an influence over his output that was, for the most part, to the disadvantage of the music. In fact, you could make a plausible case (Georg Tinter is VERY persuasive here) that the 1890 8th is the only revision that improves on the original work.
Bruckner's 2nd & 3rd are commonly heard in re-worked form (although apparently free from 3rd party interventions). It's tough to make up my mind in the case of the 2nd... but Tinter's rendering of the 3rd (on Naxos) has made a convert out of me.

It's something of a digression, but that other Daniel Burnham ("make no small plans") of symphonists, Mahler, was also a serial reviser- although in his case, it was driven by the practicality of hearing the results of his writing whilst at the podium. His alterations were really more of the nature of "tweaking" than full-blown revision. I've seen the opinion proferred that, had Mahler lived on, he would have "tweaked" the 9th and especially _Das Lied von der Erde_, and the follow-up opinion that _Das Lied_ has "appalling balance problems" perhaps overstates the case, but I won't take serious issue with the contention (source: Michael Steinberg- _The Symphony_).


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Chi_town/Philly said:


> In fact, you could make a plausible case (Georg Tinter is VERY persuasive here) that the 1890 8th is the only revision that improves on the original work.


I would make a case for the revisions of the scherzo and finale of the 4th symphony as well. My orchestra has the original version in its archives, so I did a read through of it about 3 weeks before the real rehearsals to see if it would work. The first 2 mvmt are almost identical as in the oft performed version... But the scherzo and finale are vastly different.

First of all, the original version of the scherzo has a written out recapitulation that tinkers with orchestration and phrase lengths but to very little effect. Also, the conclusion before the Trio is a long and awkward diminuendo. The final and "normal" version simply does a _Da capo_, making it compact and effective.

The finale is largely rewritten. The final version can be as much as 5 minutes shorter, depending on your tempos (which is good). Also, in the original version, Bruckner attempts to force strict relations between the pulses of the different themes (half-note = quarter-note type of thing) ... in the revision, he uses expressions like _Etwas langsamer_ and leaves the exact speeds up to the performers, resulting in a more flexible and expressive flow.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I'd better call attention to this myself, before somebody else takes me to the shed over this whopper:



Chi_town/Philly said:


> It had/has many reputable champions (Karajan, Bohm, Wand) and support from scholars whose opinions I respect (e.g.: Robert Newman & Deryck Cooke).


While I respect Mr. Newman's indefatigable energy and have discovered (via the 'symphonies' list) that he and I share a great deal in musical taste, he did not write a book titled The Essence of Bruckner, Robert _Simpson_ did.

The author regrets any confusion that this _contretemps_ may have caused


----------



## ChamberNut

Bruckner has many moments in his symphonies that are simply out of this world beautiful!

I was just listening to his Symphony No. 5, and about 3 minutes into the 2nd movement Adagio......Absolutely heartwrenching yet gorgeous theme.


----------



## Lisztfreak

ChamberNut said:


> Absolutely heartwrenching yet gorgeous theme.


I would also add the Adagios of the 7th and 9th symphonies.


----------



## Guest

Bruckner was a splendid composer. His 4th, 7th and 8th symphonies are especially magnificent. My favourite is the 4th which is perhaps the most accessible. My favourite version is Karajan/BPO. For any sceptic, I'd recommend trying this one first and would be surprised if after a few listens you don't begin to appreciate the new style of symphonic writing and abilities of this man. Among the new Romantics, I much prefer Bruckner to Liszt in the symphonic field.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Mango said:


> Among the new Romantics, I much prefer Bruckner to Liszt in the symphonic field.


Well, Liszt's primary talent weren't symphonies, and I don't think it ever was his intention to become a great symphonist. I enjoy the two he wrote, but many probably don't. 
And I would never place Liszt and Bruckner to a same category of composers.

I must add that the scherzo of Bruckner's 8th is splendid! The insistent, vigorous motif repeated dozens of times and each time with even more vigour - it's very exciting and exhilarating.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Here's a "Bruckner geek" dilemma pertaining to the following section:


ChamberNut said:


> I was just listening to his Symphony No. 5, and about 3 minutes into the 2nd movement Adagio......Absolutely heartwrenching yet gorgeous theme.


This very movement, for me, is the source of the most interesting "tempo controversy" this side of Mahler 5 Adagietto. Simplified (perhaps simplified beyond reason), it can be taken with moderate pace, or it can be taken broadly. Furtwangler and Tinter take it less slowly, Solti and Sinopoli linger. Tinter says he's being faithful to the score by doing so... but he allies with Furtwangler here, never known for strict fidelity to the score. The much-maligned _Gramophone_ review guide says Sinopoli shows the most devotion to the printed page. I have a study score- can't really work it out myself (as if I could ever be so arrogant as to set myself up as arbiter between Furtwangler and Solti!).

But... like the fellow that says "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like," I think that the more leisurely pace makes it _sound_ like it holds up better against the other movements. Any thoughts??


----------



## fear sneachta ban

Just starting to get into Bruckner at the moment. I am gobsmacked by the brilliance of the 2nd movement of the 8th symphony (I would like this to have been the finale). Also, the 2nd movement of the 7th symphony is amazing.
Could someone recommend more Bruckner movements like the 2 mentioned above.
Also, I can't understand why people say the 7th symphony is Bruckner's finest. In my opinion the 8th symphony is far superior.


----------



## ChamberNut

fear sneachta ban said:


> Could someone recommend more Bruckner movements like the 2 mentioned above.
> *Also, I can't understand why people say the 7th symphony is Bruckner's finest*. In my opinion the 8th symphony is far superior.


I'm not sure who you mean when they say "Bruckner's 7th Symphony is his finest". I've never come across anything that states a clear finest or favorite of Bruckner. I really don't believe there is a large sweeping consensus stating Bruckner's 7th is "The One". Many people feel the 6th, 4th, 8th, 5th or 9th are his crowing achievement. As for myself, I really don't have a clear cut favorite.

If you enjoyed the Scherzo 2nd movement of the 8th symphony, you should definitely listen to the 9th symphony. The 2nd movement Scherzo is fantastic! Also, you may enjoy the 6th and 4th symphonies. Try those 1st before heading to the entire 5th and 9th symphonies (IMO).


----------



## MungoPark

To all those of you who don't find Bruckner's symphonies very accessible I would recommend listening to his Study Symphony in F minor. I heard it for the first time today and I thought that I was listening to Schubert! In many ways it has a lot more in common (if not in structure at least in how it sounds) with the earlier romantics than it does with any of his later works or those of hs contemporaries. I know this symphony is pretty rare in terms of recordings and probably even rarer when it comes to performances, but does any one else here have an opinion on it?


----------



## ChamberNut

Listened to Bruckner's 5th Symphony a few hours ago. Incredible 1st and 2nd mvts. I love the blazing brass section theme that occurs about 4 or 5 minutes into the 1st movement.  Great stuff!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

ChamberNut said:


> Listened to Bruckner's 5th Symphony a few hours ago. Incredible 1st and 2nd mvts. I love the blazing brass section theme that occurs about 4 or 5 minutes into the 1st movement.  Great stuff!


Yeah!! And how about that "additive crescendo" (achieved through involving more and more instruments) later on in that same opening movement?! Greatness.


----------



## johnbull

I can listen to any amount of Bruckner. In fact on many an occasion I have done. Whole days in the office listening to Bruckner.

I suppose it's an aquired taste, and not everybody's cup of tea.

His later symphonies I find get better. Someone said - a few pages back - Bruckner is a bit like a religion. in that case I have definately been converted.

Definately one of my favorites, along with Brahms, Sibelius and Mahler. Oh, and so many others. It's all beautiful.

Do youy find you feel at peace with the world when you're listening to classical music?


----------



## Keemun

Since starting this thread, I've grown to really like Bruckner's symphonies. I guess it just took patience and finding good recordings. I definitely like some of his symphonies better than others (7 and 8 are my favorites).


----------



## ChamberNut

I think Symphony No. 5 has grown into becoming my current favorite for Bruckner. On an overall basis I do think he has the most outstanding Scherzos in the symphonic repertoire. That's just my own personal opinion.


----------



## ChamberNut

Yes Keemun, I just realized you were the one to start this post on "Bruckner Symphonies....what am I missing?" With every listen, I'm loving his symphonies more and more.


----------



## johnbull

How nice to see so many Bruckner converts. As I have already said, I can listen to him all day.

Chambernut. If there's one criticism I have of anything Bruckner I too think his scherzos are a bit too long and repetitive, but having said that, his other movements more than make up for the deficiency.

Keemeun. I see you too prefer his later works.

Isn't it strange how it takes people time to get to like Bruckner. I wonder why. Is he really such an aquired taste?

I think if I have to choose a favorite it would probably be No 8, but it's a very difficult choice.


----------



## ChamberNut

johnbull said:


> *Chambernut. If there's one criticism I have of anything Bruckner I too think his scherzos are a bit too long and repetitive, but having said that, his other movements more than make up for the deficiency.*


I don't share the same opinion johnbull.  I think his scherzos are fantastic as they are.


----------



## ChamberNut

johnbull said:


> Isn't it strange how it takes people time to get to like Bruckner. I wonder why. Is he really such an aquired taste?


It isn't all that strange. I think it's the case for many composers and/or many types of the composers' output.

I'm still very lukewarm on most of Mahler's symphonies.

I was also not that fond of Mozart and Schumann when I first got into classical music, but they are both firmly entrenched in my top 5 of favorite composers.


----------



## opus67

And there's the bearded fellow who tried to imitate the deaf one.


----------



## ChamberNut

opus67 said:


> And there's the bearded fellow who tried to imitate the deaf one.


I had a negative view of Brahms also before hearing any of his music, only because I had heard claims or comments that he was a Beethoven "copycat" or imitator.

But I LOVE Brahms' music immensely!


----------



## Rondo

Yeah...Brahms, also like Beethoven (at least to some) was known to be an unfriendly person. I remember reading something, I dont remember who or what, where someone asked Brahms to look over and critique their manuscript by putting crosses in the places he thought needed more work. He refused, saying that he didnt want to make a "graveyard" out of their music. Despite that, or his copycat behavior, there is a lot to admire in his music.

I, personally, dont think Bruckner is _that_ much of an acquired taste. Mahler...maybe...but not Bruckner.


----------



## ChamberNut

I can now firmly state that Bruckner is my 2nd favorite "symphony" composer, after Beethoven. That's cause I finally stopped questioning myself "Do I really like Bruckner that much?" After listening to Symphony No. 8 again tonight, the answer was emphatically "Yes!" There is just something in his symphonies that move me greatly. I cannot wait for the day my symphony orchestra puts on a Bruckner concert....it will have to wait until at least the 2008/2009 season. 

Opus67, not to worry, Brahms and Mozart are still my # 2 and # 3 overall favorite composers


----------



## Keemun

Bruckner is one of my top four favorite composers; Beethoven, Mahler and Sibelius being the other three. The ranking of these four varies from day to day.


----------



## johnbull

Keemun said:


> Bruckner is one of my top four favorite composers; Beethoven, Mahler and Sibelius being the other three. The ranking of these four varies from day to day.


That's pretty similar to my top choice.

I can put a few more in. Brahms and the Russians perhaps?


----------



## Lisztfreak

A little question.

My recording of Bruckner's 7th does not have the famous cymbals clash in the Adagio. It's the question of different versions again, is it not?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Lisztfreak said:


> A little question.
> 
> My recording of Bruckner's 7th does not have the (_in_)famous cymbals clash in the Adagio. It's the question of different versions again, is it not?


(parenthetical edit mine)

[At work, away from references/off the top of my head]- I believe that the cymbals are an example of one of those "Schalkisms" that came from one of those bastardized versions of Bruckner by Schalk or Lowe (or both). I have 3 recordings of 7, and none of them contain this interpolation.

The consensus musical view is that we can count their absence and/or lack of circulation as our good fortune.


----------



## Gustav

There is not a doubt in my mind that Bruckner's music is an acquired taste. It took me almost 3 years to like Bruckner (from the hearing the 4th for the first time to finally "converted" by Jochum's 5th with RCO). Why do so many people find his music so difficult at the beginning? here are my thoughts:

1) *Length* His symphonies are on average very long. If you are not a patient listener (strongly correlated to how long you have been listening to classical music as a whole) you'll likely to find his music "boring", and probably stop listen to it after a few minutes into the work. But, what you are missing is his meticulous construction of his symphonies. Bruckner doesn't rely on famous melodies (not saying there aren't famous melodies in his works). He constructs his music base on motives. A strong theme + Lyrical theme + chorale theme. He repeats, and recycles these motivic material throughout his symphonies. So, if you are a poor listener, you probably will not hear the traces of these motives in the recapitulation.

2) *He makes you wait for it!* Beethoven's music, very fiery, and romantic. Almost instantaneously satisfies you. Dvorak's music, with its wonderful melodies, lush harmonies... there is no way for anyone to NOT whistle some melodies after hearing his music. Bruckner, on the other hand, make you wait. His cadences, his codas are probably the greatest in all of symphonic repertoire. He slowly builds his music, through dark and sinister territories and finally to light. This is exemplified in the final movement of his 9th symphony (reference to the SMCP completion, which were used by Wildner and Eichhorn), the entire last movement were full of these dark, sinister little motives. It is sometimes very unpleasant to listen to, for instance, the dissonances. But, after all that "suffering", in the coda, he rewards you with the "light" you've been seeking all along. This is in many ways, the most profound music making in the history of Western music.

3) *Differences in Qualities of The Scores* When you talk about Beethoven's 5th, there is only ONE. Regardless of which conductor/orchestra you listen to, regardless of their own artistic interpretations, they are still using the same exact notes that Beethoven wrote. But for Bruckner, most of his symphonies had several versions. Some was edited by himself, which improved the music overall(think about 4th and 8th); some however, weren't. The ignorant fools who "revised" his works should burn in hell for that! (yes, i am talking to you, Ferdinand Lowe) Herr. Lowe's crowning achievements in messing up Bruckner's music is demonstrated in Hans Knuppertbusch's recording of the 9th symphony. Where the brilliant mysterious/unconventional pizzicati in the scherzo was doubled up by woodwinds instead.... This is just ONE examples of such appalling acts of vandalism. So, naturally, conductors are given the task to not only playing the music, but to actually decide on which version they use. Sometimes, this can lead to great confusion, and difference in the quality of the performances.

4) *A Lack of Interest* You must all realize that, there hasn't always been a wealth of recordings available like today. Today, we are kind of experiencing a "Bruckner Revival", more and more people are beginning to explore his music. But, in the old days, his music was largely ignored. The reasons behind this is complex; a)it had something to do with the difficulties in performing Bruckner's works. Orchestras in the old times were not nearly as sophisticated as the orchestras we have today. And, Bruckner's music can be a pain to play. b) When the Nazis were gaining power in Germany, Hitler's propaganda man Goebbels introduced to Hitler Bruckner's music, and Hitler, with his perverted logic, included Bruckner's music in his mass propaganda. So, naturally, after WWII, there is this very bad "guilty by association" going on, people assumed fallaciously, that Bruckner's music is "Nazi" music.

5) *Conductors and Orchestras* No where is this more evident, in Bruckner's recordings. Because of the sheer complexities of his works, Better conductor/Orchestra= Better music. A symphony #3 by Joe Nobody can sound dull and boring. A symphony #3 by Georg Tintner can sound absolutely astounding.

6) *Gaining Access* This is never that BIG of a problem, since today's technologies really permitted us listeners to things that is totally unimaginable 20 years ago. Nevertheless, I should say that if someone is incapable of finding Bruckner's music, he/she should always pay a visit to his/her local library(how i got started). Or, go to Amazon, and simply typing up "Bruckner", and a wealth of recordings will appear... Even for people, who'd rather not spend any money on Bruckner's music, there are still many opportunities to hear his music. There are websites out there that can let you hear Bruckner's symphonies for FREE (legally), albeit for a limited quantity or time. Sites, such as Rhapsody.com or Naxosmusiclibrary.com have extensive Bruckner Collections, and it doesn't take more than a couple of minutes to access them, for no charge whatsoever.

There you go, my explanation and some suggestion to the struggling music listeners out there. I only have one thing to say now, the ability to listen and appreciate slow music, (in my experience) strongly correlate with my own levels of maturity. So, be patient, and you'll find Joy in Bruckner.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Chi_town/Philly said:


> I believe that the cymbals are an example of one of those "Schalkisms" that came from one of those bastardized versions of Bruckner by Schalk or Lowe (or both). I have 3 recordings of 7, and none of them contain this interpolation.
> 
> The consensus musical view is that we can count their absence and/or lack of circulation as our good fortune.


I have only one recording, conducted by Eliahu Inbal. It's the Nowak edition from 1954.

Anyways, I do think that a cymbal clash would do nothing good to the wonderfully solemn Adagio. It would make it showy, more likely.


----------



## Gustav

actually, someone (might be Bruckner or someone else) wrote "gilt nicht" (invalid) on the part. That's the reason why Haas removed it.


----------



## ChamberNut

On the way to work, I was listening to the 3rd mvt. Adagio of the 9th Symphony.

Now, I'm listening to Symphony No. 2

_Note - I'm using this as the "What are you listening to now...." when I'm listening to Bruckner, I'll post it here.  _


----------



## ChamberNut

Gustav said:


> There is not a doubt in my mind that Bruckner's music is an acquired taste.
> 
> the ability to listen and appreciate slow music, (in my experience) strongly correlate with my own levels of maturity. So, be patient, and you'll find Joy in Bruckner.


Probably the same could be said with Mahler. The symphonies of his that I seem to like are the ones without vocals. Symphony No. 1 and 5 are my favorites.

Maybe I should start a "Mahler symphonies......What am I missing?" thread.  Then, perhaps similarly to Keemun, I will eventually turn into a Mahler fan as Keemun did with Bruckner.


----------



## Gustav

Mahler is much easier to get into than Bruckner, when i heard Mahler's 1st for the first time, i was immediately interested, while it took me years to like Bruckner.


----------



## ChamberNut

Gustav said:


> Mahler is much easier to get into than Bruckner, when i heard Mahler's 1st for the first time, i was immediately interested, while it took me years to like Bruckner.


And see, it is the opposite for me.


----------



## Gustav

ChamberNut said:


> And see, it is the opposite for me.


perhaps, but something never changes. Regardless the composer is Wagner, Mahler, or Bruckner. They were masters, and wrote music that is beyond praise. It is only a matter of time, for people like us, to realize their greatness.


----------



## terotero

Hi,
May be I will tell you what is it with Bruckner's symphonies;
first the themes are very long making them uneasy to comprehend or memorize then the developments are extensive and one can easily get lost in understanding what is happening...so the final result if you want to listen to music that you will be able to remember and sing in your car or shower, those symphonies are not for this. However if you enjoy listening to music for its emotional impact then I can assure you these symphonies carry a lot of emotional punch. I think they need a bit of training to be able to listen to them....go for Brahms first. On the other hand someone was saying Mahler is easier to listen to, I do think yes he is...practically he is melodramatic and very melodic virtues that makes him ear catching and close to the heart, however his genius is better shown when he becomes more serious.


----------



## Gustav

terotero said:


> Hi,
> May be I will tell you what is it with Bruckner's symphonies;
> first the themes are very long making them uneasy to comprehend or memorize then the developments are extensive and one can easily get lost in understanding what is happening...so the final result if you want to listen to music that you will be able to remember and sing in your car or shower, those symphonies are not for this. However if you enjoy listening to music for its emotional impact then I can assure you these symphonies carry a lot of emotional punch. I think they need a bit of training to be able to listen to them....go for Brahms first. On the other hand someone was saying Mahler is easier to listen to, I do think yes he is...practically he is melodramatic and very melodic virtues that makes him ear catching and close to the heart, however his genius is better shown when he becomes more serious.


Bruckner was a radical in a very classical way. I think that's his problem. People couldn't understand his use of the massive orchestra but music based on very "classical" inspirations. Of course, he used new techniques, but it is not difficult for one to realize traits of Bach, and Schubert in his music.

This leads to an interesting question: Should Bruckner's style be classified as a "Late Romantic" or just an extension of early romanticism?


----------



## terotero

I Have recently listened to Celibidache's 7th. I still prefer Jochum's interpretation (better balanced). Furtwangler's interpretation is also very good but the recording is not so good.


----------



## Gustav

terotero said:


> I Have recently listened to Celibidache's 7th. I still prefer Jochum's interpretation (better balanced). Furtwangler's interpretation is also very good but the recording is not so good.


of the 30 or so different versions of 7th that i have heard. The most outstanding one has to be Karajan's last recording with WP. Another notable performance is from Schuricht's Hague recording. The most recent 7th i have heard is Knuppertsbusch's recording with WP, which is good, but nothing extraordinary.


----------



## terotero

Thanks Gustav for the suggestion


----------



## Gustav

terotero said:


> Thanks Gustav for the suggestion


don't mention it, and also, if you have any needs/questions regarding to Bruckner's works, message me.

btw, here is a performance of Bruckner's 9th symphony by Pierre Boulez and WP. It was never released on any CDs, so it's perfectly legal for download:

http://www.mediafire.com/?71sb9wjwdlx
http://www.mediafire.com/?fnttqce1cw2
http://www.mediafire.com/?79mnmfm51oy


----------



## terotero

Thanks,
Yesterday I listened to Both Karajan's interpretations of the 7th with the WPO and BPO.
Although they are quite different, it is really hard to say which one is better. The one with the BPO is darker but the other is more sentimental.
Haven't listened to Boulez yet.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Has someone ever classified this Bruckner's motif as something special, something important? I've noticed it bursts out several times in both 7th and 8th symphonies - at least there.

View attachment 156


(It's not accurate since I entered it in my composing programme with the help of my (non-existent) absolute pitch. But you'll recognise it...)


----------



## David C Coleman

Hi there! New boy to the forum here!!!

I can sympathise with the Bruckner problem. It's age old. Infact look at the trouble he, himself had getting accepted by the public, and fellow musicians at the time. He just completely did his own thing. Adopted his own completely different style. Which, might I add was a very brave thing to do at the time. Being so many warring musical factions around at the time.
My idea of Bruckner is a kind of conversion experience for a certain few. Much, might I add, like a faith or religion. But I'm not saying that you have belong to this or that faith to appreciate Bruckner. But because he was so singular and individual, I think you have to abandon usual listening practices you would apply to most other composers. And adopt a completely different mindset with Bruckner. And this is what makes him so fascinating. 
Bruckner knew exactly what he wanted. Infact he said "I can write in other ways but I mustn't". He felt that this was some kind of calling to compose in the way he did.
Don't be "entertained" by Bruckners music in the way that we understand entertainment. Because you will be disappointed.
They are a reflection of his own very deep Christian faith. They are very moving and, in essence very simple. They lack the intellectual and virtuoso excellence of say Beethoven, Tchaikovsky or Mahler. 
If you want a less challenging Bruckner experience, try the church music first...

Regards,

David


----------



## Gustav

Lisztfreak said:


> Has someone ever classified this Bruckner's motif as something special, something important? I've noticed it bursts out several times in both 7th and 8th symphonies - at least there.
> 
> View attachment 156
> 
> 
> (It's not accurate since I entered it in my composing programme with the help of my (non-existent) absolute pitch. But you'll recognise it...)


funny, i don't recognize it, you said it occured in the 7th and 8th symphonies, can you tell me where? give me the time/bar number please.


----------



## Lisztfreak

I can't tell you at which point exactly it appears, since I don't have the score. But it's quite insisting and well audible at the very ends of the first and last mvts of the 7th symphony and in the slow movement of the 8th.


----------



## ChamberNut

Symphony No. 00 in F minor, "Study Symphony", WAB 99 

Royal Scottish National Orchestra 
Tintner, Georg, Conductor 


This is my first listen to the "study symphony", and I am enjoying it alot!


----------



## Gustav

ChamberNut said:


> Symphony No. 00 in F minor, "Study Symphony", WAB 99
> 
> Royal Scottish National Orchestra
> Tintner, Georg, Conductor
> 
> This is my first listen to the "study symphony", and I am enjoying it alot!


interesting part is that Tintner also give you the "volkfest" finale, which is actually 1 of the 3 versions of the 4th.


----------



## lmd

Ha ha! at last I can agree with "Kurkikohtaus" what more do we need? I am a great admirer of Bruckner, having started with the 4th, I listen more often to the 8th & the 9th.
One could say he's a classic in a great line of Romantic composers,the best passages are of noble fervour, approaching sublimity at times.


----------



## shsherm

*19th century master*

The music that Bruckner wrote descended from the lineage of German composers (Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, and Brahms-I know they were conterporaries) and must have influenced Mahler whose music at least to some degree descended from Bruckner. Music lovers of symphonies could appreciate the chords, melodies, and harmonics of Bruckner. He was repeatative but I feel that he wrote great music. Right now I have Mahler 1st on my radio.


----------



## Gustav

shsherm said:


> The music that Bruckner wrote descended from the lineage of German composers (Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, and *Brahms-*I know they were conterporaries)


 Surely, you did not mean Brahms.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

@ *Dr. Sherm*: as you can see, there are those who are not necessarily willing to acknowledge that a cease-fire has been declared on this battleground.

@ *Gustav*: I think the point was that both Brahms and Bruckner owe something to Bruckner's Austrian predecessor, Schubert, as well as Brahms's German predecessor, Beethoven.


----------



## Kreutzer

*Bruckner*

Two things to remember about Anton Bruckner: 1) he was an organist which, I believe, explains his rich orchestration and 2) he was very religious. Spirituality was as natural to Bruckner as it was to the German Romantic painter, David Caspar Friedrich.

One doesn't have to be particularly religious to enjoy Bruckner's music or Friederich's paintings. But devotion to the Almighty exists in all of their works.

Bruckner is difficult to listen to. But you don't have to go for an entire symphony. Choose a single movement from one of the symphonies, and listen to it alone for a while.

Kreutzer


----------



## Gustav

i agree, you could listen to the Scherzo in most of this works, and find them quite interesting. But, isn't that a stupid/foolish/ignorant thing to do? Bruckner didn't intend to write just one movement, did he? And the people who are familiar with his music knows that his themes are closely related and often re-appears somewhere else in the symphony, much in the tradition of Beethoven. 
So, take the 8th for instance, let's say you just want to listen to the scherzo, because it's the shortest part of the symphony (for people who have the attention span of a teenager, the other movements are usually not very "interesting", too long). It's a nice scherzo, but what does it mean? German Michael? still makes no sense, it really doesn't, especially with the not so impressive opening theme, and the constant repetition. Well, you would've understood this movement better, had you kept on listening to the adagio and Finale, where you notice that the opening theme in the scherzo is in fact the same exact thing in the next two movements, and it shows up at the glorious coda too, of course, you wouldn't know this little insight if you skipped tracks and just listen to the "easier" movement. 
If you are one of those people with short attention spans, or just can't sit through a rather long symphony, then Bruckner is not for you, you should instead try some of Strauss II's charming polkas (assuming that the waltzes are too long and tedious).


----------



## Gustav

Chi_town/Philly said:


> @ *Dr. Sherm*: as you can see, there are those who
> @ *Gustav*: I think the point was that both Brahms and Bruckner owe something to Bruckner's Austrian predecessor, Schubert, as well as Brahms's German predecessor, Beethoven.


You might be right, but it always shocks me whenever i see Bruckner and Brahms together, i have been somewhat traumatized after upon seeing this:


----------



## Kreutzer

I'm unfamiliar with the mechanics of this forum. My previous post was intended to be directed at those at the beginning of the thread who found Bruckner to be intimidating.

Well...if this is the sort of thing I can expect here, you can have it.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Kreutzer said:


> Well...if this is the sort of thing I can expect here, you can have it.


Please... have a look around, and I think that you'll agree with me that this sort of disagreeable sarcasm is actually pretty uncommon around these parts.

_Pace_ *RicardoTheTexan*, I think that the most common _entreé_ into Wagner is through the bleeding chunks (i.e.: prominent opera excerpts and orchestral passages), followed by progressively greater exposures, until the point in time when one is willing to take on a complete opera. In the first half of the previous century, Mahler was ofttimes programmed by movement rather than by complete symphony. I'd never thought to approach Bruckner that way, but I wouldn't think to sneer at the idea.

*Gustav*... I know that you have it in you to avoid becoming to Bruckner what *Rod Corkin* is to Handel. Try to play nice.


----------



## BuddhaBandit

And really, there truly is no "right" way to listen to music. Clearly Bruckner, Mahler, and Wagner intended their symphonies/operas to be heard as whole units, but I'm sure they also wanted people to enjoy listening to their music. So, if someone wants to listen to just Bruckner's Scherzos, and really loves them, then all the more power to them. Listen how you want to listen.


----------



## Gustav

Chi_town/Philly said:


> Please... have a look around, and I think that you'll agree
> *Gustav*... I know that you have it in you to avoid becoming to Bruckner what *Rod Corkin* is to Handel. Try to play nice.


I find it absolutely insulting that you compare me to that nut job Rod Corkin. [...] He pretty much goes from forum to forum spreading non-sense after non-sense and provoking others to criticize him for his own stupidity. How am I him? I demand an apology. 
When I criticize, i have good reasons to. I don't just say: "hey, dudes, Bruckner is the greatest, and everybody sucks, if you can't appreciate Bruckner, then you suck too!" That's what Corkin does, he did the exact same thing on GMG, and got his *** handed to him by M Forever.


----------



## G-string

i demand an apology for being mislead on how to listen to music as a begginer too.. what a w****r


----------



## Krummhorn

People people ... lets get back ON Topic here. However one chooses to listen to music is his/her own choice. If someone is trying to become acquainted with a particular composers music and feels that they can only do that one movement at a time, they need not be chastised for that ... at least they are giving it a try, which is far greater than not listening at all to a particular composer. 

When replying to another's post, kindly state your positions or opinion on the matter - it is not polite to riducule another's opinion and only leads to bad feelings.


----------



## Daniel

To all involved people: Calm down and let us sum it up in one word: Peace. All right?

Thanks.


----------



## Gustav

Krummhorn said:


> People people ... lets get back ON Topic here. However one chooses to listen to music is his/her own choice. If someone is trying to become acquainted with a particular composers music and feels that they can only do that one movement at a time, they need not be chastised for that.


Of course not, if someONE is doing that for him/herself, but if someone is trying to convince other "beginners" to do the same, then it's not okay. Because this is a terrible advice that doesn't work for Bruckner's music, and really doesn't work for classical music in general



Krummhorn said:


> People people ... lets get back ON Topic here. However one at least they are giving it a try, which is far greater than not listening at all to a particular composer.


well, it's good to try, isn't it? Sometimes you see some middle school students coming up to you say that they want to learn calculus, but, they don't even know anything about Functions and Algebra... Some beginners are like that too, they think that they can just "listen" to some music, but they don't realize they have to put up a lot of efforts and plus have a lot of listening experience in order to appreciate certain kinds of music. In other words, they are not ready. Why make a middle schooler take Calculus when he is not ready? why make a beginner listen to Bruckner? when he/she should be better acquainted with his predecessors: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc... The outcome will only be one, he/she doesn't understands it, and put the music aside, too much is going on, the little mind can't handle it, "what does this mean?" "why is that?" etc....


----------



## BuddhaBandit

Gustav, that argument doesn't hold. Music is an art, i.e. it is emotional. A "beginner" might enjoy Schoenberg more than Handel, even though, according to a traditional view, Handel should come first. However, one's knowledge of Baroque music or Handel does not influence the emotional impact of Schoenberg.

In cumulative areas like the maths and sciences, one cannot appreciate an advanced topic without understanding the basic topics. An advanced topic, like calculus, is derived from basic topics like algebra and geometry. However, the emotional impact of Schoenberg is not derived from the emotional impact of Handel. This is the syllogism- apples and oranges, or, if you will, pianos and clarinets


----------



## Gustav

BuddhaBandit said:


> Gustav, that argument doesn't hold. Music is an art, i.e. it is emotional. A "beginner" might enjoy Schoenberg more than Handel, even though, according to a traditional view, Handel should come first. However, one's knowledge of Baroque music or Handel does not influence the emotional impact of Schoenberg.


No, it's not "emotional" whatever you mean by that. "Music is an art" indeed, music is, but, the act of listening is a discipline, much like any other disciplines. You need solid experience, practice, patience to be good at it. What i am saying with that analogy is that Bruckner's music requires a disciplined listener. You can use your "emotional" argument, and it might work for Tchaikovsky or Chopin, but it doesn't apply for ALL of the composers. Different composers have distinctly different styles, they write their music differently, they have different aesthetic tastes, etc....

I don't know who this "beginner" is, but I certainly won't enjoy Schoenberg if i don't understand the intricacies of his musical language. Some "beginners" might be impressed by the musical "effects" of Schoenberg's music, but they really aren't hearing the essence of what Schoenberg wrote. Just the superficial "Cool" "Nice" notes. That's why they probably like only a very narrow portion of Schoenberg's oeuvre.

This is the reason i don't like people to listen to a small portion of a larger piece, consider it my pet-peeve if you will. If you are going to listen, take it seriously, listen to it over and over multiple times. There are a lot of nuances in music that elude people, especially when they are trying to only listen to what they _want_ to hear.


----------



## BuddhaBandit

But, again, it depends on the level of listening. As a pianist, I look for both the emotional impact and the nuances, subtleties, etc. I listen to Bruckner's symphonies for their development, their motifs that reappear constantly, and their wonderful rhythms, not to mention many more aspects. This is how I would listen to any composition, long or short.

However, one of my very good friends listens only to Mahler's slow movements. I could, of course, march up to him and tell him that he is missing the other three movements, and admonish him for not understanding the brilliance, say, in the reappearing themes of the Titan. However, he does not want to listen to a complete symphony, because he does not enjoy a complete symphony.

Really, it boils down to a few questions:

1. Is music entertainment? Certainly.
2. Can one enjoy it on a non-technical level? Of course.
3. Will it enhance the "listening experience" to understand the complexities of a full piece? It absolutely will, *but* only if the listener wants to hear the complexities.

Note: The first time I heard Schoenberg I knew nothing about atonality or the chromatic method; however, I was immediately drawn to his works.

But, again, _suum cuique_. I'm a populist when it come to classical music, Gustav is an educator. Both reasonable methods with their individual merits.


----------



## opus67

So, to summarise, everyone who wishes to drink wine should be a wine taster.


----------



## Gustav

BuddhaBandit said:


> But, again, it depends on the level of listening. As a pianist, I look for both the emotional impact and the nuances, subtleties, etc. I listen to Bruckner's symphonies for their development, their motifs that reappear constantly, and their wonderful rhythms, not to mention many more aspects. This is how I would listen to any composition, long or short.


Indeed, i guess sometimes i expect too much from others. There are people who listens to CM for relaxation, some for the nice melodies, and some just don't have the patience to sit through 80 minutes of German orchestral music. That's fine, I also enjoy "light" music, the Strauss brothers in particular are one of my favorites. But, whenever i have a CD of symphonic music, i would always take it seriously, because these are monuments. Just as like you would look at the Pantheon in awe, or be totally absorbed by the majesty of the Great wall of China. They represent the culmination of the artist's life long achievements. Take Mahler for example, his music screams of his inner world, his personal tragedies. In other words, they reflect the composer in one way or the other, some times it's not very clear, and sometimes it's indeed very ambivalent. Take Bruckner for instance, he was by no means a happy man, he was weird little fellow who grew up in rural Austria but decided to earn a living in the sophisticated capital of Vienna. He was weird, had some strange traits, e.g. the number counting, and the fascination with corpse. He didn't fit in, and was very much disappointed by his experiences in Vienna. He would write a symphony with great sophistication and ended up being totally rejected by the public because it was too "long" or too "difficult" to play, or no "tunes" and things of those nature. Yet, he always knew his own greatness, of course, he had doubts about himself, he often let others to temper with his masterpieces, but he also kept the original for "later times". His failures to find a wife, (had rather unrealistic expectations in that regard) only made things worse and he was consequently celibate for the rest of his life. All these troubles, or "tragedies" propelled him to write great music. His musical "architecture" are the most unique among the late romantic composers, and himself being such an "academic" composer, knew the importance of academic discipline. He himself said that the you can't build an impressive building without a solid foundation. So, as listeners, you also need good foundations, good discipline to better appreciate and study his works.



BuddhaBandit said:


> However, one of my very good friends listens only to Mahler's slow movements. I could, of course, march up to him and tell him that he is missing the other three movements, and admonish him for not understanding the brilliance, say, in the reappearing themes of the Titan. However, he does not want to listen to a complete symphony, because he does not enjoy a complete symphony.


He is missing alot, but that's okay. eventually, he might or might not understand your advice. Let's say he does, it will only make his Mahler experience so much better, and make it so much more fulfilling for him. Of course, we all know that there are some people out there who would rather simmer in their own juice of ignorance than to take sound advice from others, but that's okay, like i said before, it's their loss.



BuddhaBandit said:


> Note: The first time I heard Schoenberg I knew nothing about atonality or the chromatic method; however, I was immediately drawn to his works.


But, do you know now? That's complete understandable, some composers' music are so striking, it grabs you right away. That's also when you should invest more time in it. Classical music is also about learning, you are fascinated by Schoenberg, and you can read about him, about his life, style, why did he choose to write music in this way, etc...


----------



## Gustav

opus67 said:


> So, to summarise, everyone who wishes to drink wine should be a wine taster.


Not being an expert in wines, or a wine taster, it's not up to me to comment on that remark. But, seriously, can you drop the silly analogies already? Do you have anything remotely interesting or informative to say about Bruckner?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Gustav said:


> Not being an expert in wines, or a wine taster, it's not up to me to comment on that remark. But, seriously, can you drop the silly analogies already? Do you have anything remotely interesting or informative to say about Bruckner?


*But seriously*...If we are to accept the first 10 words of your statement at face value, then you would be in _no position_ to pass judgement on the aptness, or lack thereof, of the analogy.


----------



## Gustav

Chi_town/Philly said:


> *But seriously*...If we are to accept the first 10 words of your statement at face value, then you would be in _no position_ to pass judgement on the aptness, or lack thereof, of the analogy.


So, the entire topic has come down to this? is this all you have to say about Bruckner? I said before in my rather lengthy post (hope that you read it), that I have no objections against people who listen to music for leisure. Yet, you continue to make silly replies, one after another, what's the point of this? Did you want this thread to grind into a halt or something? I was sincere with my comments, and genuinely tried to contribute some of my knowledge, so people can benefit from it.

oh, BTW, you still need to apologize for comparing me to that nut job Rod Corkin. I am waiting....


----------



## Gustav

BuddhaBandit said:


> But, again, it depends on the level of listening. As a pianist,
> 1. Is music entertainment? Certainly.


is Art "entertainment"?



BuddhaBandit said:


> But, again, it depends on the level of listening. As a pianist,
> 2. Can one enjoy it on a non-technical level? Of course.


Sure, you can. But what do you mean by "technical"? I certainly didn't mean anything like that. I merely stressed the importance of listening (said nothing about musical analysis or anything of that nature), you are taking it a little too far.



BuddhaBandit said:


> But, again, it depends on the level of listening. As a pianist,
> 3. Will it enhance the "listening experience" to understand the complexities of a full piece? It absolutely will, *but* only if the listener wants to hear the complexities.


And some say ignorance is bliss too. But, why wouldn't you? Would you rather prefer to look at a photo of the "Mona Lisa" than actually go to Paris and see it up close? Would you rather watch a documentary on the Great wall of China or the Great pyramids of Egypt than to actually going there and see it for yourself? Would you rather read the ending of a long novel, or skipping chapters than read it through and through? That's up to you, but i hope you see what you are missing.


----------



## Mad Ludwig

I play as CD with the expectation that it will give m some degree of pleasure, whether it be something light and frothy or something weightier. When I put Bruckner on I know it will be heavy going but still, I don't want to willingly give up the search for something at least meaningful, so I listen. Ten or fifteen minutes into the forest I have lost my way and there is no guide to lead me out; I ask myself why in hell are you going around in circles like this? I have missed my initial objective which was to derive pleasure from some music which, I am told, is at least great if not immortal. I am reminded of an old adage which says that when you are up to your *** in alligators, it's hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp. I'll put my Bruckner alongside my Goldmark "Rustic Wedding" symphony on the never played shelf.


----------



## Badinerie

Mad Ludwig said:


> . Ten or fifteen minutes into the forest I have lost my way and there is no guide to lead me out;


Perfect! you've got it...


----------



## Bach

Personally I find Bruckner's symphonies not dissimilar to Mahler's in that they both sound so sprawling - they seem to lack motivic development and musical direction.


----------



## tahnak

*Celibidache does read him well*



johnnyx said:


> Have you listend to Celibidache conducting Bruckner? To me, Bruckner is the greatest symphonist ever, and in my opinion nobody interprets it better than Celi! But, as best I can tell that is not a widely held opinion. However, those that agree with me do so in a very big way.


Yes I agree in a big way. Celibidache in his later period did get the most spacious grip on Bruckner's symphonies and the tempi that he presented is outstanding effort. It is not at all easy to attain control. He is extra ordinary with Bruckner.


----------



## hdk132

Bach said:


> Personally I find Bruckner's symphonies not dissimilar to Mahler's in that they both sound so sprawling - they seem to lack motivic development and musical direction.


IMHO, you nailed it for Bruckner, but I think Mahler does have a lot of melodies, direction, and development. Granted--not like classical symphonies, but all of the late romantic symphonies are long winded. I find that Bruckner sets a great theme and tone, but he never acutally starts the music.


----------



## Sid James

hdk132 said:


> I find that Bruckner sets a great theme and tone, but he never acutally starts the music.


I think Bruckner and Mahler wanted to get away from the classical sonata form where you hear the theme first and then the music develops. Beethoven predicted this, the first movement of his _Symphony No. 9 'Choral'_, with a hazy, misty theme played by the strings initially and a few moments later the main theme comes out. Schubert also did this, to a degree, in his _Symphony No. 8 'Unfinished.'_

The beginnings of many of Bruckner's symphonies are remarkably similar, except he takes this idea to a different level. His music develops in an organic way, and is less bound by the strictures of the sonata form. Indeed, when he submitted his _Symphony No. 0_ to a conductor whose name I forget, he advised Bruckner to heavily revise the first movement, as it didn't have a main theme. Bruckner left it as it was but annulled it, and if you listen to it, the conductor was right - there is no main theme in the first movement!

I like how Bruckner wanted to get away from the more predictable sonata form. Maybe what he came up with to substitute it is less rigorous and less approachable, but this idea of music developing organically, from the ground up so to speak, can be quite refreshing. I really like his _Symphony No. 9_, pity that it wasn't finished. I like his opening movements and his slow movements. His scherzos can get quite repetitive (like a loop or cycle being repeated with a trio in between) and his finales are sometimes a bit too complicated for their own good. But all in all, I don't mind Nos. 0 & 9. 4, 6 & 7 are also quite approachable, but the 8th is far too long, in my opinion...


----------



## David C Coleman

I think the best way to approach Bruckner is not to analyze his music too much! Maybe, as a listener, we should do that to all composers, I'm not sure!. But if you compare Bruckner to almost every other composer then you will be dissolusioned. 
As a listener I could find Bruck. dull, stodgy and a minimal orchestrator but with amazing conclusions.
But I think he was first class at contrapuntal ideas, linking and combining, sometimes several motifs and phrases and building up overwhelming climaxes from those ideas and somehow feeling a tremendous sense of fulfillment. Something that even Brahms or Mahler didn't achieve all the time....


----------



## World Violist

My dad gave me his Bruckner records (of course, the popular ones--4 and 9), so I'm going to give him another chance today; I've already listened to no. 9 once and was bored stiff in the 20-or-so minutes before I shut that off and switched to Mahler 8. I think I'll try the 4th today--I believe I have Bohm conducting that one (along with Klemperer).


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Kurkikohtaus said:


> Bruckner is a little like a religion... to the newcomer, it can be unbelieveable, huge, frightening, awe-inspiring, confusing, contradictory, exhalting and all-encompassing all at the same time.
> 
> There usually comes a breaking point. Once people have heard the symphonies that you list, they are either won-over to this faith, or they are absolutely sure that it's just not for them. I don't think there's anything wrong for not liking Bruckner, because 80 minute symphonies are simply not for everybody. But people who like Bruckner usually love him in a fanatic way, and take the bad with the good as a total (long winded) package.


Very, very well said. I agree 100%.


----------



## jhar26

I can enjoy most of Bruckner's symphonies when I'm in the mood. For some reason I always struggle with the last movements though.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

I agree with that too. You have to be in the mood to listen to a lot of music to put Bruckner symphonies on.


----------



## superhorn

Actually, Celibidache did make a handful of commercial studio recordings early in his career with the London Philharmonic for Decca, but decided that he did not want to make any more,because he considered them a woefully inadequate substitute for live performances.
He also made a lot of pseudo-profound sounding new-agey explanations for his refusal to make 
studio recordings.


----------



## superhorn

Oh well, Bruckner may be an aquired taste. But if you give his music a chance, and take the time and effort to grasp his music , it can be a transcendent experience. 
Having come to know his symphonies intimately, I don't find them in any way incoherent or unfocused or badly or awkwardly constructed at all. They make perfectly good structural sense on their own terms.
But you have to learn not to judge them by the standards of from established by Haydn,Mozart and Beethoven ; this is applying a procrustean bed to the Bruckner symphonies. 
And also, they are far from being easy works to interpret. A dull performance can make them sound boring as watching paint dry . 
And don't miss other Bruckner works, such as the three masses, the Te Deum, 150th psalm, 
the motets, and the string quintet. These are wonderful,too.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Very good points there superhorn.

I once attended a concert of Bruckner's fourth, and it was not well interpreted at all. In addition to that, the conductor cut out way too much of the symphony.

And I love the string quintet and the string quartet too.


----------



## teccomin

I first heard Bruckner's 4th when I was 12. For 12 long years after that, I refused to touch Bruckner at all. Then one day I watched a youtube video of Bruckner's 9th symphony 2nd movement. I was aroused all of a sudden, so I went back to my record of Bruckner's 4th and listened to it more attentively. It became a transcendental experience. I love Bruckner ever since.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

It was the _Scherzo_ of the *Ninth* which got me hooked as well.

*Bruckner*'s _Scherzi_ and _Adagios_ are my favourites.

Favourite Symphonies overall would be the *Fifth*, *Eighth*, and *Ninth*.

http://www.amazon.com/BRUCKNER-101-THE-SHORT-COURSE/lm/R2XY6TUDVYTSUW/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00000E3EL/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

http://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Symphonie-Lohengrin-Parsifal-Preludes/dp/B00000DO5J/ref=cm_lmf_tit_14

http://www.amazon.com/Anton-Bruckner-Symphonies-Herbert-Philharmonic/dp/B00000E33Y/ref=cm_lmf_tit_7


----------



## pekingduck

My first post here... 

I am about to buy one of the Wand's cycle. What's the major difference between the below two sets? Which one you guys/gals prefer?

















(Yeah I know the BPO recordings are incomplete)

Thanks


----------



## altosax

*Favorite Bruckner Symphonies*

The fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth are also my favorites. For the fifth I like the Wand (on RCA) for the original version and Botstein (on Telarc) for the Schalk edition. For the seventh I like Chaily on London/Decca and Lopez-Cobos on Telarc. For the eighth I like Solti on London/Decca and Lopez-Cobos on Telarc. For the ninth I like Bernstein on DGG and Lopez-Cobos on Telarc. These are the versions that I own so I can't really pass judgment on other versions but I prefer the Lopez-Cobos versions. If I could have only one set of Bruckner's symphonies I would choose the Lopez-Cobos. Plus the Telarc sonics are wonderful.

Is Bruckner an acquired taste? I would suppose that any composer is an acquired taste to some extent but I can see why someone might think so. I began listening to both Mahler and Bruckner as a teenager and I liked Mahler considerably more. Nowadays I like Bruckner as much as Mahler, somedays a little more, somedays a little less.


----------



## Serge

Keemun said:


> *
> Bruckner Symphonies...What am I missing?*


A World, really.

This should make an interesting reading for anyone already fascinated with Bruckner as well as for someone still trying to figure him out:

http://www.eduardochibas.com/archivos_escritos/Bruckner and the sublime experience.pdf


----------



## tgtr0660

You are missing probably the best symphonic cycle since Beethoven, unsurpassed afterwards... 

It takes time but when it grabs you, you'll open your ears to a unique, majestic world of sound, sound not as particles of energy but as the entire universe.


----------



## tri2061990

thank you so much!
I have read your post 1 years ago when I started to listen to Bruckner symphonies
they helped me a lot
now I can feel interesting when listening to his symphonies,I believe that I can like them 
it took me one year for my soul to go near Bruckner,I think I will go deeper

I'm not English,sorry if I misspell


----------



## Kreutzer

This is the first post I've made on this forum since I made a comment I thought might be helpful for "newbies" to Bruckner two years ago.

Some pedant shot me down for my suggestion, but I still stand by it.

There is a lot to love in Bruckner. You will find it if you give yourself a chance.

Kreutzer.


----------



## Keikobad

Keemun said:


> I've tried listening to Bruckner's symphonies (4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th), but I get bored with them.......Should I consider my lack of interest in his symphonies a matter of personal taste, or keep trying and hope that I too will grow to love his symphonies?


Well, of course, your lack of interest in Bruckner reflects your musical tastes.... AT THIS POINT IN TIME! There can be nothing more wrong-headed ( or a greater waste of your time) than trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. Believe me, at this point you can listen to Bruckner as much as you want, but I really don't think it will result in your having an Epiphany. Don't be so hard on yourself; if you don't like something there's little you can do to change that. Time and More Time (and, perhaps, Reading too) will find you in a different frame of mind. But please understand, don't force these things. No good will come of it.

I've spent an entire lifetime trying to develop a fancy for "Norma" or "La Boheme". So much public pressure to do so. But I don't care a whit about Mimi; and that tedious Druid priestess continues to bore me to tears.

One day, you'll hear a Bruckner symphony in a wholly different way. You'll be drawn into the landscape. A light bulb will go on; and then there will be no turning back.


----------



## Ukko

I have read only page 10 of this thread, so I'm probably repeating someone's comments. I suspect that what the OP is 'missing' in his understanding of Bruckner's symphonies are the 'ligaments' that connect those seemingly little-related episodes. I submit that the best venue to become aware of the ligaments is to listen to the 3rd symphony rather than the 4th. After the segments get pulled together (and remaining aware of a pervading religious sublimation), the OP may recognize a profound emotional affinity with Franck's symphony.

I am not a Bruckner fanatic; please forgive any unacceptable connotations.


----------



## tri2061990

I read at wikipedia
Bruckner created a new and monumental type of symphonic organism, which abjured the tense(căng), dynamic *continuity* of Beethoven, and the broad, fluid *continuity* of Wagner

I actually feel something discrete in Bruckner symphonies so I feel very uncomfortable
Can anyone exlain this problem to me?


----------



## the_emptier

I don't really understand the question/problem...

I happened to hear Bruckner's 9th on the local classical radio station was was just absolutely mesmerized by it. I have listened to it countless times since, but unfortunately have not obtained any more symphonies from him...it is on the top of my list though!! the 9th is so unreal though, sublime, ethereal, haunting...perfect.


----------



## tdc

^I just listened to that symphony in full for the first time today, and I must agree.


----------



## Barking Spiderz

After getting into the more accessible composers a year ago -e.g. WAM, LvB, Dvorak, Schubert and Mendelssohn - I thought I'd try out the 'heavier' stuff from the late Romantic era onwards, mainly Mahler, Shostakovich, R Strauss, Schoenberg, Sibelius and Bruckner. Out of that lot the only works that do it for me are Sibelius' tone poems, The Alpine Symphony and Bruckner's 4th (Wand). As for Bruckner's other 8, the scherzos are mostly fine. It's the remaining hour or so I have difficulty with. To my ears the slow movements are snoozeworthy. Same goes for Sibelius, Mahler and Shosta.


----------



## Ukko

Barking Spiderz said:


> It's the remaining hour or so I have difficulty with. To my ears the slow movements are snoozeworthy. Same goes for Sibelius, Mahler and Shosta.


Yeah, it's a common difficulty; you have to learn how to listen, and the skill pretty much has to be self-taught. There's good stuff in there, but your mind kind of sloughs over it because it's busy, usually with nothing important.

I really do believe I remember that problem - but it was awhile back, so maybe not.

My difficulty with Bruckner isn't the slow parts, it's all those crescendos that don't conclude anything.


----------



## tri2061990

Hilltroll72 said:


> My difficulty with Bruckner isn't the slow parts, it's all those crescendos that don't conclude anything.


Yes,I have this problem, too.I dont know or feel anything clearly in his themes


----------



## the_emptier

Listening to 6 right now, such great stuff. Maybe i'm not knowledgeable enough to critique his compositional styles, but i've been playing and surrounded by music all my life and this is just amazing. He epitomizes everything I love about that era of composition...and I find it so ironic that he was such a timid and self-critical man, notoriously revising and rewriting his works many times. but he never really realized what he had was pure gold. I sorely sorely wish the 9th was finished  I read an interesting article about lost pages slowly resurfacing over the years...maybe one day?


----------



## Barking Spiderz

Hilltroll72 said:


> Yeah, it's a common difficulty; you have to learn how to listen, and the skill pretty much has to be self-taught. There's good stuff in there, but your mind kind of sloughs over it because it's busy, usually with nothing important.
> 
> I really do believe I remember that problem - but it was awhile back, so maybe not.
> 
> My difficulty with Bruckner isn't the slow parts, it's all those crescendos that don't conclude anything.


I cant listen to long, drawn out pieces of slow music whatever the genre so I guess it's got less to do with Bruckner et al than something down deep in my noggin. Then again I dont like stuff that's consistently up tempo. It's all about variation and balance. Viz Bruckner, or rather the Wand and Tintner recordings I'm familar with, I like the bigness of the sound so maybe one day I will 'get' his symphonies.


----------



## Xaltotun

I've only listened to #1, #4, #7, #8 and #9 thus far, but it really was the #7 that sold Bruckner for me. All movements are amazing, but I especially adore the first movement, with its feeling of desperate, heroic struggle. Maybe it's the "Wagnerian" qualities of the #7, maybe it's just that its themes are a bit easier/simpler(?) and I'm a newbie, but it's my favourite Bruckner symphony by quite a wide margin.


Edit: I could also add a tiny comparison to Mahler. While I adore Mahler as a person (what a perfect intellectual romantic hero!) and find Bruckner creepy, Bruckner's symphonies seem easier to understand to me. They seem to be about taking things incredibly seriously, full of wonder, amazement and dedication. Mahler, on the other hand, remains annoyingly evasive and subtle with his musical sarcasms and ironies. But that's not Mahler's fault but mine, and I'm resolved to "get" him one day!

It's also funny that while Bruckner and Mahler symphonies share many of the same qualities, they couldn't be more apart when we compare Bruckner's massive seriousness to Mahler's subtle ironies.


----------



## the_emptier

yes, Mahlers 9th is another of my favorites right now. quite different but go hand in hand


----------



## starry

Xaltotun said:


> I've only listened to #1, #4, #7, #8 and #9 thus far, but it really was the #7 that sold Bruckner for me. All movements are amazing, but I especially adore the first movement, with its feeling of desperate, heroic struggle. Maybe it's the "Wagnerian" qualities of the #7, maybe it's just that its themes are a bit easier/simpler(?) and I'm a newbie, but it's my favourite Bruckner symphony by quite a wide margin.


Yeh the 7th is the one to get into it. And that first movement has always been a favourite of mine since the early 90s, it's so melodic.


----------



## Bill H.

While I had listened off an on to Bruckner in my younger years, I took more immediately to Mahler. Still adore Mahler's symphonies.

It's only now, in my fifties, that I find I am "getting" Bruckner. Others may not take as long, or some may never. But that's how we are as individuals. 

I won't try to expound upon why I enjoy the symphonies as much as I do now. The sonorities are definitely a factor; the Scherzo movements do seem to have a traceable lineage that was set in place by Schubert's time. The slow movements, if they are not always narrative in structure, spin themes of gorgeous splendor. All in all, though there is a sense of the "infinite" in the music that I find appealing. 

Oh, and the conductor that really helped me to give Bruckner a chance (despite the Haitink and Karajan LPs residing in the older part of my collection) was Furtwangler. Nowadays I have many other conductors that I listen to, but my collection still seems centered on the Fifth, the Eighth, and the Ninth symphonies (of which there are famous Furtwangler recordings). Not sure why, but they are the works that I use to "calibrate" whether a conductor knows their Bruckner.


----------



## Llyranor

I would like to get to know Bruckner more. All I've listened to so far has been the 9th at a concert, and I'm still not sure what I think about it. Is there any complete cycle people would recommend? (better individual performances of individual symphonies will come later when I'm more familiar with the works, or something). Cheers!

I'm thinking about Karajan's presently.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Llyranor said:


> I would like to get to know Bruckner more. All I've listened to so far has been the 9th at a concert, and I'm still not sure what I think about it. Is there any complete cycle people would recommend? (better individual performances of individual symphonies will come later when I'm more familiar with the works, or something). Cheers!


The one that hooked me into Bruckner was Tinter's cycle on Naxos. Many times he uses original versions of symphonies, and he performs them pretty much as they are written. I've branched out from there to more idiosyncratic performances, but Tintner has been a nice base to return to, at least for me.

Some people love Karajan's recordings, some don't. He doesn't do much for me, but if he speaks to you, got for it.


----------



## TxllxT

I interpret Bruckner's compositions as neogothic cathedral-building in soundscape. Basically he's not so much concerned with musical tunes or music as such as with: stress, thrust, tension. From this sound-architectural 'point of listening' Bruckner is sculpting pinnacles, arcs, high pointed windows, in short all what we see in cathedrals built with sandstone this time translated into cathedrals built with sound. So when someone is missing in Bruckner's slow movements the music & musical sense, someone else may feel there the stress & thrust building up, the growing tension to conclude a wide arc, the addition of another flying buttress to keep the thrust inward. Why the massive crescendos, leading seemingly nowhere? The question may be answered with a counterquestion: Why do gothic cathedrals have so many pinnacles, arcs, flying buttresses etc.? 
When I listen to a conductor who is interpreting Bruckner, I follow how he builds up Bruckner's cathedral layer by layer. Jochum, Karajan, Tintner, Maazel (7 & 8) & yes: Mravinsky (9th) have the patience for slowly building up the stress, thrust & tension that is hidden in these symphonic compositions. Many conductors however let the build-up collapse somewhere, leaving me behind in rubble & ruin.


----------



## Xaltotun

I've been getting into Bruckner #8 recently. Strangely enough, it reminds me a bit of Tchaikovsky #5. The structure is completely different, but the underlying emotions do not seem that dissimilar to me.


----------



## kmisho

I haven't read through everything to see if anyone mentioned Bruckner's deficiency as an orchestrator. Regardless of the musical and structural content of his music, I feel that he had neither an original or personal sense of the orchestra itself.

From wikipedia:
Bruckner was a renowned organist in his day, impressing audiences in France in 1869, and England in 1871, giving six recitals on a new Henry Willis organ at Royal Albert Hall in London and five more at the Crystal Palace. Though he wrote no major works for the organ,[10] his improvisation sessions sometimes yielded ideas for the symphonies. Indeed, the orchestration in his symphonies often involves abrupt switches and call-and-response between multiple groups of instruments, much like switching manuals on an organ.

****

Essentially, a lot of his symphonic work is like organ music "transcribed" to symphony. Contrast this with, say, William Walton, who "played" the symphony like it was an instrument in itself, like it was his instrument, and that he played the orchestra the way another musician might play the violin or the piano.


----------



## 1648

Hello everyone.



kmisho said:


> I haven't read through everything to see if anyone mentioned Bruckner's deficiency as an orchestrator. Regardless of the musical and structural content of his music, I feel that he had neither an original or personal sense of the orchestra itself.
> 
> [wikipedia quote]
> 
> Essentially, a lot of his symphonic work is like organ music "transcribed" to symphony. Contrast this with, say, William Walton, who "played" the symphony like it was an instrument in itself, like it was his instrument, and that he played the orchestra the way another musician might play the violin or the piano.


 If you really feel the need to reiterate those tired stereotypes please make sure your presentation is logically consistent and backed up by something a little more persuasive than a quick, unformatted wikipedia quote.

I'll disregard the folly of drawing a strict line between "musical and structural content" and "orchestration" for now, but the first time you specify what you consider his "deficiencies" as an orchestral composer you mention that his writing was "neither original nor personal" - I simply cannot fathom what would lead you to that abstruse conclusion, Bruckner's audaciously sharp-contoured treatment of orchestral color is a direct consequence of his equally original rhythmic and contrapuntal writing, neither of which would be feasible on an organ - they were clearly inspired by and invented for an orchestral setting.


----------



## graaf

TxllxT said:


> So when someone is missing in Bruckner's slow movements the music & musical sense, someone else may feel there the stress & thrust building up, the growing tension to conclude a wide arc, the addition of another flying buttress to keep the thrust inward. Why the massive crescendos, leading seemingly nowhere? The question may be answered with a counterquestion: Why do gothic cathedrals have so many pinnacles, arcs, flying buttresses etc.?


Because pinnacles, arcs, flying buttresses make cathedrals beautiful 
That was very good description of Bruckner's music; I think that sometimes we need to remind ourselves of Debussy's quote: "You have only to listen. Pleasure is the law".


----------



## kmisho

1648 said:


> Hello everyone.
> 
> If you really feel the need to reiterate those tired stereotypes please make sure your presentation is logically consistent and backed up by something a little more persuasive than a quick, unformatted wikipedia quote.
> 
> I'll disregard the folly of drawing a strict line between "musical and structural content" and "orchestration" for now, but the first time you specify what you consider his "deficiencies" as an orchestral composer you mention that his writing was "neither original nor personal" - I simply cannot fathom what would lead you to that abstruse conclusion, Bruckner's audaciously sharp-contoured treatment of orchestral color is a direct consequence of his equally original rhythmic and contrapuntal writing, neither of which would be feasible on an organ - they were clearly inspired by and invented for an orchestral setting.


I don't like admitting to this, but as an organist I know there is some truth in it. The inability to play it on an organ is a non-issue as the treatment of the orchestra is organ-like rather than orchestra-like. _finis_


----------



## 1648

kmisho said:


> I don't like admitting to this, but as an organist I know there is some truth in it. The inability to play it on an organ is a non-issue as the treatment of the orchestra is organ-like rather than orchestra-like. _finis_


_Finis_? Hardly. We're just getting to the crux of the issue, namely that you consider the fact that some of Bruckner's orchestral writing was influenced by his familiarity with the organ and its repertoire (which I do not deny, though I would not reduce the source of his invention to this) an utter deficiency (rather than a feature that is inextricably intertwined with and absolutely essential to his music as a whole) and had the nerve to call this then unprecedented treatment of the orchestra _"neither original or personal"_ - which is as ignorant as it is inconsistent with the rest of your post. To be frank I believe you're elevating your personal preference for the sound-effect prone Straussian style of orchestral composition to an absolute ideal by which all other orchestral music is to be judged, something I wouldn't do.

Forgive me if I'm rather touchy on this subject, but equating Bruckner the symphonist with Bruckner the organist is part of the reason why later 20th century performances of his music tend to be rather dreadful, the modern instruments and playing conventions don't do his peculiarly delicate music any favors either.


----------



## Xaltotun

graaf said:


> Because pinnacles, arcs, flying buttresses make cathedrals beautiful
> That was very good description of Bruckner's music; I think that sometimes we need to remind ourselves of Debussy's quote: "You have only to listen. Pleasure is the law".


I'm not really overly fond of that quote. There's more than pleasure to music, I think. But in the end, I'll quote Goethe instead: "Grau ist alle Theorie...". Theory is devoid of life, it cannot give us any pleasure; but pure pleasure, while important, cannot give complete satisfaction.

Bruckner has really pleasant melodies that make me squirm with delight, but his music also makes me think, dream... and question itself. If I judged it purely by the standard of pleasure, it would not succeed completely. "Nature" needs "idea" and vice versa, I think... and when they meet, we get "Art".


----------



## daspianist

Keemun said:


> I've tried listening to Bruckner's symphonies (4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th), but I get bored with them. I know that some find them deeply spiritual, moving, etc. Not me. They have some nice movements, but as a whole the symphonies that I've listened to didn't keep my interest all the way through.
> 
> I know I'm not the only person who feels this way, but I still wonder if I'm missing something since there are so many people who love Bruckner's symphonies. Should I consider my lack of interest in his symphonies a matter of personal taste, or keep trying and hope that I too will grow to love his symphonies?


*You need to be in love in order to understand them.* The 3rd movement of the 8th, the 2nd movement of the 7th: the apotheosis of romantic love.

You can throw sticks at me for making such a banal statement, but its 100% true.

P.S. I am aware of the fact that 2nd movement of the 7th was written for Wagner's funeral.. and was also played at a host of other people's funerals as well (including he-who-shall-not-be-named). It, however, does not detract from the rich romantic undertones inherent in these works.


----------



## Vaneyes

daspianist said:


> *You need to be in love in order to understand them.* The 3rd movement of the 8th, the 2nd movement of the 7th: the apotheosis of romantic love.
> 
> You can throw sticks at me for making such a banal statement, but its 100% true.


What works for you is fine, and I think Bruckner would be pleased and surprised.


----------



## Ukko

graaf said:


> Because pinnacles, arcs, flying buttresses make cathedrals beautiful
> That was very good description of Bruckner's music; I think that sometimes we need to remind ourselves of Debussy's quote: "You have only to listen. Pleasure is the law".


If by 'arcs' is meant arches, both those and flying buttresses were necessary structural components of a structure with a heavy, vaulting roof and few internal supports. When I see those things, I am more apt to 'feel' the forces they resist than to hear music. And yet, both Franck's symphony and those of Bruckner bring to my mind a structure. Franck's is one of faith, Bruckner's one of vaulted spaces and icons.


----------



## daspianist

Hilltroll72 said:


> If by 'arcs' is meant arches, both those and flying buttresses were necessary structural components of a structure with a heavy, vaulting roof and few internal supports. When I see those things, I am more apt to 'feel' the forces they resist than to hear music. And yet, both Franck's symphony and those of Bruckner bring to my mind a structure. Franck's is one of faith, Bruckner's one of vaulted spaces and icons.


Cathedrals of sound Bruckner's outputs may be, it is the vast range of emotions that these cathedrals elicits from its listeners - just as the real Notre Dame or Amines Cathedral elicit from travelers and churchgoers - that ultimately designated Bruckner's place in the pantheon of great classical composers. Listen beyond the musical/architectural ingenuity, and you will see why Furtwangler, Karajan, and a host of others all chose Bruckner to _debut _their careers. [Furtwangler choose Bruckner 9. Karajan made his very first recording with Bruckner 8]


----------



## TxllxT

Hilltroll72 said:


> If by 'arcs' is meant arches, both those and flying buttresses were necessary structural components of a structure with a heavy, vaulting roof and few internal supports. When I see those things, I am more apt to 'feel' the forces they resist than to hear music. And yet, both Franck's symphony and those of Bruckner bring to my mind a structure. Franck's is one of faith, Bruckner's one of vaulted spaces and icons.


When I behold a cathedral like in Amiens, Rouen, Beauvais or Strassbourg, 'heaviness' is not what I experience. Especially those 'Gothic' craftsmen build upwards & upwards with so economic use of materials! Bruckner repeats & repeats: when you don't feel an upward surge inside this, your ears soon will become heavy. When you *do* feel the upwards surge, Bruckner's music actually becomes light on the ears.


----------



## Ukko

TxllxT said:


> When I behold a cathedral like in Amiens, Rouen, Beauvais or Strassbourg, 'heaviness' is not what I experience. Especially those 'Gothic' craftsmen build upwards & upwards with so economic use of materials! Bruckner repeats & repeats: when you don't feel an upward surge inside this, your ears soon will become heavy. When you *do* feel the upwards surge, Bruckner's music actually becomes light on the ears.


 I'm going to have to take your word.


----------



## SUMMONING

Keemun said:


> As for 80 minute symphonies, I do like Mahler's symphonies quite a bit, and they tend to rival Bruckner's in length. Perhaps Mahler's symphonies have somehow hindered my ability to like Bruckner's?


Hey man,i am a huge Bruckner fan.I will try to answer to your questions sincere.Look,i believe that Bruckner has influenced Mahler a lot,and Mahler from his side,inspired a lot Shostakovich.So we must put these guys in a ''chronological line'',let's say Bruckner-Mahler-Shostakovich.Now,who inspired Bruckner?Bruckner's music is almost prototype,although if you listen in some parts,you will see some influences from Beethoven and Wagner,but he was the one that mastered the symphonic type and followed his own way.In the first hear,you will find him,as you said,boring and tiring,and it is very difficult to ''catch'' the themes immediately.You have to listen again and again his symphonies to understand them.BUT apart from that,i think it is a personal taste.I mean,ok,Bruckner's symphonies,as of course Beethoven's or Mahler's,are EPIC,in an ''objective'' way,but if you want to get a ''closer touch'' ,then it is subjective,personal taste-tend for the epic!For example people who prefer Mozart or Haydn's symphonies,prefer the more melodic parts,and less the powerful,spiritual,deep emotions that exist in Bruckner/Mahler works.Now,as far as the Mahler-Bruckner comparison,i must say that although Bruckner influenced Mahler a lot,you can see wide differences in their works.I can't explain with words what exactly are the differences,but Bruckner is let's say more apocalyptic,mystic he is more revealing in his works than Mahler,he has a specific type when he writes,he begins with dark,scary agony and he finally gets into the apocalyptic-revealing theme that every listener ''awaits'' to hear after that.He is difficult,but despite the many times you have to hear him,it's also a matter of personal taste.And i agree,Celibidache is probably the man that understood Bruckner completely,and mastered the conducting in a slow motive!


----------



## TxllxT

SUMMONING said:


> Hey man,i am a huge Bruckner fan.I will try to answer to your questions sincere.Look,i believe that Bruckner has influenced Mahler a lot,and Mahler from his side,inspired a lot Shostakovich.So we must put these guys in a ''chronological line'',let's say Bruckner-Mahler-Shostakovich.Now,who inspired Bruckner?Bruckner's music is almost prototype,although if you listen in some parts,you will see some influences from Beethoven and Wagner,but he was the one that mastered the symphonic type and followed his own way.In the first hear,you will find him,as you said,boring and tiring,and it is very difficult to ''catch'' the themes immediately.You have to listen again and again his symphonies to understand them.BUT apart from that,i think it is a personal taste.I mean,ok,Bruckner's symphonies,as of course Beethoven's or Mahler's,are EPIC,in an ''objective'' way,but if you want to get a ''closer touch'' ,then it is subjective,personal taste-tend for the epic!For example people who prefer Mozart or Haydn's symphonies,prefer the more melodic parts,and less the powerful,spiritual,deep emotions that exist in Bruckner/Mahler works.Now,as far as the Mahler-Bruckner comparison,i must say that although Bruckner influenced Mahler a lot,you can see wide differences in their works.I can't explain with words what exactly are the differences,but Bruckner is *let's say more apocalyptic,mystic he is more revealing in his works than Mahler,he has a specific type when he writes,he begins with dark,scary agony and he finally gets into the apocalyptic-revealing theme that every listener ''awaits'' to hear after that*.He is difficult,but despite the many times you have to hear him,it's also a matter of personal taste.And i agree,Celibidache is probably the man that understood Bruckner completely,and mastered the conducting in a slow motive!


Mahler needs only one angel saying "Nein, ich lasse mich nicht abweisen" (No, I will not let myself be turned away), where Bruckner broods & broods, builds & builds a gigantic structure upon another gigantic symphonic structure. Mahler has humour to hit home in a revelatory way  I at least get a glimpse of heaven through his music), Bruckner on the other hand labours out of a childlike faith that is moving mountains. With Bruckner I get long views on mountains-on-the-move, towering cathedrals, but no surprising glimpse of heaven. Sorry, I do *not* hear apocalypse-revelations in Bruckner.


----------



## daspianist

TxllxT said:


> Mahler needs only one angel saying "Nein, ich lasse mich nicht abweisen" (No, I will not let myself be turned away), where Bruckner broods & broods, builds & builds a gigantic structure upon another gigantic symphonic structure. Mahler has humour to hit home in a revelatory way  I at least get a glimpse of heaven through his music), Bruckner on the other hand labours out of a childlike faith that is moving mountains. With Bruckner I get long views on mountains-on-the-move, towering cathedrals, but no surprising glimpse of heaven. Sorry, I do *not* hear apocalypse-revelations in Bruckner.


May I respond to the "glimpse of heaven" comment? 

Mahler and Bruckner are two inherently different symphonists with vastly different conceptions on how music - symphonies - should be. Mahler's "heaven" is made up of the snippets of highly theatrical musical moments: think to the timpani motif in the 6th, for example They work especially well to jar the listener emotionally at key moments: when the motif appears towards the end of the 4th movement, we realize that the "hero" has been through defeated ... and hence, the _tragisch _ symphony. Without an appreciation of the underlying theatrical motifs in a work such as the 6th symphony, the audience would simply be confounded by the juxtaposition of such sounds. Mahler's music is emotionally powerful precisely because it rely on the _theatrical _ - and in today's highly theatrical world they resonate perfectly with audience.

Bruckner, on the other hand, is a composer who prefers an organic growth of certain ideas and motifs, and never makes use of theatrical tricks like big timpani strikes. Think to the transcendental culmination towards the end of the 3rd movement of the 8th symphony: it grows out of ideas initially heard _piano_ in strings, and though various harmonic and textural transformations it apexes in a tragically deceptive chord, returning the music to its first themes. This glimpse of heaven - by all means - is not created by that of a cold and calculating architect, nor that of a theatrican, but that of an utterly devout and tragically naive human being: a music of genuine expression. In today's world, where even our daily conversation has become highly theatrical due to many sources of influences, it is certainly difficult to relate to musical outputs of such genuine character.

I am going to draw some flames here   : Mahler's "heaven" can be likened to a beautifully rendered CGI heaven, seen in an IMAX theater - impressive, awesome, widely appealing, and certainly able inspire more than a few financiers to want to conduct their own versions.

Bruckner's heaven, on the other hand, is that of a very personal one. It requires patience, reflection, and is a state of being that derives both from the musical journey, and that of the journey of self-discovery.


----------



## SUMMONING

daspianist said:


> Bruckner's heaven, on the other hand, is that of a very personal one. It requires patience, reflection, and is a state of being that derives both from the musical journey, and that of the journey of self-discovery.


That was exactly what i was trying to say but i couldn't because of my bad English!


----------



## TxllxT

daspianist said:


> May I respond to the "glimpse of heaven" comment?
> 
> Mahler and Bruckner are two inherently different symphonists with vastly different conceptions on how music - symphonies - should be. Mahler's "heaven" is made up of the snippets of highly theatrical musical moments: think to the timpani motif in the 6th, for example They work especially well to jar the listener emotionally at key moments: when the motif appears towards the end of the 4th movement, we realize that the "hero" has been through defeated ... and hence, the _tragisch _ symphony. Without an appreciation of the underlying theatrical motifs in a work such as the 6th symphony, the audience would simply be confounded by the juxtaposition of such sounds. Mahler's music is emotionally powerful precisely because it rely on the _theatrical _ - and in today's highly theatrical world they resonate perfectly with audience.
> 
> Bruckner, on the other hand, is a composer who prefers an organic growth of certain ideas and motifs, and never makes use of theatrical tricks like big timpani strikes. Think to the transcendental culmination towards the end of the 3rd movement of the 8th symphony: it grows out of ideas initially heard _piano_ in strings, and though various harmonic and textural transformations it apexes in a tragically deceptive chord, returning the music to its first themes. This glimpse of heaven - by all means - is not created by that of a cold and calculating architect, nor that of a theatrican, but that of an utterly devout and tragically naive human being: a music of genuine expression. In today's world, where even our daily conversation has become highly theatrical due to many sources of influences, it is certainly difficult to relate to musical outputs of such genuine character.
> 
> I am going to draw some flames here   : Mahler's "heaven" can be likened to a beautifully rendered CGI heaven, seen in an IMAX theater - impressive, awesome, widely appealing, and certainly able inspire more than a few financiers to want to conduct their own versions.
> 
> Bruckner's heaven, on the other hand, is that of a very personal one. It requires patience, reflection, and is a state of being that derives both from the musical journey, and that of the journey of self-discovery.


Thanks for your analysis. But you make an opposition of Mahler = theatrical against Bruckner = personal. I would say: Mahler = revelatory, or: coming from heaven down to earth. Bruckner = religious or: babylonically building tower on tower trying to penetrate heaven.... so from earth towards heaven, _per aspera ad astra_ (Beethoven's adagium).


----------



## World Violist

I think the major problem with approaching Bruckner is that most people approach him from Mahler. It's ridiculous; they're nothing alike. Approach him from Sibelius instead, and then you'll get some real results. Sibelius and Bruckner are actually quite similar, and I'm surprised that this connection isn't made more often.

Edit: And contrasting Mahler with Bruckner doesn't tend to get anywhere, either. They're two very different symphonists. Approach them on their own terms.


----------



## Vaneyes

"Bruckner and Mahler"

http://www.uv.es/~calaforr/walter.html


----------



## daspianist

World Violist said:


> I think the major problem with approaching Bruckner is that most people approach him from Mahler. *It's ridiculous; they're nothing alike.* [_too true, mate. too true_] Approach him from Sibelius instead, and then you'll get some real results. Sibelius and Bruckner are actually quite similar, and I'm surprised that this connection isn't made more often.
> 
> Edit: And contrasting Mahler with Bruckner doesn't tend to get anywhere, either. They're two very different symphonists. Approach them on their own terms.


Thank you. Very true - you cannot approach their music with the same mentality.


----------



## World Violist

Vaneyes said:


> "Bruckner and Mahler"
> 
> http://www.uv.es/~calaforr/walter.html


If I might be so bold, very little of what Walter says in his article about what joins the two is of consequence; any two roughly contemporaneous composers could be Austrian and have written nine symphonies in the space of about thirty years with special emphasis on the finale and with various changes from symphony to symphony. History just happened to frown on those two.

I find a lot more of substance in what Mr. Walter has to say about what divides them. Not only does he point out the wild differences in instrumentation within Mahler's opus as opposed to Bruckner's relative sameness across the board (never branching out into voices, hammers, guitars, mandolins, violins in scordatura, et al.), but also, at length, gets to the real difference: "If I wished to present the difference between the two masters in the shortest imaginable formula, I would say (conscious of the exaggeration of such a summary): at bottom Bruckner's spirit was repose, Mahler's unrest." This is the only thing that really matters to a listener, not instrumentation, not how many movements a symphony has, but what the composer has to say about himself and the world around him, and in that sense these two composers could be no more different.


----------



## tdc

Yes I pretty much agree on the many differences between Mahler and Bruckner...The length of their symphonies and a bit of that flair for the dramatic I hear in both, but aside from that they are quite different. I am able to extract more direction and specific ideas out of Mahler's music. Bruckner builds vast architectural landscapes, but I don't sense the same refined state of expression. With Bruckner I am at times blown away by the awesome layers of sound, but I don't get those eureka moments as often as I do with Mahler. Its almost as if Bruckner's music is like the background to something else happening, where Mahler tries to create specific ideas and then unfold them in a methodical way all with just the music...


----------



## daspianist

Vaneyes said:


> "Bruckner and Mahler"
> 
> http://www.uv.es/~calaforr/walter.html


"...the image of Ottilie fills Eduard's eyes during a conjugal meeting with his wife Charlotte, while the latter beholds the captain's image" Brilliant.


----------



## GraemeG

Their only commonality is their nationality and writing 60+ minutes symphonies, surely? Bruckner was Brahms' comtemporary, not Mahler's. Mahler as a student attended Bruckner's lectures, for goodness sake. Bruckner wrote 11 symphonies, Mahler ten and-a-bit.
Even for length, Bruckner only journeys beyond 70 minutes in 5 and 8 (marginally in 7) - Celibidache excepted!, whereas Mahler does so in all but 1 and 4.
And as others have pointed out, the music is nothing alike.
GG


----------



## Bill H.

World Violist said:


> I think the major problem with approaching Bruckner is that most people approach him from Mahler. It's ridiculous; they're nothing alike. Approach him from Sibelius instead, and then you'll get some real results. Sibelius and Bruckner are actually quite similar, and I'm surprised that this connection isn't made more often.
> 
> Edit: And contrasting Mahler with Bruckner doesn't tend to get anywhere, either. They're two very different symphonists. Approach them on their own terms.


This makes sense to me. For example, one of our local regional orchestras is doing a very good Sibelius cycle over a few years, and I mentioned to the conductor (based on his pre-performance comments) that Bruckner might be a good cycle to tackle as well, based on their approaches to creating sound and color. He agreed and asked me what my favorite Bruckner symphony was--I think I surprised him a bit by saying mine (at least right now) is probably the Fifth.


----------



## Laudemont

Random thoughts and responses after scanning this entire thread after joining this forum yesterday:

1. I first heard Bruckner in a late-night radio broadcast in the 1950s while I was in college, and immediately became fascinated. It was the 3rd Symphony (I believe the Knappertsbusch recording on London), which is still my favorite. But to say any Bruckner symphony is "favorite" for me is hardly accurate; Bruckner is Bruckner, wherever you find him, and each symphony has its distinctive "feel." I now have recordings of all 11 Bruckner symphonies, some in multiple versions. Personally, I find the 2nd and the 6th less Brucknerian than the others, but enjoy them along with the rest.

2. I think it is rather silly to play off one composer against another, because each has his (or her) "specialties." I am also a fan of Haydn (wrote a paper on his symphonies while in college) and enjoy his clever humor. The academic intricacy of Brahms fascinates me -- and I see no Beethoven copy-catting in his music. Mahler is nothing like Bruckner; I find a lot of his symphonic music kind of sappy, or painfully slow, but I will not just write him off because he lacks Bruckner's sense of striving toward a goal. I could go on, but my point is that each composer is "doing his own thing" and just because it's not your thing is no reason to flame him, or his fans.

3. No, Bruckner was not a creative orchestrator like Mahler, Elgar, Berlioz. But neither was Schumann, because orchestration is not the point in their symphonies and fussing with the orchestration would do little to change the impact (the brass being, perhaps, the exception to this statement). Bruckner's music is "baroque" in that, as in Bach, different instruments can play the same part; it is not the timbre that matters but the structure.

4. Bruckner has a lot of memorable tunes. I often whistle Bruckner while driving, working in the yard, walking through Walmart, etc. The opening of his 3rd Symphony would make a great cell phone ring tone.

5. Bruckner himself sanctioned most of the revisions to his symphonies. Perhaps he was cowed by conductors into making cuts or changes, but having heard both the "original" and the "revised" versions in a few cases I often prefer the later versions. For example, I was so disappointed to come to the very end of Tintner's recording of the 1st Symphony and find only a timpani roll and not that wonderful trumpet fanfare that rounds it off in the (I believe) Linz version. The "original" 3rd does not seem to have the taught drama of the version usually performed. I am glad that we have access to the several versions, because each listener can decided for himself (herself) which is preferable.

6. John Berky has a lot of Bruckner downloads on his site, www.abruckner.com. If you don't want to spend a lot of money for Bruckner recordings you can download a lot of music there, and create your own CDs from them if you like (I have made more than a dozen CDs this way.) If you donate to Mr. Berky (as you should, in appreciation) you will get occasional emails from him about items of special interest to Bruckner lovers.


----------



## hoodjem

Keemun said:


> I've tried listening to Bruckner's symphonies (4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th), but I get bored with them. I know that some find them deeply spiritual, moving, etc. Not me. They have some nice movements, but as a whole the symphonies that I've listened to didn't keep my interest all the way through.
> 
> I know I'm not the only person who feels this way, but I still wonder if I'm missing something since there are so many people who love Bruckner's symphonies. Should I consider my lack of interest in his symphonies a matter of personal taste, or keep trying and hope that I too will grow to love his symphonies?


Tough one. They are slow-moving and repetitive, but (for me) that just adds to the grandeur and majesty.

One analogy that might help is one I once heard a commentator say this: an entire Bruckner symphony is like one single movement of a Beethoven symphony broken into four parts and played back really slowly. Bruckner makes his point very, very simply and very, very gradually.

When listening, I very often imagine a climb or hike to the summit of a mountain--you don't want to go too fast or you'll miss a lot of the sublime beauty. Bruckner helps you take your time and enjoy the various vistas on the way up.


----------



## hoodjem

the_emptier said:


> I sorely sorely wish the 9th was finished, I read an interesting article about lost pages slowly resurfacing over the years...maybe one day?


Check this out: https://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Sym...uckner+9+Rattle&qid=1564085633&s=music&sr=1-1


----------

