# To Bruckner, or not to Bruckner?



## GreatFugue

His symphonies seem very -- how should I put it? -- empty... maybe dull would be better. No matter. I just know that it's been a while since I've listened to any of his symphonies (or masses, or anything) but my recollection of his music is just a blur of boredom.

Passages like, "Bruckner expanded the concept of the symphonic form in ways that have never been witnessed before or since. … When listening to a Bruckner symphony, one encounters some of the most complex symphonic writing ever created. As scholars study Bruckner's scores they continue to revel in the complexity of Bruckner's creative logic", have me thinking I'm missing out on some amazing musical experiences. Is there anything in particular that I should be listening for, or is the previous description just histrionic?

Any Bruckner advocates out there care to persuade me to give him another chance?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Just close your eyes and listen to the music. 






Perhaps one thing that is a bit off-putting about Bruckner is his formulaic procedure of the composition of his symphonies. Almost every symphony he wrote uses the same structure in each of the movements, just reading some Wikipedia articles will give you enough information to bore anyone to death on the nature of FORM....but what I find particularly interesting is imagining the influence of the organ music he played in his own music. Counterpoint was very important in his music, check out the fugal finale of his 5th symphony for one of the more overtly contrapuntal examples, but then also remember that the organ's _sound_ was a big influence on his orchestration. The use of different stops on the organ and the changes from one manual with one sound to another manual to another sound is evident in the way he shifts from one orchestral section/combination to another in his symphonies.

Perhaps also it just comes down to which interpretations you've listened to. I'm a big fan of Jochum, Celibidache and Young, all of whom are excellent at shaping the dynamics and achieving impeccable orchestral balance. It's almost as if the orchestra is treated as one huge and complex instrument under their batons. Simone Young's recordings are especially worth a listen because they, I believe, are recordings of the seldom heard earlier versions of the symphonies which are in some cases very different to the final ones.


----------



## GreatFugue

You've piqued my interest by mentioning counterpoint.  I guess I never listened long enough or well enough to notice. So I guess my first stop will be the 5th symphony.

The only complete set of symphonies I have is from Jochum and the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra from DG, which is a good one I guess, so thanks for the recommendations!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

GreatFugue said:


> You've piqued my interest by mentioning counterpoint.  I guess I never listened long enough or well enough to notice. So I guess my first stop will be the 5th symphony.
> 
> The only complete set of symphonies I have is from Jochum and the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra from DG, which is a good one I guess, so thanks for the recommendations!


Many people like Jochum's later recordings on EMI which I think have better sound overall. But the DG one is still spectacular.


----------



## GreatFugue

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Many people like Jochum's later recordings on EMI which I think have better sound overall. But the DG one is still spectacular.


I'll look around for those. Many thanks!


----------



## GKC

GreatFugue said:


> The only complete set of symphonies I have is from Jochum and the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra from DG, which is a good one I guess, so thanks for the recommendations!


Aren't (at least) 7, 8 and 9 from that set the Berlin Philharmonic ?


----------



## Mahlerian

I find that, once you enter into Bruckner's very peculiar symphonic world, the beauty of the architecture in his works becomes clear. Bruckner's later works are nothing if not very solidly crafted, even if the materials themselves seem rough-hewn at times.

His sense of long-range harmonic contrast in large structures is second to none.

My favorite Bruckner works are the Third (original version), the Fifth, and the Eighth (revision) followed by the Ninth, then the Fourth and then the Seventh.

On top of the Jochum set, I recommend finding a recording of the original version of the Third, before it was completely mutilated.


----------



## Chopiniana93

*Same question*

Well, honestly if this thread hadn't already existed, maybe *I* would have created it 
I listened this summer to a concert by Herbert Blomstedt in my city and I was really captured by this fantastic conductor, I really think that he's a _genius_, for many different reasons that here aren't important to mention. He conducted the 8th Symphony of Bruckner. I followed it, but after almost one hour I lost interest in it...I found that this symphony didn't have a _leading thread_ that combines the movements of the piece together, like in a Mahler' symphony, only to mention a contemporary. Maybe I am wrong, but I think I have enough experience with chamber music and I can say it without doubts...What do you think about it?


----------



## helenora

To understand Bruckner takes time.....in my case I had the same opinion, boredom, long , etc......now totally different, totally 
But I will not persuade anyone in anything, because it takes time to understand not just Bruckner or any other composer but oneself. and no one can persuade anyone in anything if one has already chosen what to think about this or that. we all have our convictions and belief systems and to shake them......something should really happen, when we change - our tastes , values change as well. The other reason why not to try persuading is that music , understanding of music ( haha, I call it understanding and understanding somehow implies a mind work, some analysis probably, etc, but here by using the word understanding I rather mean feeling , when understanding comes from and through feeling ) .....in short "understanding" of music doesn't come from brain, but from a heart. I think it's better just to leave it as it is ( Bruckner's works) and try again when you feel like it. and it's not about experience in music, many people here have experience and a lot of experience in some field of music, but it's not just about that. Probably as I think now it's about right time, readiness, personal change, etc I know for some people ( even professionals ) it takes years, some a lifetime, some never get it. But nothing to worry about, because Bruckner is not the only composer in the world  and it doesn't mean that if someone likes Bruckner you should like him as well, or someone who you admire likes Bruckner, but you don't and it makes you feel bad about it and you might think something is wrong with you ( your understanding and taste) or with them ( who appreciates his music a lot), but it's not true. It's the same as different cuisine: someone likes French, some Thai, some Japanese, etc. matter of taste ??  But in music it simply reflects more of a personality of a listener. For me it always is and was : " Tell me what music you listen to and I say who you are "


----------



## Chopiniana93

helenora said:


> To understand Bruckner takes time.....in my case I had the same opinion, boredom, long , etc......now totally different, totally
> But I will not persuade anyone in anything, because it takes time to understand not just Bruckner or any other composer but oneself. and no one can persuade anyone in anything if one has already chosen what to think about this or that. we all have our convictions and belief systems and to shake them......something should really happen, when we change - our tastes , values change as well. The other reason why not to try persuading is that music , understanding of music ( haha, I call it understanding and understanding somehow implies a mind work, some analysis probably, etc, but here by using the word understanding I rather mean feeling , when understanding comes from and through feeling ) .....in short "understanding" of music doesn't come from brain, but from a heart. I think it's better just to leave it as it is ( Bruckner's works) and try again when you feel like it. and it's not about experience in music, many people here have experience and a lot of experience in some field of music, but it's not just about that. Probably as I think now it's about right time, readiness, personal change, etc I know for some people ( even professionals ) it takes years, some a lifetime, some never get it. But nothing to worry about, because Bruckner is not the only composer in the world  and it doesn't mean that if someone likes Bruckner you should like him as well, or someone who you admire likes Bruckner, but you don't and it makes you feel bad about it and you might think something is wrong with you ( your understanding and taste) or with them ( who appreciates his music a lot), but it's not true. It's the same as different cuisine: someone likes French, some Thai, some Japanese, etc. matter of taste ??  But in music it simply reflects more of a personality of a listener. For me it always is and was : " Tell me what music you listen to and I say who you are "


It's true  Of course Bruckner isn't the only, but I only wanted to understand if I am alone with my opinion about him or not. BTW, thanks, helenora for this beautiful post!


----------



## Mahlerian

Chopiniana93 said:


> He conducted the 8th Symphony of Bruckner. I followed it, but after almost one hour I lost interest in it...*I found that this symphony didn't have a leading thread that combines the movements of the piece together*, like in a Mahler' symphony, only to mention a contemporary.


Well, for starters, all of the major themes of the Eighth are played simultaneously in the coda of the finale. Start by realizing that, perhaps, and then work your way back to hear how, for example, the beginning of the finale starts off about as distantly from the home key of C minor as possible so that it can move on from the D-flat major of the adagio, then work through that movement's grandeur and broad span to the harp that appears in the trio of the scherzo movement, and so on.

There are other symphonies with more obvious thematic connections between the movements, the Fourth and Fifth particularly.


----------



## realdealblues

Chopiniana93 said:


> Well, honestly if this thread hadn't already existed, maybe *I* would have created it
> I listened this summer to a concert by Herbert Blomstedt in my city and I was really captured by this fantastic conductor, I really think that he's a _genius_, for many different reasons that here aren't important to mention. He conducted the 8th Symphony of Bruckner. I followed it, but after almost one hour I lost interest in it...I found that this symphony didn't have a _leading thread_ that combines the movements of the piece together, like in a Mahler' symphony, only to mention a contemporary. Maybe I am wrong, but I think I have enough experience with chamber music and I can say it without doubts...What do you think about it?


I would maybe try a different Symphony to start if that was your only introduction into Bruckner. The 8th wasn't my favorite starting out either and found it kind of boring at first. It took me a little while to really get into Bruckner. I discovered Bruckner directly after like a year straight of listening to Mahler and the ones I immediately latched onto were Bruckner's 4th & 7th. The others came later. I also highly recommend Otto Klemperer's recordings of 4 & 7. They are full of punch and momentum and kind of turn the idea of Klemperer always being old and slow on it's ear. Those recordings are absolutely ripping! He's faster than Jochum on both of them and I've not heard anyone familiar with Bruckner ever call them boring.


----------



## Chopiniana93

> There are other symphonies with more obvious thematic connections between the movements, the Fourth and Fifth particularly.





> I would maybe try a different Symphony to start if that was your only introduction into Bruckner. The 8th wasn't my favorite starting out either and found it kind of boring at first. It took me a little while to really get into Bruckner. I discovered Bruckner directly after like a year straight of listening to Mahler and the ones I immediately latched onto were Bruckner's 4th & 7th. The others came later.


Thank you both of you! 
I will also listen to other Bruckner's symphonies and then inform you what I think about them.


----------



## Woodduck

GreatFugue said:


> His symphonies seem very -- how should I put it? -- empty... maybe dull would be better. No matter. I just know that it's been a while since I've listened to any of his symphonies (or masses, or anything) but my recollection of his music is just a blur of boredom.
> 
> Passages like, "Bruckner expanded the concept of the symphonic form in ways that have never been witnessed before or since. … When listening to a Bruckner symphony, one encounters some of the most complex symphonic writing ever created. As scholars study Bruckner's scores they continue to revel in the complexity of Bruckner's creative logic", have me thinking I'm missing out on some amazing musical experiences. Is there anything in particular that I should be listening for, or is the previous description just histrionic?
> 
> Any Bruckner advocates out there care to persuade me to give him another chance?


Bruckner is something of a mystery for many people, I think. Here's a little piece I wrote on another thread a while back, attempting to describe what I find peculiar about Bruckner and what it means to me.

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

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

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

In my view, what Bruckner is doing is this: by setting up expectations of formal development through harmonic progression and dynamic growth, yet refusing to allow his musical ideas to fulfill directly the expectations thus set up, but rather parceling them out over a vast soundscape and developing them incrementally, in disjunct stages, he is refusing to allow time to be the final arbiter of form in the very art - namely, music - which most essentially exists in time. And in so refusing, he is stating that what is of ultimate significance in life (of which art is an analogue) is something which includes and pervades the temporal world but exists, unchanging, beyond it.

For Bruckner, this was God. For us who listen to Bruckner, it may be whatever we feel to be transcendent within us. But however we conceive it, it is the thing which makes our experience of his music magnificent and unique."


----------



## helenora

I hope all of us we won't make you confused with different recommendations. it just came to my mind that 6th Symphony Adagio is the most lyrical and pure , one of the most romantic things ( from his symphonies) he has written.( again just my opinion). Even though many consider this symphony more "difficult" to understand , but not me . Give it a try , magical dialogue oboe and strings is not from other world, it's very much of this world, but it sounds otherworldly. 



 well, with Celibidache.


----------



## joen_cph

Woodduck said:


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


Well put I think, and a characterization that explains some of the qualities that makes Bruckner so durable in one´s listening habits: one to return to again and again, due to an inherent "freshness" in the music, IMO.


----------



## superhorn

Composer of A.G . , Bruckner's symphonies are not "formulaic " at all ; they only SEEM that way at first . In fact, they are all vastly different from each other . For example, the 5th is the only one with a slow introduction in the first movement . The scherzo of the 4th is in 2/4 instead of symphonic scherzos which composers usually put in 3/4 . (The original version of the 4th has a completely different one in 3/4 but with cross rhythms which give it a kind of duple meter feeling ).
The first is unusually short for Bruckner, no longer than the familiar Brahms 1st . The 8th and 9th reverse the slow/movement and scherzo order . These are only a few of the vast differences between them, most more subtle than these .


----------



## GreatFugue

GKC said:


> Aren't (at least) 7, 8 and 9 from that set the Berlin Philharmonic ?


You're right. I didn't remember and apparently didn't notice it on the box either. I need to have my eyes/brain checked.


----------



## Guest

To Bruckner or not to Bruckner, that is the question.
Whether 'tis better to spend one's time to suffer
The cow-bells and outrageous dissonances of Mahler,
Or to take Arms against that fellow Brahms,
And by opposing him and Hanslick: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That far-ranging harmonies are heir to? 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; aye, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Which will be pretty soon before I can finish
This damnèd Ninth Symphony must give us pause.
Etc.,
Etc.[SUP][/SUP]


----------



## Dim7

My advice would be that don't Bruckner. Life's too short for trying to force oneself to like stuff there's no particular need to like in the first place....


----------



## GreatFugue

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts! The enthusiasm you all have for Bruckner's music is great.


----------



## joen_cph

Dim7 said:


> My advice would be that don't Bruckner. Life's too short for trying to force oneself to like stuff there's no particular need to like in the first place....


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


----------



## Dim7

What's ?


----------



## hpowders

helenora said:


> I hope all of us we won't make you confused with different recommendations. it just came to my mind that 6th Symphony Adagio is the most lyrical and pure , one of the most romantic things ( from his symphonies) he has written.( again just my opinion). Even though many consider this symphony more "difficult" to understand , but not me . Give it a try , magical dialogue oboe and strings is not from other world, it's very much of this world, but it sounds otherworldly.
> 
> 
> 
> well, with Celibidache.


I am no Bruckner lover, but the adagio from Bruckner's Sixth Symphony is one of my favorite pieces in all of classical music.

Hauntingly beautiful.


----------



## joen_cph

Dim7 said:


> What's ?


 ~ startled

One can debate whether knowing Bruckner is a matter of life and death, but to me he belongs to the core Top 10 group of the most rewarding and durable composers.


----------



## helenora

hpowders said:


> I am no Bruckner lover, but the adagio from Bruckner's Sixth Symphony is one of my favorite pieces in all of classical music.
> 
> Hauntingly beautiful.


 Yes,very well-said. Sometimes I really think I'm addicted to this symphony  didn't want to influence someone by putting here some examples, ( it's not a direct influence for sure, but even indirect influence by sharing, talking can be done and it might prevent others from their own way, kinda rob "new" listeners of pleasure of discovery) but when it's about Bruckner I can't stay silent.


----------



## Cosmos

I really can't add on to what others have said, other than my own experience: When I first found Bruckner, I listened to symphonies 1, 2, and 5. Neither of them really stuck with me. Then, I heard the 9th, which is one of my all time favorite symphonies now. I then went back and listened to the others with a more open mind. The first two are among my least favorites, but I definitely appreciate them more

Like others said, don't force yourself to like it. If you end up not enjoying the music, then so be it. He is a pretty dividing composer [like, people either LOVE him or HATE him]. So if you don't end up on the fonder side, at least find the middle ground of indifference. Maybe you'll come back to him some time in the future and change your mind


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

After only having heard the third mass prior to yesterday, I listened to Bruckner's firs two conducted by Eugene Jochum....man, those who are seeking to enjoy Bruckner only through his symphonies are missing out on some of the most beautiful large scale choral music ever!


----------



## Becca

There are a small number of pieces which I constantly return to when life gets overly stressful and/or depressed, one is Vaughan Williams 5th, the other is Bruckner's 7th, particularly the first two movements. I find that both of them seem to stretch out time and make worries temporarily fade away - or at least seem more manageable.

Incidentally, here are 4 of my favourite hornisten working on the Wagner Tuba section of Bruckner's 7th...






P.S. For those interested, for the RVW 5th - Vernon Handley/RLPO and for the Bruckner 7th - Otto Klemperer/Philharmonia


----------



## Azol

Amazing video, thank you very much for posting it!!!

For Bruckner's Seventh, I usually watch Abbado performing with the Lucerne Festival Orchestra. His treating of the score dynamics especially in the 1st movement is brilliant... pure genius. The long building tympani tremolo passage in the 1st mvmt coda is perfectly balanced against the orchestra - easily one of the best on record.
Chailly also has a very successful recording of the 7th with Berlin RSO.


----------



## helenora

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> After only having heard the third mass prior to yesterday, I listened to Bruckner's firs two conducted by Eugene Jochum....man, those who are seeking to enjoy Bruckner only through his symphonies are missing out on some of the most beautiful large scale choral music ever!


yes, I continue with his masses  today is the third one!
I've just started to think about it, choral music I think and yes, it looked like it's underrated in general or it's just it was underrated by me jeje....now as I think about Bach's choral works, Beethoven's, Schubert's, etc they all are great. They kind of combine in themselves symphonies, operas, songs/ Lieder....so are my random thoughts on the subject


----------



## helenora

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


Thank you very much for this post, Woodduck!Meaningful post.... I like your observations , thoughts , and they are nicely expressed. 
PS Today I had time to read the forum and not just to post


----------



## AndorFoldes

Bruckner is typically not the first stop on the symphonic journey, but rather a composer that will reward you after you have indulged in lighter fare.

Bruckner's greatest symphony is the 8th. Despite clocking in around 80 minutes, it is a work that is quite easy to understand, and its themes are deceptively simple.

As a simple man from the countryside, Bruckner belongs to the same category of composers as Dvorak. But unlike Dvorak, Bruckner had very strong ideas about faith, and this is the side of him that can be unsettling.

Apart from that, one of his interests was Mexico and Emperor Maximilian, the influence of which can be heard in the 6th symphony.


----------



## Chopiniana93

helenora said:


> I hope all of us we won't make you confused with different recommendations. it just came to my mind that 6th Symphony Adagio is the most lyrical and pure , one of the most romantic things ( from his symphonies) he has written.( again just my opinion). Even though many consider this symphony more "difficult" to understand , but not me . Give it a try , magical dialogue oboe and strings is not from other world, it's very much of this world, but it sounds otherworldly.
> 
> 
> 
> well, with Celibidache.


It's beautiful...it's overwordly, as you said!  I will listen to all the symphony now and then tell you my opinion  thanks, helenora!


----------



## EdwardBast

I have tried repeatedly to find value in Bruckner's symphonies but have failed to do so. I simply find nothing interesting in them, melodically, harmonically, contrapuntally. Why bother? There is plenty of other music to listen to. Listen to what your ears have told you and own it.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> I have tried repeatedly to find value in Bruckner's symphonies but have failed to do so. I simply find nothing interesting in them, melodically, harmonically, contrapuntally. Why bother? There is plenty of other music to listen to. Listen to what your ears have told you and own it.


Yeah, you're right Ed. That's how I feel about Beethoven. Right?


----------



## Dim7

joen_cph said:


> ~ startled
> 
> One can debate whether knowing Bruckner is a matter of life and death, but to me he belongs to the core Top 10 group of the most rewarding and durable composers.


Don't get me wrong, he's one of my favorites too. Just that if someone doesn't "get" him, there's little point in trying to when there is music one "gets" without having to try.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl

I'm ambivalent toward Bruckner. I loved the 8 and 9, however the others of his symphonies I have listened I only liked certain parts.


----------



## Becca

I started off by being introduced to the 4th - it took a while but I found it interesting. Then, over time, I got to know the 7th, 9th and then 6th. It is only in more recent years that I have come to appreciate the 8th with the help of Barbirolli. The others, well until very recently the 5th didn't do anything for me (or was it HvK?) but that has changed with Wand. I still am ambivalent about the 3rd and have not made any real effort with the earlier works.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Becca said:


> I started off by being introduced to the 4th - it took a while but I found it interesting. Then, over time, I got to know the 7th, 9th and then 6th. It is only in more recent years that I have come to appreciate the 8th with the help of Barbirolli. The others, well until very recently the 5th didn't do anything for me (or was it HvK?) but that has changed Wand. I still am ambivalent about the 3rd and have not made any real effort with the earlier works.


You might like to check out the original version of the third.


----------



## Mahlerian

Becca said:


> I still am ambivalent about the 3rd and have not made any real effort with the earlier works.


ComposerOfAvantGarde is right. The revised versions of the Third are trash. Listen to the original before judging the work. Robert Simpson reversed his negative appraisal after hearing it.


----------



## helenora

Mahlerian said:


> ComposerOfAvantGarde is right. The revised versions of the Third are trash. Listen to the original before judging the work. Robert Simpson reversed his negative appraisal after hearing it.


the 3rd is wonderful, one of my favorites


----------



## violadude

Mahlerian said:


> ComposerOfAvantGarde is right. The revised versions of the Third are trash. Listen to the original before judging the work. Robert Simpson reversed his negative appraisal after hearing it.


Wow, Mahlerian, you really having a burning, passionate hatred for the revised versions of the Third, huh? :lol:


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

He's been going rad lately. He'll soon change his username to 'Schoenbergian'.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Richannes Wrahms said:


> He's been going rad lately. He'll soon change his username to 'Schoenbergian'.


Agreed. If he goes so far as to say that all recordings of revised Bruckner 3 should be destroyed he might even change his username to 'Boulezian' with that attitude!


----------



## Mahlerian

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Agreed. If he goes so far as to say that all recordings of revised Bruckner 3 should be destroyed he might even change his username to 'Boulezian' with that attitude!


Well, do you disagree?

There happens to already be a Boulezian, actually...http://boulezian.blogspot.com/


----------



## bz3

RE: title - I have given this consideration. Which symphony is a good starting point, that balances both his vision and my newness to his style?


----------



## Mahlerian

bz3 said:


> RE: title - I have given this consideration. Which symphony is a good starting point, that balances both his vision and my newness to his style?


The Fourth and the Seventh are the most popular, and many prefer them. Perhaps one of those would be a good point of entry?


----------



## bz3

4 sounds good, must start somewhere. I listened to the 6th's Adagio that was linked on the first page of this thread and very much enjoyed it.


----------



## Vaneyes

To the OPie, you've got as good a boxset as there is. Unless you're age 90, give Anton an extended break, and come back to it. :tiphat:


----------



## Triplets

He treats the Orchestra like it is an Organ. Once you grasp that, appreciation follows


----------



## Manxfeeder

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is his rhythmic layering. Brahms liked rhythm shifts, but at times Bruckner would have two, three, or four different rhythms going in different voices at the same time.


----------



## padraic

Triplets said:


> He treats the Orchestra like it is an Organ. Once you grasp that, appreciation follows


So true! I have really been hearing and thinking the same as of late.


----------



## Guest

Triplets said:


> He treats the Orchestra like it is an Organ. Once you grasp that, appreciation follows


Hmm. I have heard this argument before, of course. It is true that Bruckner played the organ. So did Bach. And so did Beethoven. Does this mean that they too treated the orchestra as if it were an organ? I think this argument of yours is suspect.


----------



## helenora

bz3 said:


> 4 sounds good, must start somewhere. I listened to the 6th's Adagio that was linked on the first page of this thread and very much enjoyed it.


despite of being "Romantic" 4th is the most classical IMO. If you enjoy Beethoven a good start would be the 3rd, for me this symphony is Beethoven-like , even some associations with Beethoven's 3rd.


----------



## bz3

helenora said:


> despite of being "Romantic" 4th is the most classical IMO. If you enjoy Beethoven a good start would be the 3rd, for me this symphony is Beethoven-like , even some associations with Beethoven's 3rd.


Thanks I might, I listened to the 4th's 1st movement tonight and that was all I really wanted to hear. Too much brass for a Monday.


----------



## TxllxT

I think one problem with listening to Bruckner is the audio system: many people happen to have these tiny milk packages with a laughable 'subwoofer' hidden in a corner. You really need to feel the brass blaring on your stomach and see angry neighbours banging on your windows. Bruckner is the subversive equivalent of 'heavy metal', but the forces unleashed are incomparably more obsessively haunting into the ears & brain-cells. Bruckner's music needs to be literally heartfelt.


----------



## Vaneyes

TxllxT said:


> I think one problem with listening to Bruckner is the audio system: many people happen to have these tiny milk packages with a laughable 'subwoofer' hidden in a corner. You really need to feel the brass blaring on your stomach and see angry neighbours banging on your windows. Bruckner is the subversive equivalent of 'heavy metal', but the forces unleashed are incomparably more obsessively haunting into the ears & brain-cells. Bruckner's music needs to be literally heartfelt.


Heartfelt, without a concussion.


----------



## helenora

TxllxT said:


> I think one problem with listening to Bruckner is the audio system: many people happen to have these tiny milk packages with a laughable 'subwoofer' hidden in a corner. You really need to feel the brass blaring on your stomach and see angry neighbours banging on your windows. Bruckner is the subversive equivalent of 'heavy metal', but the forces unleashed are incomparably more obsessively haunting into the ears & brain-cells. Bruckner's music needs to be literally heartfelt.


this is true for Mahler and Wagner as well


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I found this arrangement a while back. I'm not sure about the balance, but I have to say it sounds very refreshing without all that heavy brass and mass of strings.


----------



## Flamme

helenora said:


> I hope all of us we won't make you confused with different recommendations. it just came to my mind that 6th Symphony Adagio is the most lyrical and pure , one of the most romantic things ( from his symphonies) he has written.( again just my opinion). Even though many consider this symphony more "difficult" to understand , but not me . Give it a try , magical dialogue oboe and strings is not from other world, it's very much of this world, but it sounds otherworldly.
> 
> 
> 
> well, with Celibidache.


I was not quite familiar with Bruckner, but this sounds kind of neat...Calming and harmonic, very melodic...


----------



## helenora

Flamme said:


> I was not quite familiar with Bruckner, but this sounds kind of neat...Calming and harmonic, very melodic...


Bruckner isn't always like this  But this movement is more of a traditional romantic-like composition, good way to start being more familiar with his works and not to be "shocked" with a power of his orchestra in other movements and symphonies. But I think many Adagios from his symphonies have these quality of sound which attracts you , neat....probably I personally wouldn't use this word to describe this music , but I understand what you mean by this word and therefore all other Adagios have these characteristics : Adagios from 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th - the last one would be more difficult to grasp from the beginning since it's quite long in terms of time, that's why probably it's not a right beginning . Some people do suggest this 8th symphony as his ultimate masterpiece and so to start with, without negating it and very much agree about it being a masterpiece I wouldn't suggest this symphony as a "starter", because we always must remember one of the most difficult aspects of Bruckner's music is length of his compositions and it's not a last factor which impedes people from appreciating his symphonies. It's not that easy simply to follow how his compositions develop in time, for that one must be prepared in some way. "Time" is one of the main "subjects" in his works as soon as listener can deal with that, then it's more than a half of the riddle is solved.....and here the door to admiring his music is opened. It reminds me to some extend Schubert's "long" notes and "long" pauses. They are an obstacle preventing from enjoyment for some ( who don't understand  ) and it's the very same long notes and pauses which make his music so beautiful and decidedly incomparable with other composers. The very same element which is hated by some is the source of enjoyment for others. Same for Bruckner, some can't stand the length of his symphonies, they simply can't get over this barrier , the others can't live without his lengthy profoundly admirable "long boas"


----------



## starthrower

Triplets said:


> He treats the Orchestra like it is an Organ. Once you grasp that, appreciation follows


Oh, Oh, Ohhhh...Yes!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Well you judge on that, here's Bruckner Symphony No.8 transcribed for organ

I think he thought more in terms of choirs than the organ per se.


----------



## TxllxT




----------



## TxllxT

I like the piano more than the organ...


----------



## Guest

^ For a very brief moment the opening of the piano arrangement you give TxllxT reminds me rather of the Variation XX in Beethoven's Diabelli Variations. Am I going mad?


----------



## Guest

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Well you judge on that, here's Bruckner Symphony No.8 transcribed for organ
> I think he thought more in terms of choirs than the organ per se.


Nice post, RW, thanks for that. I think he thought in terms of the orchestra when he wrote his symphonies.


----------



## TxllxT

TalkingHead said:


> ^ For a very brief moment the opening of the piano arrangement you give TxllxT reminds me rather of the Variation XX in Beethoven's Diabelli Variations. Am I going mad?


I don't what's going on in your head


----------



## kyf

We may have made a connection to Bruckner's music in a way that we may not have realized. Please read this report: http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/39/09/pearlman/

A passage from the above report: After McLean has pointed out that one of Bruckner's biggest fans was fellow Austrian Adolf Hitler, Pearlman elaborates. "We owe the creation of heavy metal to the Third Reich," he says, "because a lot of the Jewish composers who left Europe went on to compose for Hollywood horror films. They exposed kids to a Brucknerian vocabulary and it subsequently morphed into heavy metal."

There is also a McGill Podcast http://podcasts.mcgill.ca/music/what-to-listen-for-bruckner-and-heavy-metal/.

Listen to the No. 9 Scherzo and compare it to music from the movie Psycho. You'll easily hear what they mean.

I don't know why this is not more well known; and it seems that many people are confused about the nature of Bruckner's music and why they like/dislike it.


----------



## Pugg

kyf said:


> We may have made a connection to Bruckner's music in a way that we may not have realized. Please read this report: http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/39/09/pearlman/
> 
> A passage from the above report: After McLean has pointed out that one of Bruckner's biggest fans was fellow Austrian Adolf Hitler, Pearlman elaborates. "We owe the creation of heavy metal to the Third Reich," he says, "because a lot of the Jewish composers who left Europe went on to compose for Hollywood horror films. They exposed kids to a Brucknerian vocabulary and it subsequently morphed into heavy metal."
> 
> There is also a McGill Podcast http://podcasts.mcgill.ca/music/what-to-listen-for-bruckner-and-heavy-metal/.
> 
> Listen to the No. 9 Scherzo and compare it to music from the movie Psycho. You'll easily hear what they mean.
> 
> I don't know why this is not more well known; and it seems that many people are confused about the nature of Bruckner's music and why they like/dislike it.


Thanks for sharing and a very arm welcome to Talk Classical.


----------



## Granate

kyf said:


> We may have made a connection to Bruckner's music in a way that we may not have realized. Please read this report: http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/39/09/pearlman/
> 
> I don't know why this is not more well known; and it seems that many people are confused about the nature of Bruckner's music and why they like/dislike it.


Welcome to TC. There is a *New members - Introductions* thread where we can greet you properly. Here's another Bruckner sadist currently doing a recording challenge of all his symphonies. You can find them on this Orchestral Music section.

I don't know what to say about this theory. I reckon Bruckner's music as a prelude for Soundtrack music composition as many sections of Bruckner have light music that I can pass by and be relaxed, whereas there is a repetition of a number of themes that are the most memorable. I find Bruckner symphonies as the most suitable pieces to listen while I study.


----------



## DeepR

Symphony 8 Movement 3 is an almost impossibly great piece of music. I don't see how anything can be better.
If this would've been a standalone piece and his only composition I would still consider him a god of music. So yes, to Bruckner!


----------



## kyf

Pugg said:


> Thanks for sharing and a very arm welcome to Talk Classical.


Thank you Pugg and Granate.



Granate said:


> I don't know what to say about this theory.


 Well, it is not just a theory, because Pearlman was a music producer who had inside knowledge of the musical trade. He is at least a link in a chain of documents/proofs. Another person in the article performs both in Death Metal bands and in choirs.

Why is this useful for people who like Bruckner? Well, because Bruckner is so odd/unique in "Classical" music; so it may be difficult to find more similar pieces to listen to.

But seriously, read the article http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/39/09/pearlman/ and perhaps try some other "Headbanging" music. Just google "Death Metal" bands, the band Cannibal Corpse, etc. They might give you joy and solace too. Maybe better.


----------

