# bruckner as peak orchestral music of all time



## rarevinyllibrary

Listening back to some *MAHLER* lately ,I am appalled at the trivialities and obvious facilities of his symphonies sometimes .Isn't *BRUCKNER * the peak of orchestral music of all times (as conducted by *CELIBIDACHE *)


----------



## Cosmos

I'm flabbergasted! Not just because I love Mahler (and Bruckner) but because there were so many composers since Bruckner who also excel in orchestral coloring. You should build an argument first before making such a statement


----------



## niv

what does peak means? I seriously disagree with the notion that "peaks" actually exist. There isn't a single road in art.


----------



## joen_cph

There are days when I´d agree with you, his at times "fragmented"/"episodical" style with short instrumental statements evoking a sort of abstract, yet organic modernism too, IMHO.


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

rather than discussing a list of so called best recordings of the works which is pointless and could perhaps be useful to beginners in orchestral music from 19 th century , i found it more interesting to bring an opportunity for both addicts to come up with their own arguments .However my preference will remain to Bruckner


rarevinyllibrary said:


> Listening back to some *MAHLER* lately ,I am appalled at the trivialities and obvious facilities of his symphonies sometimes .Isn't *BRUCKNER * the peak of orchestral music of all times (as conducted by *CELIBIDACHE *)


----------



## Art Rock

rarevinyllibrary said:


> Listening back to some *MAHLER* lately


Always a good idea. 



> I am appalled at the trivialities


Such as?



> and obvious facilities of his symphonies sometimes


Am I the only one who has no clue what this is supposed to mean? Obvious facilities??



> Isn't *BRUCKNER * the peak of orchestral music of all times (as conducted by *CELIBIDACHE *)


Since this is hardly something that can be established objectively, I can only answer subjectively: no. As much as I love Bruckner, I would rate several composers higher in terms of orchestral music (Mahler, Sibelius, Ravel, to name a few). That you find it necessary to add "as conducted by Celibidache" further weakens your argument imo: if Bruckner's orchestral music is the tops, it should not be limited to one conductor bringing out the goodies form the score.


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

careful screening of scores will tell you ;this isn't the place for technical discussions 
As for Celibidache , the light and strength in his readings bring forth some mesmerizing new visions of these works and that is what i like most in his late recordings .


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

This input was meant to deal with symphonies and not general orchestral music per se .


rarevinyllibrary said:


> careful screening of scores will tell you ;this isn't the place for technical discussions
> as for Celibidache , the light and strength in his readings bring forth some mesmerizing new visions of these works and that is what i like most in his late recordings .





Art Rock said:


> Always a good idea.
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Am I the only one who has no clue what this is supposed to mean? Obvious facilities??
> 
> Since this is hardly something that can be established objectively, I can only answer subjectively: no. As much as I love Bruckner, I would rate several composers higher in terms of orchestral music (Mahler, Sibelius, Ravel, to name a few). That you find it necessary to add "as conducted by Celibidache" further weakens your argument imo: if Bruckner's orchestral music is the tops, it should not be limited to one conductor bringing out the goodies form the score.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Presumably Obvious Facilities means obviously facile.

Which then I have to disagree with strongly.
I find nothing facile in Mahler's symphonies. He just knew, like Beethoven, that you should mix the ridiculous with the sublime.


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

Mahler was a blessing for 1960's HI-FI dealers as the brutal ,emphatic peroration of symphonies 2 & 8 (just an obvious example coming to my mind ) helped them sell their equipment back then hence the galore of MAHLER 's recordings at this time and from then on .he was out of purgatory for good .


MagneticGhost said:


> Presumably Obvious Facilities means obviously facile.
> 
> Which then I have to disagree with strongly.
> I find nothing facile in Mahler's symphonies. He just knew, like Beethoven, that you should mix the ridiculous with the sublime.


----------



## MagneticGhost

rarevinyllibrary said:


> Mahler was a blessing for 1960's HI-FI dealers as the brutal ,emphatic peroration of symphonies 2,8(just an obvious example coming to my mind ) helped them sell their equipment back then hence the galore of MAHLER 's recordings at this time .he was out of purgatory for good .


There's nothing brutal about the end of the 2nd. It's pure transcendence of the human condition. A glorious and uplifting peroration.


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

i 'd rather get my personal transcendences and upliftings from *BRUCKNER'*s Mass in F ,especially with Celibidache ( Benedictus)


MagneticGhost said:


> There's nothing brutal about the end of the 2nd. It's pure transcendence of the human condition. A glorious and uplifting peroration.


----------



## Guest

MagneticGhost said:


> Presumably Obvious Facilities means obviously facile.
> 
> Which then I have to disagree with strongly.
> I find nothing facile in Mahler's symphonies. He just knew, like Beethoven, that you should *mix the ridiculous with the sublime*.


Just as Bruckner does in the 3rd: juxtaposing a Polka with a Chorale. Naughty boy, Anton! And naughty boys Gustav and Ludwig, too.


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

popular dances as a general pattern for Holy German music .sounds enticing and glib hehehehehe.


TalkingHead said:


> Just as Bruckner does in the 3rd: juxtaposing a Polka with a Chorale. Naughty boy, Anton! And naughty boys Gustav and Ludwig, too.


----------



## annie

rarevinyllibrary said:


> .Isn't *BRUCKNER * the peak of orchestral music of all times (as conducted by *CELIBIDACHE *)


Five years ago, where I live, they've recovered copper tablets with inscriptions on them in one of the Bronze Age graves, which might belong to earlier Neolithic people. They finally cracked the language and managed to translate them last week and they confirm your conclusion with one slight difference. It was certainly a prophecy and said: "...and he shall come to pass in the late 19th Century, that the orchestral music established by him shall be over the mountain peaks where no one else shall reach before and after and all shall flow unto it. He shall be born in a village called Ansfelden, it which will be a suburb of Linz in 20th Century, with the same name of his father. He shall remove all the clouds upon classical music if his gifts are conducted by Wand(sorry but no worries, Neolithic's prophecy discrepancy is quite common) and we will not continue to do things the same way"


----------



## Weston

Mahler's "facility" turned me off at first too, but that was I think because I was not taking the works as a whole, but rather the movements out of context, so the various tavern pieces, nursery songs and marching band segments made no sense to me. But even then I recognized his unusual knack for interesting orchestral colors, odd instrumental combinations and unexpected modulations. 

I'm afraid Bruckner only comes to my mind for his memorable themes, mostly in the scherzo movements -- which are scarcely lively or light enough to be considered scherzos, but memorable nonetheless. I can think of a dozen composers with equal or better orchestral inventiveness though.


----------



## Feathers

rarevinyllibrary said:


> Listening back to some *MAHLER* lately ,I am appalled at the trivialities and obvious facilities of his symphonies sometimes .Isn't *BRUCKNER * the peak of orchestral music of all times (as conducted by *CELIBIDACHE *)


I love Bruckner and agree that he's a great composer of orchestral music, but your implication of Mahler as being some kind of "valley" (as opposed to a separate peak on his own side) makes me disagree with your general point. How about: Bruckner is the peak of *Brucknerian* orchestral music?


----------



## PetrB

rarevinyllibrary said:


> Listening back to some *MAHLER* lately ,I am appalled at the trivialities and obvious facilities of his symphonies sometimes .Isn't *BRUCKNER * the peak of orchestral music of all times (as conducted by *CELIBIDACHE *)


...no. 
..............................


----------



## annie

PetrB said:


> ...no.
> ..............................


...or that.

25 characters


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

Ahem .That would sound lame considering your latest post ...


annie said:


> ...or that.





annie said:


> 25 characters


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

Interpretation and a deep understanding are essential in *BRUCKNER*. *JOCHUM* is probably your man with DRESDEN....


Weston said:


> Mahler's "facility" turned me off at first too, but that was I think because I was not taking the works as a whole, but rather the movements out of context, so the various tavern pieces, nursery songs and marching band segments made no sense to me. But even then I recognized his unusual knack for interesting orchestral colors, odd instrumental combinations and unexpected modulations.
> 
> I'm afraid Bruckner only comes to my mind for his memorable themes, mostly in the scherzo movements -- which are scarcely lively or light enough to be considered scherzos, but memorable nonetheless. I can think of a dozen composers with equal or better orchestral inventiveness though.


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

Feathers said:


> I love Bruckner and agree that he's a great composer of orchestral music, but your implication of Mahler as being some kind of "valley" (as opposed to a separate peak on his own side) makes me disagree with your general point. How about: Bruckner is the peak of *Brucknerian* orchestral music?


Ground elevation is not the topic here .Peak as a metaphor of utmost development in symphonic music of all time .


----------



## annie

rarevinyllibrary said:


> considering your latest post ...



the gist of that post was "hell, no!". Apologies if I offended you.


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

No worries you haven't cheers.


annie said:


> the gist of that post was "hell, no!". Apologies if I offended you.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I'm a Bruckner fan, so I can't speak objectively here. But if you can't say Bruckner is the peak of orchestral music, at least it can be said that his orchestral music has some glorious peaks.


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

Elating post 
thank you for your inspiration


----------



## annie

Manxfeeder said:


> But if you can't say Bruckner is the peak of orchestral music, at least it can be said that his orchestral music has some glorious peaks.


I really refrain from listening Bruckner except the 7th as music ends in 1886 for me but what you say is a fact.


----------



## PetrB

rarevinyllibrary said:


> Mahler was a blessing for 1960's HI-FI dealers as the brutal ,emphatic peroration of symphonies 2 & 8 (just an obvious example coming to my mind ) helped them sell their equipment back then hence the galore of MAHLER 's recordings at this time and from then on .he was out of purgatory for good .


It is fine to want to be a provacateur, but an effective one does not "Just Make Stuff Up."

Those recordings had to exist prior being cool demos, and technical limitations prior did not stop recordings of other sonically gigantic works.

So far, you're showing a real lack of information (fact) and a lot of personal opinion based on nothing more than the limits of your personal tastes.

O.K. You're a Brucknerphile. He's generally acknowledged as quite the guy for making successful and large-scale symphonies, while he is also generally acknowledged at not being able to hide his girders, beams, and sometimes announcing a change of theme, twist of shape, in "Bright Neon Lights from far away" as TC colleague Mahlerian put it....


----------



## annie

PetrB said:


> It is fine to want to be a provacateur, but an effective one does not "Just Make Stuff Up."


Hey! I want to get there, too and you are kind of blowing my torch off . Don't step on my education.



PetrB said:


> So far, you're showing a real lack of information (fact) and a lot of personal opinion based on nothing more than the limits of your personal tastes.


...and I know it's not my place but, considering the content of your other posts(compliment), this should have sufficed...the rest is a show-off


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

Thank you ANNIE.mexican mushrooms are the path in BAch !!! he knows for sure


annie said:


> Hey! I want to get there, too and you are kind of blowing my torch off . Don't step on my education.
> 
> ...and I know it's not my place but, considering the content of your other posts(compliment), this should have sufficed...the rest is a show-off


----------



## annie

rarevinyllibrary said:


> Thank you ANNIE.mexican mushrooms are the path in BAch !!! he knows for sure


I suspect you have a little bit trouble understanding what you read


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

ah what makes you believe such a thing ? he stole the words from your mouth :no worries Ill give you another opportunity.


annie said:


> I suspect you have a little bit trouble understanding what you read


----------



## annie

rarevinyllibrary said:


> ah what makes you believe such a thing ? he stole the words from your mouth :no worries Ill give you another opoortunity.


I think I'll pass this time. Have fun around and enjoy. :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB

annie said:


> Hey! I want to get there, too and you are kind of blowing my torch off . Don't step on my education.
> 
> ...and I know it's not my place but, considering the content of your other posts(compliment), this should have sufficed...the rest is a show-off


Brucknerphiles are often not big on subtleties, like their adored composer, who gives you the same damn unaltered motif in all twelve keys in one movement, sometimes that kind of repetition is all that gets through


----------



## annie

PetrB said:


> Brucknerphiles are often not big on subtleties, like their adored composer, who gives you the same damn unaltered motif in all twelve keys in one movement, sometimes that kind of repetition is all that gets through


ah, now you are being pretentious...stop it :devil:


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> [...] O.K. You're a Brucknerphile. He's generally acknowledged as quite the guy for making successful and large-scale symphonies, while he is also generally acknowledged at *not being able to hide his girders, beams, and sometimes announcing a change of theme, twist of shape, in "Bright Neon Lights from far away"* as TC colleague Mahlerian put it [...]


Well PetrB, I have enjoyed reading your architectural and other visual metaphors as highlighted above in the quote, but a lot of classical music (certainly pre-Bruckner) is very heavily signposted, don't you find? In terms of *harmonic* girders and beams, I think Bruckner can lead us on some quite surprising _planes_.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> Brucknerphiles are often not big on subtleties, like their adored composer, who gives you the same damn unaltered motif in all twelve keys in one movement, sometimes that kind of repetition is all that gets through


Can't agree with you there, PetrB, but I have heard that precise criticism many times. It's a shame, as I feel there are many treasures in Bruckner, not least adventures of the harmonic kind.


----------



## Ukko

annie said:


> I suspect you have a little bit trouble understanding what you read


No, no, the suspicion should be whether he understands what he _said_. Those things are sometimes not easy to tell apart, eh? In the subject case, I think _rvl_ meant to say _magic_ mushrooms.


----------



## PetrB

TalkingHead said:


> Well PetrB, I have enjoyed reading your architectural and other visual metaphors as highlighted above in the quote, but a lot of classical music (certainly pre-Bruckner) is very heavily signposted, don't you find? In terms of *harmonic* girders and beams, I think Bruckner can lead us on some quite surprising _planes_.


I happen to agree, fall in line with the maxim, *"Ars est celare artem"* The statement is that true art conceals the art, i.e. true art conceals the artifice involved in making it.

Bruckner, all proper salutes to making those large-scale long duration works hold together structurally, is nonetheless filled with far too many visible signposts for me, and that penchant for iterating a theme with little or no variant other than orchestration, and while modulating through all twelve keys, though supposedly an impressive demonstration of his ability to modulate, I find more irritating than impressive.

Mahler who has an equal (at least) accomplishment of structurally holding together a giant scale and long duration piece in a very intelligent and ingenious way very much to his credit, did it without any of the visible devices showing.

I far prefer Mahler, don't at all care for Bruckner; that is an aesthetic preference, pure and simple, and a matter of personal taste.


----------



## annie

PetrB said:


> ...that is an aesthetic preference, pure and simple, and a matter of personal taste.


No, it actually is not. I urge you to begin reading on cognitive neuroscience of music.


----------



## PetrB

annie said:


> No, it actually is not. I urge you to begin reading on cognitive neuroscience of music.


Oh? A little bit of surgery will fix my problem of not caring for Bruckner, then? Care to elucidate? ...And does that science explain and accommodate then, my love of Mahler's equally vast symphonies?

Basically, why would I want to read up on cognitive neuroscience of music -- will it help me understand enough to compose a piece so tailored to one taste or aesthetic that it will have a virtually guaranteed widespread popularity, for example, or anything really, uh, useful?


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> [...]Bruckner, all proper salutes to making those large-scale long duration works hold together structurally, is nonetheless filled with far too many visible signposts for me, and that penchant for iterating a theme with little or no variant other than orchestration, and while modulating through all twelve keys, though supposedly an impressive demonstration of his ability to modulate, I find more irritating than impressive.
> 
> Mahler who has an equal (at least) accomplishment of structurally holding together a giant scale and long duration piece in a very intelligent and ingenious way very much to his credit, did it without any of the *visible* devices showing.
> 
> I far prefer Mahler, don't at all care for Bruckner; that is an aesthetic preference, pure and simple, and a matter of personal taste.


I think you meant "audible" and not "visible" (Cf. quote above). Or at least I hope you did! 
Anyway, I catch your drift, though I would urge you to check out what Boulez has to say about Bruckner and Mahler in their respective handling of large scale structures. As to aesthetic preference, well, there you go, there's no accounting for taste!! Add smiling icon for that last quip.


----------



## annie

PetrB said:


> Oh? A little bit of surgery will fix my problem of not caring for Bruckner, then? Care to elucidate? ...And does that science explain and accommodate then, my love of Mahler's equally vast symphonies?
> 
> Basically, why would I want to read up on cognitive neuroscience of music -- will it help me understand enough to compose a piece so tailored to one taste or aesthetic that it will have a virtually guaranteed widespread popularity, for example, or anything really, uh, useful?


Yes and it'd turn you into a beautiful princess. I didn't say you'll like Bruckner(I wouldn't do that even to my enemies). It'd explain why you like what you like, or why 15 year olds' so-called musical taste and 15 years music listening are completely different things, as your brain literally evolves with what you listen to(not "Mozart for your babies" crap). Don't be one of those bigots having ideas or opinion prior to knowledge.. Start with wiki and you shall conquer...or don't...I wouldn't see trying to make _you_ understand your obvious missing piece waste of my time. :angel:


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> I happen to agree, fall in line with the maxim, *"Ars est celare artem"* The statement is that true art conceals the art, i.e. true art conceals the artifice involved in making it [...]


Hello again, PetrB. I had an afterthought about the recent posting of yours quoted (selectively) just above. My compostion teacher always said one should compose for one's fellow composers in mind, and many of our seminars and workshops were devoted to performing and dissecting our colleagues' efforts. The surprising thing was that as young and foolish would-be-composers we always thought we could bedazzle teachers and colleagues alike with seemingly seamless structures ... but not for long. What I'm trying to say is that a (good) watchmaker always figures out the mechanisms of other (good) watchmakers.


----------



## Feathers

rarevinyllibrary said:


> Ground elevation is not the topic here .Peak as a metaphor of utmost development in symphonic music of all time .


Lol I know, which is why I put "valley" in quotation marks.


----------



## Guest

rarevinyllibrary said:


> Ground elevation is not the topic here. Peak as a metaphor of utmost development in symphonic music of all time .


Well quite. Still, a couple of years ago I came out of a live concert of Schoenberg's *Gurrelieder* and could barely find my head after. Now *that* was a peak!


----------



## PetrB

TalkingHead said:


> Hello again, PetrB. I had an afterthought about the recent posting of yours quoted (selectively) just above. My compostion teacher always said one should compose for one's fellow composers in mind, and many of our seminars and workshops were devoted to performing and dissecting our colleagues' efforts. The surprising thing was that as young and foolish would-be-composers we always thought we could bedazzle teachers and colleagues alike with seemingly seamless structures ... but not for long. What I'm trying to say is that a (good) watchmaker always figures out the mechanisms of other (good) watchmakers.


Decades ago, my composition teacher said I should concentrate solely upon what the nature of the piece was, and stick to it, find only that which was relevant to "that music," and the only other considerations were practical, how many players, what level of technical demand you were writing at, etc. I just cannot anticipate what is going to please others, and I think if anyone can it is an especially rare ability. So, stay cohesive, and trust your ears more than what you think might be the "ears" of others. At any rate,

As to analysis, playing each others works, that all happened too, other composer's polished scores, all the student comps -- a very standard part of the program, unavoidable if you wanted the full training (and the sheep with that cool handwritten calligraphy on it

But...when you're composing, do you really have even a moment to pause and wonder about what others might like to hear?


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> Decades ago, my composition teacher said I should concentrate solely upon what the nature of the piece was, and stick to it, find only that which was relevant to "that music," and the only other considerations were practical, how many players, what level of technical demand you were writing at, etc.


Yes, in other words, one should be consistent (coherent?) in the language chosen. I remember one of my first attempts (a 'cello solo) that was all 'over the shop' in idiom, and I did come to see why it was a very weak attempt.



PetrB said:


> I just cannot anticipate what is going to please others, and I think if anyone can it is an especially rare ability. So, stay cohesive, and trust your ears more than what you think might be the "ears" of others. At any rate


This isn't quite the point I was trying to make, though you have captured it 'round about' so to speak. Our brief was to write for fellow composers without any concession to other listeners of whatever level, i.e. to find one's idiom whether or not it was conducive to ready assimilation.

[...)



PetrB said:


> But...when you're composing, do you really have even a moment to pause and wonder about what others might like to hear?


To answer the question (even though I never write in any serious creative way these days, only pedagogical harmony and counterpoint exercises): No.


----------



## Guest

But to return now to the OP ("Bruckner as peak orchestral music"), whilst I agree on the whole, I do have one gripe (as a string player): why in the name of Allah did Anton give such slogging, appalling left hand / manic organ feet passages to the 'cellos and basses, especially in the big codas? Brahms is a doddle in comparison, I can assure you!
(Actually, there is some pretty "un-idiomatic" bass writing in Felix's Elijah, too !!!!)


----------



## Guest

Why oh why is it always *Haydn* who knew exactly how to write for the strings?


----------



## Mahlerian

PetrB has one thing wrong, and as a sometime Brucknerite I have to correct him. Bruckner doesn't use his motifs in 12 keys, but rather in 24 keys (major and minor), plus all of their inversions.

And the level of seriousness in that comment is just how much I feel like dedicating to this thread.


----------



## science

annie said:


> Yes and it'd turn you into a beautiful princess. I didn't say you'll like Bruckner(I wouldn't do that even to my enemies). It'd explain why you like what you like, or why 15 year olds' so-called musical taste and 15 years music listening are completely different things, as your brain literally evolves with what you listen to(not "Mozart for your babies" crap). Don't be one of those bigots having ideas or opinion prior to knowledge.. Start with wiki and you shall conquer...or don't...I wouldn't see trying to make _you_ understand your obvious missing piece waste of my time. :angel:


I'm extremely interested in this topic. Can you recommend something where I can read about the brain evolving as I listen to music?


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> I'm extremely interested in this topic. Can you recommend something where I can read about the brain evolving as I listen to music?


Probably won't 'evolve'. What it may do is grow, to the point where the pressure headaches preclude further listening.


----------



## KenOC

science said:


> I'm extremely interested in this topic. Can you recommend something where I can read about the brain evolving as I listen to music?


Sorry Science, my brain is too busy evolving to answer you. It's gotten so large I've already had to remove it and place it in a big bell jar. It floats there pulsing and glowing, and it serves my wife as a nice reading light. I can already control all the pitiful humans within three miles and am expanding my range day by day.

A few more listens to the WTC Book II and finally humanity will have the glory of serving a single master!


----------



## ericdxx

Wagner? Stravinsky? Some were complex stuff in their works.


----------



## Guest

I was hoping to continue a discussion with PetrB about Bruckner and composition (in general). I see he is now banned (temporarily). Most frustrating, not least as I have never read anything by the fellow that merits such action by the mods. 
I look forward to his return.


----------



## astronautnic

Especially as i completely agree with PetrB on Bruckner. Almost as plain dull and boring as the other "peak orchestral master" Wagner......


----------



## Arsakes

KenOC said:


> Sorry Science, my brain is too busy evolving to answer you. It's gotten so large I've already had to remove it and place it in a big bell jar. It floats there pulsing and glowing, and it serves my wife as a nice reading light. I can already control all the pitiful humans within three miles and am expanding my range day by day.
> 
> A few more listens to the WTC Book II and finally humanity will have the glory of serving a single master!


You don't know yet about the next step of evolution. It's necessary but voluntary: Changing your body parts such as your skull, and become a cyborg! lulz


----------



## moody

rarevinyllibrary said:


> Interpretation and a deep understanding are essential in *BRUCKNER*. *JOCHUM* is probably your man with DRESDEN....


Jochum was the man who put me off Bruckner completely...BORING !!!


----------



## PetrB

rarevinyllibrary said:


> rather than discussing a list of so called best recordings of the works which is pointless and could perhaps be useful to beginners in orchestral music from 19 th century , i found it more interesting to bring an opportunity for both addicts to come up with their own arguments .However my preference will remain to Bruckner


BUMP

Preference, and preference alone, is at work here and in the OP. "The peak of orchestral music of all time" a phrase worthy of a neophyte child, perhaps.

There is no "peak of orchestral music of all time"; that is nonsensical, an artificial / superficial construct imho, which you have set up for yourself.

So, you like Bruckner, and much prefer it over Mahler. No need to rationalize or excuse it. It is just your personal taste.


----------



## Blake

Bruckner is the filet to everyone else's grilled-cheese. One must be of the utmost intelligence, and of the proper physical beauty and dress, to fully understand Bruckner.


----------



## Bulldog

rarevinyllibrary said:


> Listening back to some *MAHLER* lately ,I am appalled at the trivialities and obvious facilities of his symphonies sometimes .Isn't *BRUCKNER * the peak of orchestral music of all times (as conducted by *CELIBIDACHE *)


I see what you're doing as pumping up Bruckner by dumping on Mahler. Is this necessary for your argument?


----------



## billeames

Difficult to explain why Bruckner may be peak. To me, greatness is enhanced when he integrates and arranges
Motifs in a way to add tension to the music. Slow and wonderful creshendos as in coda of the 8th 4th movement. End
Of 4th, 5th also. Yes I know passages stop in middle of a phrase sometimes. Other composers have impressive creshendos, but to me, Bruckner
Seems more successful in this aspect of the music. Its the building and release of tension that seems key here.


----------



## clavichorder

I disagree, but I certainly like Bruckner better than Mahler.


----------



## Vaneyes

As Judge Ito (maybe a Bruckner and Mahler lover) would say, "Take a deep breath and count to ten slowly."


----------



## PetrB

Vaneyes said:


> As Judge Ito (maybe a Bruckner and Mahler lover) would say, "Take a deep breath and count to ten slowly."


As he was also known to have said often enough to the team of lawyers in the trial of a highly infamous case, "Contempt of court! I warned you enough. Get those check books out now, gentlemen."


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> Bruckner is the filet to everyone else's grilled-cheese. One must be of the utmost intelligence, and of the proper physical beauty and dress, to fully understand Bruckner.


Oh, I see. Then I need someone with a flush credit limit to generously take me shopping for higher end clothing (warning, that will involve tailors, not 'shopping'), since that is all that is needed (I've got the smart and pretty / handsome in the bag) to appreciate Bruckner on the deeply sophisticated level of appreciation expressed as "The Peak Of Orchestral Music Of All Time." (TPOOMOAT) ~ which we all know in the vernacular as _"aWwwwweSome."_


----------

