# Bruckner bugs = features



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

First of all, I think that Brahms was right - Bruckner's symphonies really are not unlike 'symphonic boa constrictors'. They overwhelm you, wrap you up and slowly swallow you whole. I feel that this is an essential quality of the Bruckner symphony. Also, other people often point to certain things that they don't like about Bruckner's music, sometimes with the implication that 'if only those faults were corrected, I would like his music'. These percieved faults typically include 'crescendos that stop abruptly and lead nowhere', 'repetition', 'excessive length', etc.

My point is that these all these people are in essence right, but these percieved faults are actually inalienable features of his music; stripped of these things, it would be something else entirely - it would lose its Brucknerian identity. Even more, I feel that it's fruitless to try to like Bruckner _despite_ of these things - if you want to like him at all, you'll have to do so _because_ of these things. You'll have to _love_ these things.

So, those gigantic snakes do suffocate the listener with their squeezes that stop abruptly and lead to a series of repetitions, and the process of devouring takes long. But it's in moments like these that you really start to see the light at the end of the tunnel ,) Or to use another metaphor: Bruckner doesn't tell a story, or even a logical chain of arguments: he meditates, switches position and challenges his own previous views. It's more like scolastics or theology. Insidiously, this dialectic - not organic - process builds a complete system: before you realize, it's ready. You only need a final 'leap of faith' to accept it all. This 'leap of faith' is usually approached at several times during the symphony, but the music shies away, not ready for the final acceptance. During the finale, the leap is finally done, and the system - the edifice, the cathedral - is ready, it stands before you so complete and perfect that it's _frightening_. Or to use the ever-present architechtural metaphor, the dutiful mason alternates between bricks and mortar... brick, mortar, brick, mortar... when you look at the work from a close position, it might seem dull. But when you take a step back, or turn your back, you realize that all those bricks and mortar actually contributed to something far greater than the sum of its parts: it's the insidiously growing temple, and you were too busy looking at the individual bricks to notice what the purpose of all this was, _and now it's too late!_ The temple overwhelms you, and there's nothing you can do but surrender before its might.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

Nice post, but it almost seems like a rationalization of liking Bruckner's symphonies 
I not only like them, but I like how Celibidache drags them on and on, like he does with Wagner too. Epic music should be "dragged" and who's better for the task than Celibidache!


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

It _is_ a rationalization of liking Bruckner's symphonies in a way that I'm trying to find words to explain why I like them, while reconciling those words with the critique I've heard 

Edit: Haven't heard Celibidache's Bruckner yet; thus far, I've heard Karajan, Barenboim, Furtwängler, Wand, Jochum, Klemperer, and probably some others I've forgotten.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

When I first listened to Bruckner (I believe it was his 4th Symphony) it didn't really impress me. It felt big but rather incomplete, fragmented or just lacking something. I tried his 8th as well, but it left the same impression as the first experience.
It's not that "big" works are something that I cannot digest (maybe Bruckner is for now?), since I enjoy Mahler a lot and he's, I believe, considered to be grand as well. I guess I should give Bruckner more time.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Bruckner's music indeed benefits with time - even time used listening to something else. Chrythes, if you've felt a fragmented quality in Bruckner's music, perhaps you should try listening to his 6th or his 5th? They're perhaps his tightest, most coherent packages.

For me, it was the melodic, _cantabile_ qualities of his 7th (conducted by Furtwängler) that made me a fan.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

graaf said:


> Nice post, but it almost seems like a rationalization of liking Bruckner's symphonies
> I not only like them, but I like how Celibidache drags them on and on, like he does with Wagner too. Epic music should be "dragged" and who's better for the task than Celibidache!


This applies mainly to some of Celi´s late emi recordings, not all of them and not to the dg recordings.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Interesting comments. I think Bruckner resonates with me so deeply because of what you're speaking about; the bricks-to-cathedral analogy. 

I'm always encouraged/spurred on by, as someone said, "Bruckner's simple but iron faith that binds each frustrating turn and strengthens him to persevere until he finally arrives at his destiny."


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I can't say that I understand Bruckner's symphonies. I just like them. I started with the 4th and thought it was Ok. I then tried the 8th and thought it was not so good. After a break I bought Wand's complete set and listened to all of them. By the time I was maybe two thirds of the way through I generally felt I could randomly select a section and find it wonderful. 

The symphonies are long, but to me there are so many passages of sheer beauty that I can just let the music wash over me and love them.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Why does everyone start with the 4th, it is certainly not the best place to start. The scherzo is undoubtedly one of his greatest hits but the symphony in its entirety is not as accessible as the 3rd nor not nearly as good as the 5th. I have to confess that I was introduced to Bruckner through the 4th, but I feel the journey would have been perhaps easier had it been the two mentioned symphonies.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Chrythes said:


> When I first listened to Bruckner (I believe it was his 4th Symphony) it didn't really impress me. It felt big but rather incomplete, fragmented or just lacking something. I tried his 8th as well, but it left the same impression as the first experience.
> It's not that "big" works are something that I cannot digest (maybe Bruckner is for now?), since I enjoy Mahler a lot and he's, I believe, considered to be grand as well. I guess I should give Bruckner more time.


4th Symphony didn't impress me also, I prefer 3th to 4. I tried 7th and loved it. I can say that 6th and 5th symphonies are also very enjoyable if you listen to them more focused!
8th and 9th are mysterious to me ... too long, not enough meat in the sandwich for now! I may listen to them more, when I finish memorizing others' great stuff.


----------



## afterpostjack (May 2, 2010)

I think that Bruckner's 4th has been gaining momentum for me. Towards the finale of its adagio it is very nice, even nicer than the equivalent section of his 7th. I think the mood for the rest of the movement is unique, like in the 3rd movement of his 9th symphony. Certainly no other composer wrote such consistently great symphonies. 
What really made me Bruckner fan was hearing the finale of the 1st movement of his 7th symphony, which is amazing.
Other great movements are all of his scherzi and finales. They never disappoint.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

The 9th was the first to grab me, slowly most of the others have as well. I am starting to really enjoy the 4th. It has a lot of different things going on - darkness and light. I remember the first time it really clicked with me I was listening to the final movement, with only a couple minutes to go I was thinking, 'how is this guy going to be able to wrap up all of these many different strands convincingly?' Well the final moments came and it all hit me hard, in a manner very much like what was described in the OP - I was convinced.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Chrythes said:


> When I first listened to Bruckner (I believe it was his 4th Symphony) it didn't really impress me. It felt big but rather incomplete, fragmented or just lacking something. I tried his 8th as well, but it left the same impression as the first experience.
> It's not that "big" works are something that I cannot digest (maybe Bruckner is for now?), since I enjoy Mahler a lot and he's, I believe, considered to be grand as well. I guess I should give Bruckner more time.


Same thing happened with me. I initially had some problems with Bruckner - all those crashing crescendos and seemingly unrelated sections. It seems I had to suspend my skepticism. When I opened myself up to the enthusiasm as its presented, I was able to enter this great new musical territory.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

I find Xaltotun's analogy to architecture very apt. The sense of great architecture is what I love in Bruckner's music.


----------



## pasido (Apr 2, 2012)

graaf said:


> Nice post, but it almost seems like a rationalization of liking Bruckner's symphonies
> I not only like them, but I like how Celibidache drags them on and on, like he does with Wagner too. Epic music should be "dragged" and who's better for the task than Celibidache!


This. This is why I love Furtwangler so much. Also, Karajan's version of Bruckner's 8th drags it very nicely.


----------

