# Help me get Bruckner



## Totenfeier

For a long time, I, unfairly, never having listened to much of his music, thought of Bruckner as a second-or-third-rate Brahms-Mahler hybrid hack. I'm just beginning to get into him now, but there is one thing that is still a sticking-point with me, and I wonder if anyone can explain it to me: what's with the over-and-over-and-over-and-over repetition of a figure or motif? I'm only really familiar with the 7th and 8th (well, semi-acquainted with, anyway), and I can't decide if this characteristic drives me nuts or to tears. I know there's something big and wonderful in the music - what's he doing?


----------



## Xaltotun

If you're not going to dig that repetition, you're not going to love Bruckner - I mean, it's no use trying to love him for all the other stuff and gritting your teeth through the repetition. Repetition is an essential trait of Bruckner's music.

Then, how could you learn to love that, if it doesn't come automatically? I can only write some poetry about it.

There is a limit to a man's capability of understanding. When you are faced with things that go over your capacity, you get that short-circuit - you get numbed, overwhelmed by that experience. But you cannot walk away from this sublime assault this time; either God comes to you or you _must_ go to God, again and again. Yet - wham! you try to understand, try to get that logic running, but no - your mind pulls the stops, your body paralyzes. This sounds unpleasant and distressing. But it's also a major trait of us as human beings. We have our limits, yet we try to overcome them. However, we're not talking about Nietzsche but St. Augustine here. One that rebels and runs until something is broken inside, and that humiliation is the final victory. Faith and doubt, feast and famine, indulgence and abstinence... it's not an organic, growing thing; it's not a carefully progressing argument. It's dialectic at the very least, and more likely a substitution of opposites until they do _not_ melt in a synthesis, but _break_ something in the poor subject doing this Jacob's wrestling.

Sin and grace, sin and grace, black and white, onward to the utter annihilation of the self! The spires of gothic cathedrals have those unending rows of protuberances. Higher and higher they rise, repeating themselves, to reach the cross at the top. History does progress towards and end point, but moments in time are not unique - they are caused by mythical, primal forces, and every instance is just a repetition of the original acts of creation. This does not lead to an unending cycle of day and night, summer and winter, but the cycle is broken at some point... when the subject is broken. Then, a new reality shines through the mythical cycle, everything remains the same but a new understanding is reached. What is outside the self is immobile as marble and rock, but the self itself must change. Law remains immutable; grace sets one free. Gaze at the Medusa. Turn to stone. Join the ranks of marble statues. When there is no freedom, there comes a new and ultimate freedom.

That's what I feel sometimes when I'm listening to Bruckner's repeats.


----------



## brucknerian

Thanks for that wonderful piece of poetry, Xaltotun.

As a Bruckner lover myself, I can contribute my own poetic description, from contemplating this great music.

Firstly, spaciousness. I love the feeling of being in a place much larger than I am, but finding my own little world within that place. This has affected my choice of career, in fact. I've always preferred working for larger corporations/institutions, and on large projects, but in which I can work on one small piece and feel safe and at home in it. I feel separate but also connected to a larger, greater world. I've also always loved looking up and the moon and stars, and imagining how far away they are. My favorite movie since childhood was 2001: A Space Odyssey, again, because of the feeling of being enveloped in a vast, slow-moving expanse of space. And I get this exact same feeling from Bruckner's symphonies. Probably the most from the 9th Symphony, but it's similar with all the others. The repetition and lengthiness gives space to my mind and my emotions. Every time I hear a phrase, I imagine it a little differently, or hear different instruments, or appreciate the feeling at a higher level. Like Celibidache said during interviews, there is no real repetition, because every time is different!

Secondly, the power/glory/grandiosity. Religiously, I was brought up in a protestant-ish cult, and while I connected with some aspects of that, one thing I felt was missing was a real sense of grandeur. Our church was so dull and plain, no ornamentation, very little color. The hymns were similarly dull and plain, with only piano accompaniment. Contrast that with the big Catholic cathedrals, most of all Bruckner's own native Sankt Florian. Enormous marble pillars, glossy floors, giant frescoes and ornate decorations. I eventually turned atheist, but I must confess, visiting that cathedral filled me with something akin to religious ecstasy. Bruckner's music is exactly like the surroundings he composed it in. And the emotions are so grand. The climax of the first movement of the 7th symphony for example. It just keeps going and going! It's generous and overflowing. It gives you all of itself, holding nothing back.

Thirdly, the humility. This isn't "perfect" music, and I don't think it's trying to be. Bruckner, being a catholic, was aware of sin, and wasn't trying to pretend he could create anything sinless, though he did revise his work many times, reaching up, as it were, to the platonic ideal. There's actually a very beautiful sense of tragedy in the music. It aspires to greatness, but it fails. It is oversized, over-orchestrated, perhaps even over-stated. But I love that, because that's what life is like. Life is redundant and repetitive. Life is imperfect. Life is organic - things grow into other things, without plan or purpose. The humility of the music makes it capable of reflecting life, for me at least.

I suppose, for all of the reasons given above, I find Mahler's music a little less close to my heart, though I love it too. I feel that Mahler was a complicated person and his music is likewise complicated. There's a lot of "content" in those symphonies. I don't come to music wanting to follow a complex plot, as I might, say, with a novel or a dramatic movie. In fact, even novels and dramatic movies aren't really my thing. I come to music as I would to say a prayer, or confide in a close friend, or make a pilgrimage. I want to be completely absorbed in the atmosphere and lost in the experience, forgetting that I even exist.


----------



## Cosmos

I can't say anything that wasn't already beautifully put [and better put together than I could ever write] by Xaltotun and brucknerian.

But I would recommend listening to Bruckner's sacred music: His three masses, the Te Deum, or his motets. The Te Deum is the shortest, the Mass no. 3 is my personal favorite.

Since Bruckner's symphonies can be seen as having a 'religious' tone to them, try listening to his religious works, and perhaps come back to the symphonies afterward to see if you can make connections.


----------



## Bruckner Anton

Bruckner is no second-rate Brahms or Mahler. In fact, for Mahler, Bruckner is a godlike figure. To understand Bruckner's music, we must have at least some general awareness of musical tools/techniques. 
For example, most Bruckner symphonies are clearly further evoluted from those of Beethoven. Beethoven begins his 9th with a very basic motif so brief that we can not even identify whether it is in major or in minor. Then, the motif gradually builds two thematic climaxes that have different keys and thus imply contrasting moods. That is how Beethoven worked out a symphony, and that is one reason why his works are so convincing. Bruckner took similar approaches in many of his works (symphony 4 and 9 for instance). So we rarely hear a straight-forward melodic theme fully played at the beginning of his symphony, because themes need to be built from basic ideas step-by-step, and we need to get the rich content during the process. Usually, the "repetition" sensed by audience is not actually a repeat, but several developments or restatements. Of course, there are many ways to treat motifs/materials in his symphony, and I can not mention here.
Another example is polyphonic textures. Beethoven often use fugato/fugue in his work (e.x. the scherzo of his 9th), and Bruckner applies fugatos even more frequently in order to best explore the idea. He sometimes combines large form with fugues, e.x. the finale of his fifth is a extremely complex combination of fugues and expanded sonata-allegro form, which recalls us the finale of Mozart symphony 41. 
Above are only a few of my random humble thoughts. Bruckner symphonies took generations of music scholars to study. I am sure you can find more useful and instructive information from books in the libruary.


----------



## gardibolt

I can sympathize with the OP. I've tried many many times to get both Mahler and Bruckner. While I've made some headway with Mahler, other than parts of the third and fourth symphonies, I can't make heads or tails out of Bruckner. It just feels like nothing but transitions that never go anywhere. Sometimes the wiring just doesn't connect like it does for other people, I guess.


----------



## Mahlerian

Bruckner Anton said:


> Bruckner is no second-rate Brahms or Mahler. In fact, for Mahler, Bruckner is a godlike figure.


Well, the actual line was "Half simpleton, half god," and he did have a lot of problems with Bruckner's music. Keep in mind, though, that the versions he had access to were exclusively the first published versions which nobody sees as legitimate today.


----------



## Bruckner Anton

Mahlerian said:


> Well, the actual line was "Half simpleton, half god," and he did have a lot of problems with Bruckner's music. Keep in mind, though, that the versions he had access to were exclusively the first published versions which nobody sees as legitimate today.


Thanks for your correction. Bruckner revised his symphonies through his life, but even his very first versions are good enough to place him among the greatest symphonists. I think Mahler could see it easily.


----------



## brucknerian

gardibolt said:


> It just feels like nothing but transitions that never go anywhere. Sometimes the wiring just doesn't connect like it does for other people, I guess.


I have to sympathize with you here, and to be honest, I often feel the same way too, despite also loving Bruckner. It's difficult music in various ways.


----------



## TxllxT

Totenfeier said:


> For a long time, I, unfairly, never having listened to much of his music, thought of Bruckner as a second-or-third-rate Brahms-Mahler hybrid hack. I'm just beginning to get into him now, but there is one thing that is still a sticking-point with me, and I wonder if anyone can explain it to me: what's with the over-and-over-and-over-and-over repetition of a figure or motif? I'm only really familiar with the 7th and 8th (well, semi-acquainted with, anyway), and I can't decide if this characteristic drives me nuts or to tears. I know there's something big and wonderful in the music - what's he doing?


I wonder why I never notice repetition in Bruckner. It is a build-up, but each layer is new, as in building the tower of Babylon: it brings you closer to heaven. As soon as I hear a repetitive interpretation, I know it is a wrong interpretation of music. It's just laziness or treason.


----------



## Mahlerian

Bruckner Anton said:


> Thanks for your correction. Bruckner revised his symphonies through his life, but even his very first versions are good enough to place him among the greatest symphonists. I think Mahler could see it easily.


I think his first versions are often far better than the published revisions, and this is especially true in the case of the Third.

Mahler conducted Bruckner's music a number of times, but it didn't appear on his programs with the regularity of Brahms or Tchaikovsky, let alone Wagner or Mozart or Beethoven.


----------



## jimsumner

You have to be in the right mood. You cannot be in a hurry, you cannot be distracted. Just let the music wash over you.


----------



## Pugg

I am curious what O.P has to say after this advice and all other topic's about Bruckner


----------



## brucknerian

Pugg said:


> I am curious what O.P has to say after this advice and all other topic's about Bruckner


Hahaha agreed! Hopefully OP is immersed in some wondrous music, Bruckner or otherwise.


----------



## brucknerian

The first time I heard any Bruckner was on a documentary about Sergiu Celibidache, where he rehearses the 9th. I was really struck by that mysterious theme in the 9th that comes at the beginning and end of the first movement.

Then I downloaded one of the symphonies and put it on in the background while I was cleaning up my room. I didn't even notice it much until one of those massive climaxes hit, and then I was really taken aback by what a rush it gave me.

I also fast-forwarded to the ends of many of the symphonies and was impressed/fascinated by the long, drawn-out finales, unlike many other pieces I'd heard where the finales ended a bit abruptly.


----------



## kanishknishar

Xaltotun said:


> If you're not going to dig that repetition, you're not going to love Bruckner - I mean, it's no use trying to love him for all the other stuff and gritting your teeth through the repetition. Repetition is an essential trait of Bruckner's music.
> 
> Then, how could you learn to love that, if it doesn't come automatically? I can only write some poetry about it.
> 
> There is a limit to a man's capability of understanding. When you are faced with things that go over your capacity, you get that short-circuit - you get numbed, overwhelmed by that experience. But you cannot walk away from this sublime assault this time; either God comes to you or you _must_ go to God, again and again. Yet - wham! you try to understand, try to get that logic running, but no - your mind pulls the stops, your body paralyzes. This sounds unpleasant and distressing. But it's also a major trait of us as human beings. We have our limits, yet we try to overcome them. However, we're not talking about Nietzsche but St. Augustine here. One that rebels and runs until something is broken inside, and that humiliation is the final victory. Faith and doubt, feast and famine, indulgence and abstinence... it's not an organic, growing thing; it's not a carefully progressing argument. It's dialectic at the very least, and more likely a substitution of opposites until they do _not_ melt in a synthesis, but _break_ something in the poor subject doing this Jacob's wrestling.
> 
> Sin and grace, sin and grace, black and white, onward to the utter annihilation of the self! The spires of gothic cathedrals have those unending rows of protuberances. Higher and higher they rise, repeating themselves, to reach the cross at the top. History does progress towards and end point, but moments in time are not unique - they are caused by mythical, primal forces, and every instance is just a repetition of the original acts of creation. This does not lead to an unending cycle of day and night, summer and winter, but the cycle is broken at some point... when the subject is broken. Then, a new reality shines through the mythical cycle, everything remains the same but a new understanding is reached. What is outside the self is immobile as marble and rock, but the self itself must change. Law remains immutable; grace sets one free. Gaze at the Medusa. Turn to stone. Join the ranks of marble statues. When there is no freedom, there comes a new and ultimate freedom.
> 
> That's what I feel sometimes when I'm listening to Bruckner's repeats.


Now I feel shallow. My reaction to his music have been of enjoyment, of awe, of profoundity. But never so deep or heartfelt. You really have a special connection. Or maybe it is just the youth...



Mahlerian said:


> Well, the actual line was "Half simpleton, half god," and he did have a lot of problems with Bruckner's music. Keep in mind, though, that the versions he had access to were exclusively the first published versions which nobody sees as legitimate today.


Aside from numbers 3 and 4, none of the changes to the symphonies were so drastic as to cause complete reassessment, M-Bear. Even if Mahler had heard the works in their original versions, he wouldn't have changed his verdict from "half God" to "God!".



Totenfeier said:


> For a long time, I, unfairly, never having listened to much of his music, thought of Bruckner as a second-or-third-rate Brahms-Mahler hybrid hack. I'm just beginning to get into him now, but there is one thing that is still a sticking-point with me, and I wonder if anyone can explain it to me: what's with the over-and-over-and-over-and-over repetition of a figure or motif? I'm only really familiar with the 7th and 8th (well, semi-acquainted with, anyway), and I can't decide if this characteristic drives me nuts or to tears. I know there's something big and wonderful in the music - what's he doing?


Well, first you must suspend your predisposition of seeing the repetition as boring. Or even see the restatement as repetition. Bruckner has got tons of tricks up his sleeve, he's doing something subtly new at every turn. You must simply get more sensitive to these changes and familiar with these works. Also, don't stress yourself over out over this. It's OK to not like every composer you listen to. Maybe at this turn you're not going to get him - no matter how much of his life you read [which is an utter waste of time, IMO], get a score in hand and follow along with the music, try a dozen interpretations - and you should accept that and maybe try again after a couple of years.

I didn't like Bruckner either, but this got me into Bruckner:


----------



## DeepR

Mahlerian said:


> Well, the actual line was "Half simpleton, half god"


I'd say that averages out as genius.


----------



## DeepR

I feel it's okay to listen to his long symphonies in parts.
I listened to the 8th in its entirety a couple of times but I couldn't really connect to it. Then I worked my way backwards through the movements and spend a lot of time on each movement separately. I got to know the piece really well. Now I love it to death.
You need to be patient and let it reveal itself to you.


----------



## tdc

Maybe I too need to be patient but at the moment the unfinished 9th strikes me as the only truly great symphony by Bruckner. All of the others have some very impressive moments in them but the structures just do not hold up for me. Its like listening to a composer with no sense of direction or focus. A composer who does not know what they want to say, yet manages to find a lot of very cool sounds and textures in the process of figuring it out.


----------



## hpowders

Totenfeier said:


> For a long time, I, unfairly, never having listened to much of his music, thought of Bruckner as a second-or-third-rate Brahms-Mahler hybrid hack. I'm just beginning to get into him now, but there is one thing that is still a sticking-point with me, and I wonder if anyone can explain it to me: what's with the over-and-over-and-over-and-over repetition of a figure or motif? I'm only really familiar with the 7th and 8th (well, semi-acquainted with, anyway), and I can't decide if this characteristic drives me nuts or to tears. I know there's something big and wonderful in the music - what's he doing?


It only drives me nuts in the unrelenting scherzos.


----------



## Triplets

Totenfeier said:


> For a long time, I, unfairly, never having listened to much of his music, thought of Bruckner as a second-or-third-rate Brahms-Mahler hybrid hack. I'm just beginning to get into him now, but there is one thing that is still a sticking-point with me, and I wonder if anyone can explain it to me: what's with the over-and-over-and-over-and-over repetition of a figure or motif? I'm only really familiar with the 7th and 8th (well, semi-acquainted with, anyway), and I can't decide if this characteristic drives me nuts or to tears. I know there's something big and wonderful in the music - what's he doing?


Bruckner may have been a proto minimalist. If you listen to the repetitive stuff closely, you can detect subtle changes with the repetitions: perhaps a brief counter melody, or a new flute figure, or whatever. He was an Organist and treated the Orchestra like an Organ, with many changes in color, dynamics, etc as themes are repeated. Bruckner, perhaps more than any other Great Composer, requires a Conductor that understands his ethos, can enliven the music from within, give it the appearance of forward motion while smelling the roses along the way. Well meaning but clueless Conductors can be fatal to him.


----------



## tdc

Herrenvolk said:


> I didn't like Bruckner either, but this got me into Bruckner:


Thanks for posting that, it reminded me of how amazing that work is, but I'm not sure it is really a gateway piece to Bruckner Symphonies because it is so different than the others. Every section of it seems to flow logically to the next section, its just a shame he couldn't keep on composing when it seems he had really got the formula right.


----------



## dieter

*Surrender.*

It took me ages to get into Bruckner as well. I started with the 4th - the Kertesz LSO recording - but unfortunately my next bite of the cherry was the Westminster 8th with Knappertsbusch and a Munich Orchestra. It is woefully lacking in animation. I got to know and love the 7th, the 6th, which I found and still find unrelentingly fascinating, but, by and large, Bruckner was a bit of an also ran for me.
Then one day I walked into a record store in Melbourne and there was this fantastic, frenetic and awesome music playing. I was transfixed. It was the right moment for me: the penny dropped, whoever wrote this music was a rip roaring genius.
It turned out to be the finale of the 8th, Jochum's Dresden recording.
So, yes, under Knappertsbusch, this music was boring and repetitious and tedious, although there is a Knappertsbusch Berlin live recording from 1954 or so which is sensational,but I wasn't getting the full picture.
From there I explored all of Bruckner. I did this by surrendering to the music, by not having any expectations. I'm glad I did. No music affects me as much as Brucker's music now.


----------



## hpowders

OP: I can tell you where to dig, but you would no longer recognize him.


----------



## majlis

I like him. His string quartet and quintet. Only works I ever listened, or would listen from him.


----------



## Totenfeier

TxllxT said:


> I wonder why I never notice repetition in Bruckner. It is a build-up, but each layer is new, as in building the tower of Babylon: it brings you closer to heaven. As soon as I hear a repetitive interpretation, I know it is a wrong interpretation of music. It's just laziness or treason.


The O.P. thanks all of you for you advice and counsel; I think one thing I discovered on my own last week was this tower of Babylon thing. Most symphonies seem (to me) _horizontal_; they are going somewhere; they are telling a story. I now am beginning to realize the _vertical_ nature of Bruckner. It is architectural, monumental - the "sonic cathedral" thing is dawning on me.


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> Maybe I too need to be patient but at the moment the unfinished 9th strikes me as the only truly great symphony by Bruckner. All of the others have some very impressive moments in them but the structures just do not hold up for me. Its like listening to a composer with no sense of direction or focus. A composer who does not know what they want to say, yet manages to find a lot of very cool sounds and textures in the process of figuring it out.


I agree with this, except for the bits about a "truly great symphony" and "very impressive moments."


----------



## Mahlerian

tdc said:


> Maybe I too need to be patient but at the moment the unfinished 9th strikes me as the only truly great symphony by Bruckner. All of the others have some very impressive moments in them but the structures just do not hold up for me. Its like listening to a composer with no sense of direction or focus. A composer who does not know what they want to say, yet manages to find a lot of very cool sounds and textures in the process of figuring it out.


My experience is the exact opposite. Despite the clumsiness of many of the individual moments and themes in Bruckner's works, his sense of scale and architecture, along with his harmonic depth, manages to render the works compelling (when they work, anyway, which they don't always).


----------



## clavichorder

It can also be ear opening to experience his very best symphonies live in the concert hall. My personal connection to him increased greatly after hearing the 8th live. It was one of the most powerful experiences I had ever had live, and before the concert, the conductor actually gave a little lecture that I attended. The memorable thing he said that reinforced my understanding of how the length and slow evolution of Bruckner are not to be seen as defects, and are strengths, unique qualities. Especially in today's world of instant gratification, he has this capacity to take us into a sound space of timelessness.


----------



## DeepR

I'll try my best to describe my experience with the 8th, the Bruckner symphony I know best. The building blocks of this music are a bit crude and "square", especially in the rhythmic department, not very elegant, but the way he uses those building blocks to create giant overall structures is something I haven't heard in other music. 
The sudden halts and sudden shifts, when rising expectations are not met, seem random and pointless at first, but later you'll realize it's all part of an elaborate plan to make the most crucial moment have enormous impact, when it finally arrives. Those moments are so powerful and triumphant that it was all worth the wait. And the journey towards them starts to make more and more sense the more you listen.


----------



## Vaneyes

Re tough nuts to crack, Bruckner's no different. Listen to lots of recs. More often than not, you'll find readings and sound engineering that help you break on through to the other side. Not all Bruckner or any other composer is created equal. Dedicated listening is not for sissies.


----------



## kyf

Maybe this article will help you: http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/39/09/pearlman/

This article is about the connection between Bruckner and Heavy Metal and Death Metal music. Sandy Pearlman was a music producer who had inside knowledge of the music trade.

A passage from the article: 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."

Because Bruckner is so odd/unique in "Classical" music; so it may be difficult to find more similar pieces to listen to. People who like Bruckner should try some other "Headbanging," Heavy Metal, or Death Metal music. May like them better.


----------



## techniquest

My goodness, there are a lot of Bruckner threads at the moment!
I'm still trying to get him myself, so I can be of little help other than sharing your frustration.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

hpowders said:


> It only drives me nuts in the unrelenting scherzos.


Yep, same here, especially in the Ninth.


----------



## Granate

techniquest said:


> My goodness, there are a lot of Bruckner threads at the moment!
> I'm still trying to get him myself, so I can be of little help other than sharing your frustration.


It's partially my fault, and I had been posting my own ranks only on Current Listening and in Orchestral music, but then this kyf has started to spam *4 times* in *4 almost-dead threads* this 2007 non-responsive web article about a Rock-metal producer comparing Metal and Bruckner, which I find really interesting, but it's not going to drive me into that genre.

So please, kyf, I find your thoughts interesting, but don't sign in into a forum to just republish a 10-year-old article. Show us you are a human being and give your own thoughts, even if they are as ignorant and non-chalant as mine.


----------



## Merl

I got into the 4th symphony first and then the 7th. I'd highly recommend Simone Young's readings of his symphonies. Beautifully recorded and played.


----------



## Totenfeier

Hello! Totenfeier checking back in. Not only have I gotten Bruckner, he has gotten me in a very, very big way. In fact, (gulp), I...I must confess that I have been, um, unfaithful to Mahler. That is right - i'm officially Alma. Bless me, Mahler, for I have sinned, and my Gropius is that bold, saucy cheeky wench called Bruckner's Sixth. Where-the-hell has THIS been all my life!? I've finished listening to Skrowaczewski and Sawallisch, all in the last couple of hours, and am on Klemp right now, and...and...excuse me. :devil:


----------



## Rach Man

The reason that they make vanilla and chocolate ice cream is because some people like vanilla. Some like chocolate. 

The following may be heresy on this board because it seems that Bruckner fans have taken over the forum, or at least on this front page. But I can't for the life of me find him enjoyable.

I know that some people have stated that it takes a while to enjoy him, or that one must listen to it this way, or the repetition is really something else and one needs to look for the slight differences. But I can't do it. I remember riding back on a 10 hour drive. So I thought I'd give Bruckner's 8th symphony a shot. (I have Jochum EMI classics.) I know it isn't the most opportune place to listen. But it was an easy drive and I tried and the symphony just brought me to tears, and not tears of joy, I'm afraid. I also feel badly for my wife. She is not into classical music but didn't say a word as the orchestra pounded the repetition over and over again. 

I also read on this forum that one needs to get the right conductor, the right orchestra, the right performance. But I have listened to symphonies like Dvorak's 9th, live, with the Pittsburgh Symphony, the Czech Philharmonic, and even a second tier (maybe third tier) symphony, the Fairfax (VA) Symphony, and they were all wonderful. I didn't need a specific interpretation. They were all wonderful. This goes for many other works. Have you heard a bad Eroica? or Pathetique? I don't think I have no matter who is conducting or playing.

This reminds me of the time when I tried caviar. I hated it. Then I was told that caviar is an acquired taste. So I tried it again. I didn't like it. So I tried again. Same thing. Next time I grilled a steak. 

So I think I will do the same with Bruckner. I am not trying to say that Bruckner is bad. There are many here and elsewhere who love him and find his music wonderful. But for me, I'll grill a steak and put on Dvorak or Mahler. Then maybe I'll have some chocolate ice cream. Someone else may put on Bruckner's 7th and eat the vanilla. :lol:


----------



## DeepR

Seems like you tried too hard. It's not about trying, you simply let it happen, without any expectations about what should happen within a certain amount of time. If you want to know and get his music, you keep listening until it's pretty much engraved in your mind. It worked for me. Also, it's really not that repetitive, as in exact repetition.
I love Dvorak 9, Eroica, Pathetique AND Bruckner 8. Mysterious isn't it, what it is so good about it and why don't you hear it?


----------



## kyf

Rach Man said:


> This reminds me of the time when I tried caviar. I hated it. Then I was told that caviar is an acquired taste. So I tried it again. I didn't like it. So I tried again. Same thing. Next time I grilled a steak. :lol:


WRONG! :scold: WRONG! :scold: WRONG! :scold: 
You don't get it. The repetition has to do with CHAMPAGNE. What you didn't do was to drink champagne with the caviar. You are supposed to drink glass after glass of champagne. Then the caviar will taste good. If not, then it's not the caviar's problem. It's the champagne. You'd have to look for the exact kind of champagne that goes with your palate and the caviar. :cheers:


----------



## EarthBoundRules

I say: give it time. Either your tastes will change, or they won't. Either way, it's fine.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Not sure I understand the Bruckner controversy. I'm not a devotee but I liked the symphonies enough to spend $7.99 on a download of the cycle. There are few moments I don't care for as much as others. I can say the same about Beethoven.

Of course I'm not a musician. Can't read a note. I only know when I like a piece of music and when I don't.


----------



## starthrower

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Of course I'm not a musician. Can't read a note. I only know when I like a piece of music and when I don't.


That's all that matters. But our brains and tastes do change over time, so it's good to give things another go from time to time. I'm not big on Bruckner. But I'll keep at it to see if things change.


----------

