# Getting into Bruckner (or not!)



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

As I recently noted in one of the Bruckner symp. threads, of all the major Romantics, the music of Bruckner is the one I find least approachable.

I don't seem to be alone:


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/5w6asm
https://www.gramophone.co.uk/forum/general-discussion/i-just-cant-get-into-bruckner

Yes I do own most of AB's repertoire on CD, and even some of the rarer titles (Furtwangler).

I'm not sure I can quite pin down what it is ... the above linked threads do, however, convey some of my own emotional responses (or lack of).

Unlike, for example, atonal music (which I do like and listen to, but not regularly), Bruckner's by-the-book Romanticism is difficult to criticize. On YouTube, there are several positive appraisals of AB by conductors like Esa Pekka, Salonen, Zubin Mehta, Daniel Barenboim and Rattle.
And, of course, AB's works were well represented by the heavyweights: Karajan, Furtwangler, Wand, Masur. et. al.

To use a crude analogy, maybe AB's flavor of music is like liquor ... once you get past the bitterness, you can appreciate the nuances. 
Actually, that's a bad analogy as AB's music is anything other than (metaphorically) bitter.

In the following Zubin Mehta interview about AB's 8th, Mehta comments on being moved to tears on a certain passage in the Adagio:





But I'm not feelin' it, folks.

This raises a bigger issue on how long one should _try_ to get into a composer before backing off. I.e., invest time into some other composer or music style. This is tricky stuff ... I've had several CDs on the shelf that were rarely played for years ... but then, something clicked (old age wisdom/maturity coming into play, perhaps) ... and now those CDs/composers are favorites.

P.S. Did I forget to mention Romantic is my favorite era/genre of classical music?!!


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I think we all go through seasons of life, and some things seem to be meant for later seasons. Maybe that will happen for you and Bruckner.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Bruckner is an acquired taste, and frankly not for everyone. His music doesn't depend on cheap thrills, special effects, great tunes, or heavy use of percussion to raise the electricity. It does take listener who is willing to do just that: listen. It is not background music and requires full attention. The symphonies have also been misunderstood as some quasi-religious experience. They were written pretty much parallel with the symphonies of Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Dvorak, albeit a style unlike any of them. I think the biggest stumbling block to appreciation has been misguided interpretations by some of the hallowed Bruckner conductors who make more of them than the composer intended. Bruckner wasn't stupid - he wanted his music to be enjoyed, not worshipped. That's part of the reason I like some of the Bruckner recordings that the experts detest, and Georg Solti is at the top of that list. These are exciting, electrifying readings - these are romantic symphonies and should be played that way. 

To be sure, there are some parts of the symphonies that are awfully long-winded. I took a while to really get into Bruckner and nowadays when I put on one of the symphonies it's with a brandy or something in hand, no lights and just let the sound wash over me. I will also say this: the single most electrifying, thrilling exciting passage in ALL music that I know (and that's a lot) occurs at the coda of the 3rd symphony. The brass chord builds, the tension is screwed up to unbearable levels, then released. It's just awe inspiring. With great sound, a great orchestra and a conductor who can control the ritard well, it lifts me out of my chair and hair stand on end. It's moments like those that make Bruckner so very worth it.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Manxfeeder said:


> I think we all go through seasons of life, and some things seem to be meant for later seasons. Maybe that will happen for you and Bruckner.


I noted not being emotionally moved to Bruckner's music. 
I'll retract that statement a bit ... as watching the frail, old Wand tightly conducting the 9th is quite touching ...


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> Bruckner is an acquired taste, and frankly not for everyone. His music doesn't depend on cheap thrills, special effects, great tunes, or heavy use of percussion to raise the electricity. It does take listener who is willing to do just that: listen. It is not background music and requires full attention.


I don't see AB on many classical 'Greatest Hits' collections -- the ones that are often spread over 2-CDs.

I'm not sure this composer is going to get much attention in the years to come. Most listeners these days have Twitter attention spans.

That said, I was very much captivated by the BBC documentary below which relies on snips and sound bites of AB.





In the other Bruckner thread, I noted one of my "problems" with AB's music is that he "unnaturally" switches from taking a scenic route to one that's not so nice. But documentary video presents music chunks that are flavorful and appetizing.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

13hm13 said:


> I don't see AB on many classical 'Greatest Hits' collections.


To his credit, the opening of the 7th symphony was part of an Arby's commercial. I guess that's something.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Manxfeeder said:


> To his credit, the opening of the 7th symphony was part of an Arby's commercial. I guess that's something.


I don't watch TV so I wouldn't know 

But I do still listen to the radio ... the local classical FM station (USC's KUSC) . And, come to think of it, I don't recall AB getting much airplay. His "popular" opus was his symphonic works ... so only 11. 
Wiki notes quite a list of WAB (choral music and religious stuff) ... but these, I assume, were not meant for popularization.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

13hm13 said:


> I don't watch TV so I wouldn't know
> 
> But I do still listen to the radio ... the local classical FM station (USC's KUSC) . And, come to think of it, I don't recall AB getting much airplay. His "popular" opus was his symphonic works ... so only 11.
> Wiki notes quite a list of WAB (choral music and religious stuff) ... but these, I assume, were not meant for popularization.


KUSC doesn't play much Bruckner because he doesn't sound enough like Vivaldi. (Sorry, couldn't resist that!)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

"Bruckner's by-the-book Romanticism is difficult to criticize"?

I don't find Bruckner "by-the-book" at all. He has a bit of chromaticism which he got from Wagner. Don't take the music too seriously is my advice. The Romantics wear their hearts on their sleeve, sometimes over-the-top. You may not buy all of it (like me), and it doesn't mean you are missing out.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I am one of those to whom Bruckner has never "spoken." The so-called scherzos remind me of Sysiphus. Most of the rest I find ponderous (the exception, for some reason, is the Ninth). I liken much of it to watching two hundred Egyptian slaves moving a huge block of sandstone from a barge on the Nile to the base of a pyramid under construction. By way of explanation I have a rough time with slow moving, slowly unfolding music. Bruckner, Arvo Part, the Gorecki Third, Brunhilde's aria . . . No apologies. I know something's "there" because people whose opinions I respect swear by them. But they're just not me.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

In previous years the music of Bruckner and also Mahler have provided me something valuable in hard times. The overwhelming emotion of their music gave me an outlet, a sense of catharsis. Now I don't want to contemplate those emotions too much. Perhaps his music is an acquired taste. There's something deeply moving, even disturbing, about his darkest works - eg. Symphonies 8 and 9 - at their heart I see a very lonely man who only has his God for solace.

Having said that I still return to his Symphony #6, which incidentally is the first piece I heard by him. Its comparatively lighter than the others, and the first two movements (especially the slow movement, it bears similarity with Wagner's Siegfried Idyll) are amazing pieces of music in themselves (even though the last two are not of the same quality). I also like his Symphony #0, and it is a unique oddity. The first movement was criticized by a conductor at the time for not having a main theme (which was true, and so Bruckner withdrew and nullified it). This gives it a sense of rootlesness, a symphony with no theme, but overall it has some memorable moments and at 45 minutes doesn't take up too much time.

There's also the String Quintet which has a bit of the lightness of Mozart, but you still get that sense of spiritual depth with the slow movement. Bruckner studied Beethoven's late quartets when composing this, and it shows. Its a significant chamber work of the period, comparable in quality to those of Brahms.

Then you have the sacred music. The motets and masses are churchy, drawing on influences like Gabrieli and Schutz, while the Te Deum is one of those grand concert hall near operatic pieces. These are no longer my cup of tea but show another aspect of Bruckner (as does the more obscure organ music, which is surprisingly the least important of his output, given that he was one of the best organists in Europe).


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

I wrote: "...I don't watch TV".
I was waiting for someone to comeback and contradict ... how about all those YouTube embeds you post, 13hm13?!

Guilty!

Speaking of which, here's NYP's Charles Z. Bornstein claiming AB's symphs are all "modeled after LvB's 9th yet they all use Wagner's harmonic language".
Do you agree or disagree?


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> "Don't take the music too seriously is my advice.


I think this is good advice. After all, Mozart had a crude, scatalogical sense of humor ... yet he wrote *the* Requiem 

The ref. links (especially the Reddit thread) from my first post contain accounts on how AB's music reflected spirituality, etc. Whatever that is!!!
I think Reddit is comprised of a younger community ... and young folks often need a rhyme or reason to explain things. As if there is a telos.
Frankly, who really knows what is going thru a composer's head as he is penning his stuff!
AB's music does tend to _progress_ in a way that is "random". I'm not sure this is what is sometimes called progressive tonality (??) ... Mahler seemed to like the technique.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

13hm13 said:


> I think this is good advice. After all, Mozart had a crude, scatalogical sense of humor ... yet he wrote *the* Requiem
> 
> The ref. links (especially the Reddit thread) from my first post contain accounts on how AB's music reflected spirituality, etc. Whatever that is!!!
> I think Reddit is comprised of a younger community ... and young folks often need a rhyme or reason to explain things. As if there is a telos.
> ...


For me, his Symphonies 8 and 9 are his most personal and original. Especially in the first movement of #8, there is some sort of heightened drama and emotion you can sense. I find his music ugly, but it is intriguing nonetheless. His Symphony 4 is to me the easiest on the ears, the most by-the-book Romantic.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> For me, his Symphonies 8 and 9 are his most personal and original. Especially in the first movement of #8, there is some sort of heightened drama and emotion you can sense. I find his music ugly, but it is intriguing nonetheless. His Symphony 4 is to me the easiest on the ears, the most by-the-book Romantic.


The guy is all over the map when it comes to consistency.
I'd noted his "randomness" earlier. I'm unsure whether this is due him writing for himself ... that is, not because of a commission by another party... one with a pre-defined program. I suppose his Requiem may fall in that category.
I wonder how Bruckner would've done in world of film music?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

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


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Many of us do not get to love or even like all the great names. If you don't like Bruckner now, try again in a few years, but don't be surprised if you find you still don't like it.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

What to prefer depends on one´s other musical tastes too. 

The 7th Symphony is among the most immediately melodical overall as regards long, tuneful lines; 
I´d say that the 9th Symphony is maybe the most modern-sounding among them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The rei best symphonies to start are the 4th and 7th. Karajan's performances on EMI of both works are pretty amazing


----------



## bravenewworld (Jan 24, 2016)

DavidA said:


> The rei best symphonies to start are the 4th and 7th. Karajan's performances on EMI of both works are pretty amazing


I can endorse that view: I first grew to love the 4th, then the 7th, and then some passages in the 5th and 6th piqued my interest and I was up and away.

As useless as this advice sounds, I think with Bruckner we have to be willing to really _trust_ the music, to let him into the depths of the soul and our insecurities. Then the music will take you by the hand and guide you through a meditative process of thought and you will undergo a profound sense of catharsis. That's only if you're anything like me, of course .


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

"I don't see AB on many classical 'Greatest Hits' collections -- the ones that are often spread over 2-CDs."

Doesn't that tell you he's worth persevering with? :devil:

It is interesting though, that there are so many Bruckner afficionados here, but all seem to have such different tastes in his music. One can go from the grotesquesly crass and brusque surface gleam of Solti to the Jesus Christ almighty you're putting me into a coma of Celibidache, and from the sharp, powerful directness and architecture of Solti to the celestial communion of Celibidache, with exactly the same performances being considered. I doubt any other composer is so performer-based in his reputation or appreciation?

Me, I find Jochum the best overall, with a preference for the later Dresden recordings over his BPO/BRSO set. But I also find Solti is very very good with him. Does Bruckner need that reverent communion approach? Yes and no. There are some fabulous performances elsewhere from the likes of Skrowaczewski, Simone Young, Gunther Wand, Barenboim, Karajan, Inbal, just to name a few. Me, I don't like the later approach of Celibidache, sorry.

For the original poster, all I am saying is Bruckner IS worth persevering with, maybe you'll have to try and find your ideal interpreter. I found him tough for a long time, got to know No.4 with Klemperer, had my Road to Damascus moment with the closing pages of the first movement of No.9, and built up the rest of the work from there (that was Jochum/EMI).

Now can anyone explain the merits of each and every Edition/performing version out there, pretty please?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

13hm13 said:


> The guy is all over the map when it comes to consistency.
> I'd noted his "randomness" earlier. I'm unsure whether this is due him writing for himself ... that is, not because of a commission by another party... one with a pre-defined program. I suppose his Requiem may fall in that category.
> I wonder how Bruckner would've done in world of film music?


This is a bizarre statement. If anyone is consistent, and perhaps even to the point of hyper-repetition, that man is Bruckner. Those 'meanderings' contain a lot of structured repetition.

There's nothing 'hard to get' about Bruckner. He writes tonal music, with large themes made of motifs. The orchestrations are dense, but that's not particularly unusual. He uses regular counterpoint. His brass writing is splendid.

Where is the problem apart from some of the length? The only complaint worth listening to concerning Bruckner is this, and it is something overcome by patient listening and accepting his idiom. I cured myself of a lifelong Bruckner avoidance by just listening.

By the way, Haitink, Chailly and Klemperer are the interpreters I would choose.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

13hm13 said:


> As I recently noted in one of the Bruckner symp. threads, of all the major Romantics, the music of Bruckner is the one I find least approachable.
> 
> I don't seem to be alone:
> 
> ...


It doesn't work for me either.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Every listener is different. I had no issue whatsoever getting into Bruckner. In fact, he has been my entrance into classical music. I liked him from the start and do not understand where the difficulty lies for other listeners. I was fortunate enough to start with the Skrowaczewski recordings and have been primed by these recordings and all other recordings seem inferior to me in comparison. It is true that it is best to start with symphonies 4 and 7, but also the very early symphonies are masterpieces. Listen to his symphony 0


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

It took me 48 years of exploring classical music (including falling in love with the music of Mahler at age 14) to finally "get it" with AB.

I'd of course heard performances of most of the symphonies from time to time over the years but always came away with the impression that Bruckner was largely without any particular melodic talent and relied over much on bombastic brass fanfares.

These two recordings have recently opened my eyes to the true worth of AB:

















The 5th symphony doesn't seem to get anywhere near the accolades and attention it deserves and the above recording is testament to its greatness IMO.

I'd always been more positive about the 9th symphony than any of the others but the 1988 DG performance with Giulini and the Vienna Philharmonic just completely bowled me over a couple of weeks ago.

I've been listening to the 6th, 7th and 8th symphonies also lately and have, overall, a much greater appreciation for Bruckner than ever before.

The key to AB I think is to see his method as a slow, _continually developing_ accretion of musical elements (motifs, rhythms, harmonies, etc.) over large time spans which result in a vast musical architecture. His habit of continual development of his materials is, I think, the trickiest thing to "get" about what he's doing because he consistently avoids literal repetitions on both the macro and micro levels, very much departing from what was expected in traditional Sonata-Allegro form. Brahms also exploited this technique of continuous development but he adhered more to the expected sectional repeats and his thematic and harmonic material was more tightly interconnected than Bruckner's. With Bruckner there's a looser, almost improvisational quality to his thematic and harmonic developments. It's this quality that makes his music sound extremely innovative and modern compared to what his contemporaries were doing and is what I've lately come to appreciate most about his music.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

It took me quite a long time to appreciate Bruckner and there are still a few of the symphonies that don't float my boat (the 2nd I rarely enjoy) but once you've accessed and enjoyed the 4th and 7th there is lots to appreciate in the others.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Recently got to know Bruckner. Can recognise hints of similarities in his symphonies and even found a favourite in no 9


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Merl said:


> It took me quite a long time to appreciate Bruckner and there are still a few of the symphonies that don't float my boat (the 2nd I rarely enjoy) but once you've accessed and enjoyed the 4th and 7th there is lots to appreciate in the others.


Number 3 is perhaps the best starting point. The ones before this are not really 'Brucknerish' and are perhaps for completists only.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Bruckner was a hit with me right from the start - and that start was his 5th. I just loved the way the music gradually swelled.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Andolink said:


> The key to AB I think is to see his method as a slow, _continually developing_ accretion of musical elements (motifs, rhythms, harmonies, etc.) over large time spans which result in a vast musical architecture. His habit of continual development of his materials is, I think, the trickiest thing to "get" about what he's doing because he consistently avoids literal repetitions on both the macro and micro levels, very much departing from what was expected in traditional Sonata-Allegro form.


I'm not sure the "continual development " w/o much repetition is what might be considered progressive tonality.
I do hear it in Mahler: e.g., his Symp. 1, mvt. 4. Like a hit-and-run driver speeding away from the scene of accident, but never looking back (in rear-view mirror) ... just moving, progressing forward. 
I think Mahler does this better than anyone ... but he may have been inspired by AB


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I wonder how much where you live affects your understanding and appreciation of Bruckner? Looking over concert programs around the world, Bruckner is very popular in Germany and Austria, yet quite rare in the UK and USA. Almost non-existent in South America. Is he another composer whose music just doesn't travel well?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> I wonder how much where you live affects your understanding and appreciation of Bruckner? Looking over concert programs around the world, Bruckner is very popular in Germany and Austria, yet quite rare in the UK and USA. Almost non-existent in South America. Is he another composer whose music just doesn't travel well?


Yeah, still a lot of nationalism in concert programmes around the world. 
But then, there´s also a limit to how much repertoire the main public has the time and energy to digest (though Bruckner should be included IMO).


----------



## tdotkewlboi (Sep 15, 2018)

Bruckner and Mahler to me at least are the most difficult composers to get into and I certainly wouldn't introduce someone to the genre by taking them to a concert performing works by these two until a person gets acquainted enough with classical to enjoy it without risking being turned off forever. Its kinda like taking someone whose never been to an opera before to a Wagner performance. Way too much and too soon. That said its rare to hear many of Bruckner's works here in Canada and I can't honestly remember the last time, if ever, I saw them on a concert program which is a shame.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

tdotkewlboi said:


> Bruckner and Mahler to me at least are the most difficult composers to get into ...


Hmm ... these guys may be considered "composers' composers". Too heavy for local radio airplay or concert programming. Tho' Mahler does seem to do better in large (major) cities. And, of course, there's always YouTube, the BBC Proms, etc.

My professional or academic background is not in music. And this prompts me to ask: how heavily or deeply are composers like Bruckner treated at the University or conservatory level? Maybe someone can comment on the curricula for advanced degrees like Masters or PhD.


----------



## agoukass (Dec 1, 2008)

As far as how long we should try to understand a composer before we give up, that's really up to the individual. Speaking for myself, I first heard the Alban Berg Violin Concerto thirteen years ago for the first time. It was a recording with Zukerman and Boulez on CBS. I didn't like it at that time. As a matter of fact, I found the whole thing to be rather boring except for the ending where one hears Bach's setting of "Es ist genug." A few years later, I heard the Piano Sonata and the Chamber Concerto. Something started clicked and when I listened to the Violin Concerto again in a recording by Perlman and the Boston Symphony Orhcestra, I found it to be quite understandable and not boring at all. 

On the other hand, I was listening to Koechlin recently. I tried to find something to latch on to in his music, but I couldn't. It was all over the map and I doubt that I will listen to it again. However, that is subject to change. 

Finally, the only pieces that I listen to by Bruckner on a semi-regular basis are the Fourth and Ninth Symphonies and the E minor Mass. The Fourth is probably the most accessible of the symphonies to me and I find the Ninth's final movement to be especially movement. The E minor Mass is on another plane altogether. The Sanctus is one of the most beautiful settings that I have ever heard and the way that it harks back to Palestrina and polyphony is probably one of the reasons why I have listened to it as often as I have.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Bruckner is one composer I just haven't got into. I usually like big sweeping music, but I find his music rather turgid. Mahler I really like, Bruckner not so much. I have to admit, I haven't really given his music much of a chance. I don't own any Bruckner. I've listened a couple of times on Spotify and I've borrowed a couple of CDs from my local library. 

I was thinking of later this year to listen to a few symphonies along with the score. Give his music another chance. What will help, is a good performance and a good recording, as usual with any music. 

But I'm not really worried if I still don't like Bruckner after listening some more, there's plenty of other music to enjoy.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

tdotkewlboi said:


> Bruckner and Mahler to me at least are the most difficult composers to get into and I certainly wouldn't introduce someone to the genre by taking them to a concert performing works by these two until a person gets acquainted enough with classical to enjoy it without risking being turned off forever. Its kinda like taking someone whose never been to an opera before to a Wagner performance. Way too much and too soon. That said its rare to hear many of Bruckner's works here in Canada and I can't honestly remember the last time, if ever, I saw them on a concert program which is a shame.


I have a friend whose first introduction to opera was a performance of Gotterdammerung - he liked it so much that he wanted to go to a complete Ring Cycle ... which we did.

I know another couple whose early introduction to classical music was Bruckner's 7th ... and they loved it.


----------



## Kollwitz (Jun 10, 2018)

Becca said:


> I have a friend whose first introduction to opera was a performance of Gotterdammerung - he liked it so much that he wanted to go to a complete Ring Cycle ... which we did.
> 
> I know another couple whose early introduction to classical music was Bruckner's 7th ... and they loved it.


I had the same experience. First symphony I ever listened to all the way through (as opposed to snippets on the radio) was a live performance of Mahler 5. It drew my in and I'm now obsessed. With Bruckner I began with 8 and then 9 and found them more seductive than 4. The intensity, complexity and ambiguity was so compelling.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Bruckner's 4th is really not as good as the one preceding it and I don't quite understand why it is touted so much - or why it has the subtitle 'romantic'.

This thread is twaddle though. I remember the OP's last thread about Shostakovich's 'ugly music', which was also twaddle.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> I wonder how much where you live affects your understanding and appreciation of Bruckner?


Geography and culture are important. 
Also ... the weather. Gray, overcast skies -- common in parts of Europe -- affect (and set) moods ... for composers and listeners.


----------



## merlinus (Apr 12, 2014)

Although my involvement with classical music started at about age 5-1/2 when I began playing the piano, I never had any interest in Bruckner until about 2 or 3 years ago (decades and decades later). I posted on a music forum to ask for some information and recommendations. Someone gave me this link -- 



 -- and I was completely, totally, blown away.

Since then, Bruckner is the composer I most listen to, even more than Beethoven.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

After Celi's performance of a Coda like that, I'm surprised the entire orchestra didn't keel over and collapse in a heap... I like Bruckner's symphonies because of their uncompromising power, spirituality, and purity of sound that is unlike anyone else in the world. It's like being bowled over by a torrential flood of energy after finally reaching the top of a mountain. One can hear him work in his symphonies, that whatever faith he had as a devout Catholic was constantly being tested. He would go forward and backward, rise and fall, in rising to the occasion, and stronger because of the struggle. Perhaps he felt that he had to earn God's blessings and grace.

My entrance into Bruckner was Tintner's performance of the Ninth. The beginning reminds me of the coiled up power of a snake waiting to strike. There's even a hint of darkness or danger. I could not believe the power contained when the entire force of the orchestra is playing perfectly in-tune together. It reminded me of a martial arts master who could break boards with the force of his hand. Such dramatic, pent-up, coiled power is contained in this work and its sudden excursions into tenderness, its sense of being on a long journey up the Nile, then the harmonic rises ... Tintner brought it out in full measure, and the 2nd movement is irresistibly throbbing, pulsating and wild, the 3rd movement with its peace and quiescence. If only Tintner had had the chance to record the performance edition of the 4th movement.


----------



## merlinus (Apr 12, 2014)

Yes, exactly. Brilliantly stated! Cathedrals of sound.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

I think the oddity with Bruckner is that he used the romantic musical idiom, which is highly theatrical, in ways that are totally lacking in theatrical sense; that is, in the manner of an academic pedant devoid of dramatic insight and sophistication. 

He doesn't seem to understand what he is musically saying because his materials come from so many disparate sources: highly involved contrapuntal technique derived from his training as an organist, Wagnerian harmony and massive climaxes that lead to nowhere, slavish adherence to sonata form, monotonous square rhythms--the mixture is monumental and fascinating, but also bizarre and as inscrutable as the sphinx. Did Bruckner fully understand Wagner's orchestra or the purposes for which his harmonic language was formed? He plays with Wagnerian raw materials as an 18th century master organist or theoretician might, bending them to unnatural uses and removing them from their context.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bruckner's music sounds like most film scores to me.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Bruckner's music sounds like most film scores to me.


it is probably true and it might explain why I had no issue getting into Bruckner after 2 decades of listening to film music. It was the natural entrance into classical music for me. I remember having a harder time getting into Beethoven, Mahler, Brahms than into Bruckner. But even now, with hindsight, I like Bruckner more than I like Mahler. I have the idea of Mahler the maniodepressive narcissist, who is constantly introspectively gazing at his own navel


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> it is probably true and it might explain why I had no issue getting into Bruckner after 2 decades of listening to film music. It was the natural entrance into classical music for me. I remember having a harder time getting into Beethoven, Mahler, Brahms than into Bruckner. But even now, with hindsight, I like Bruckner more than I like Mahler. I have the idea of Mahler the maniodepressive narcissist, who is constantly introspectively gazing at his own navel


I wonder if this might be the key to whether AB works or not for people?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I admit his music wasn't very easy to get into. Personally I kept listening until his music was pretty much imprinted on memory. It helped.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2018)

Bruckner was very highly skilled, in harmony, counterpoint, orchestration. He had a unique and obsessive aesthetic sense. I first came to his music when I was already well familiar with the standard 19th century symphonists, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, and took to it immediately. The only issue was that the scale of the work required attention over long time spans. Since then my regard for Bruckner has perhaps waned a bit, but I still return to him.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

janxharris said:


> Bruckner's music sounds like most film scores to me.


If you listen to a soundtrack album that has not been edited for the album-only (= music-only) format, then yes, like movies ... because of those "jump cuts" AB does with his music, which are found in raw film scores.

Esa Pekka Salonen goes into some of that aspect of AB's music in this short video:






Notably, that AB's music is made of "blocks".


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Bruckner's music sounds like most film scores to me.


Or perhaps many film scores sound like Bruckner. He was certainly one model for the golden era soundtracks.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Daniel Barenboim...






Members of the Berlin Phil comment on Bruckner:
https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/interview/22410-5

Herbert Blomstedt's rambling comments on Bruckner's 8th:
https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/interview/20335-2


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Of _all_ the composers, I found Bruckner the most immediately attractive. I was struck by the "Bruckner Thunderbolt'' (look it up!), and I just wanted to listen again, to hear more, to hear it all. And after many, many, many listens the experience is always just as wonderful and ecstatic, and quite often more so, because I'm discovering new details and textures and new aspects of his genius. He is one of the few commodities (to use an overly crude term) that totally defies the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility. That law of economics states that the more a commodity is consumed, the less pleasure you get out of it. I find that with a lot of composers. With Bruckner it's the inverse relationship.

To say that Bruckner just used Wagner's harmonic language but put it into a new form is such a gross simplification, made by so many who haven't paid full attention to Bruckner. Sure, he takes some of Wagner's harmonic advances and dissonances but in the same way that almost every Austro-Germanic composer after Wagner did. His language as a whole (in both form and content) is highly original, and the more you listen the more you come to realise that "there is no parallel to Bruckner among creative artists".

I'm a Bruckner fanatic. I think this old country bumpkin was the Second Coming but better. I find his music unequivocally the greatest in the Western classical tradition and find the 8th to be unequivocally the greatest symphony ever composed, and the other symphonies also the most original and profound artistic utterances to ever grace the Earth.

I can't help you because I can't actually explain why I think all the above. I just am struck by those propositions immediately when experiencing the music.

I'm inclined to think that if you don't get Bruckner after a few attempts, you've probably skipped the gene. It's a different listening experience to most composers, and I just happen to totally believe in almost all of his musical ideas and themes as they emerge in the symphonies, whereas some just find it stop-starty, illogical and boring. You have to think in terms of space and not time - he's not tying things together in a lovely formally brilliant bow like Brahms nor is he attempting endless melody like Wagner. He wants you to be enveloped in the organ-like splendour of the thick, tangible orchestral sound made manifest in different ways in each new musical idea, and at its best (e.g. Adagios of the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th etc) this offers spinal tingles and goosebumps in abundance.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

My initial approach to Bruckner was through #4... and it just didn't happen for me. I followed up with #7. That worked out better- but the deal wasn't entirely closed. Then, I turned to #5- and haven't looked back.

No need to rush it. No need to force it. If it doesn't entirely speak to you, that's understood. The very greatest composers recognized that their creations were not going to be a matter of universal acclaim. [I'm thinking specifically about Wagner's _Tristan und Isolde_. (BTW: Bruckner's attitude towards Wagner was one of near-worship.) Apropos 'T&I,' Wagner was purported to have opined "what a monstrous thing I've created!']

So-- I advocate patience...


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

I was going thru various CD databases as well as the main source (https://www.abruckner.com/discography/) ... and I'm seeing no shortage or under-representation of his major works in _recorded_ media.

Underplayed as AB may be on pop classical radio ... or under-programmed as he might be in concert halls ... his recordings have a market and fan-base.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Logos said:


> I think the oddity with Bruckner is that he used the romantic musical idiom, which is highly theatrical, in ways that are totally lacking in theatrical sense; that is, in the manner of an academic pedant devoid of dramatic insight and sophistication.
> 
> He doesn't seem to understand what he is musically saying because his materials come from so many disparate sources: highly involved contrapuntal technique derived from his training as an organist, Wagnerian harmony and massive climaxes that lead to nowhere, slavish adherence to sonata form, monotonous square rhythms--the mixture is monumental and fascinating, but also bizarre and as inscrutable as the sphinx. Did Bruckner fully understand Wagner's orchestra or the purposes for which his harmonic language was formed? He plays with Wagnerian raw materials as an 18th century master organist or theoretician might, bending them to unnatural uses and removing them from their context.


Minus the value judgments, this might be a fair attempt to describe one of music's most original composers, one whom many find neither inscrutable nor unnatural.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Minus the value judgments, this might be a fair attempt to describe one of music's *most original* composers, one whom many find neither inscrutable nor unnatural.


How is that tenable?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> How is that tenable?


every great composer is original and has his own unique voice and style and Bruckner is no exception. Not so long ago there was thread here "composers similar to Bruckner" and nobody was able to come up with another composer who sounded like Bruckner


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> every great composer is original and has his own unique voice and style and Bruckner is no exception. Not so long ago there was thread here "composers similar to Bruckner" and nobody was able to come up with another composer who sounded like Bruckner


I may be mistaken but as I listen to AB I don't sense anything new harmonically.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

I hear a semblance of Tchaikovsky in Bruckner which is why it doesn't work for me.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

janxharris said:


> I hear a semblance of Tchaikovsky in Bruckner which is why it doesn't work for me.


Aside from the fact that they both belong to the romantic period, I don't get this at all.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Is it one of Celibidache's habits to call out at intense orchestral moments?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> Aside from the fact that they both belong to the romantic period, I don't get this at all.


Similar flavour of sentiment imo....melodramatic.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

The other day I was listening to Bruckner during a plane flight. While looking at the beautiful, majestic structures of the sunlit clouds I realized that that's where his music takes place. Bruckner takes you up there and sets you free.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

janxharris said:


> Is it one of Celibidache's habits to call out at intense orchestral moments?


He actually turns the ending of Sibelius 5th/DG into an operatic performance!


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

janxharris said:


> Similar flavour of sentiment imo....melodramatic.


I think the block effects counter this, adding freshness, abstraction and durable interest in the works.

Am rather tempted to make a likening of Bruckner to Janacek, as a contrast to the Tchaikovsky comparison


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

#8 is one of the greatest symphonies and not feeling the adagio is not about the music, but it could be the performance. Try Knappertsbusch or Furtwangler. Celi bores me.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I may be mistaken but as I listen to AB I don't sense anything new harmonically.


Not listening hard enough. Also, it's not about individual instances of harmonic newness. It's about what you do with what's been handed down to you, and the context that a particular harmony is placed in.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I hear a semblance of Tchaikovsky in Bruckner which is why it doesn't work for me.


That's about the most unfitting comparison one can possibly make between two composers, if you don't mind me saying. I don't know what Bruckner you've been listening to... hopefully not Roger Norrington's.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

joen_cph said:


> I think the block effects counter this, adding freshness, abstraction and durable interest in the works.
> 
> Am rather tempted to make a likening of Bruckner to Janacek, as a contrast to the Tchaikovsky comparison


Yes.

The similarity with Janacek is exactly dead on. They both construct large scale movements from independent, seemingly unrelated blocks of material.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

I'm listening to Symp. 3, mvt. 1. 
I like it except that little diversion AB does with flute/oboe .... for my ears, it ruins the overall serious mood of this movement. It's almost like foreshadowing a scherzo.
When AB pulls stuff like this, I wish the composer had an Editor-in-Chief


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

janxharris said:


> How is that tenable?


Easily, if you listen to his formal procedures and compare them with those of any previous composer. But if the difficulty he presents for you is that he reminds you of Tchaikovsky, that advice may be useless.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Tallisman said:


> That's about the most unfitting comparison one can possibly make between two composers, if you don't mind me saying. I don't know what Bruckner you've been listening to... hopefully not Roger Norrington's.


Celibidache. 
_________


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Can anyone confirm this quote:



Mahlerian said:


> Sibelius once said the following: "Yesterday I heard Bruckner's B-flat major symphony [the 5th] and it moved me to tears. For a long time afterwards, I was completely transformed. What a strangely profound spirit formed by a religious sense. And this profound religiousness we have abolished in our country as something no longer in harmony with our time"


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Easily, if you listen to his formal procedures and compare them with those of any previous composer. But if the difficulty he presents for you is that he reminds you of Tchaikovsky, that advice may be useless.


Originality of form doesn't necessarily lead to the corollary "one of music's most original composers".


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

joen_cph said:


> He actually turns the ending of Sibelius 5th/DG into an operatic performance!


It's an endearing habit - an involuntary release of excitement...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

janxharris said:


> Originality of form doesn't necessarily lead to the corollary "one of music's most original composers".


Of course it doesn't. But what could anyone say that would, in your mind, lead to that "corrollary"? I'm just trying to point you in the right direction. These judgments are finally up to one's own ears and brain. My ears and brain, which have been listening to and studying music for six-plus decades, place Bruckner in a small group of composers who have a musical vision difficult to account for or understand by reference to any precedent. I don't think I can do better than quote a post I wrote a few years ago in another Bruckner discussion (which is worth reading for others' contributions as well): https://www.talkclassical.com/31624-bruckner-3.html?highlight=bruckner

_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. _


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

janxharris said:


> Can anyone confirm this quote:


I've certainly read it before, but I don't recall the last sentence about abolishing religion in Finland.
Graeme


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

janxharris said:


> Can anyone confirm this: Sibelius once said the following: "Yesterday I heard Bruckner's B-flat major symphony [the 5th] and it moved me to tears. For a long time afterwards, I was completely transformed. What a strangely profound spirit formed by a religious sense. And this profound religiousness we have abolished in our country as something no longer in harmony with our time"


p.13 in "United Kingdom Sibelius Society Newsletter - Issue 76 (January 2015)"

cf. http://www.anglo-danishsociety.org.uk/uploads/images/file/UK SS Newsletter 2015.pdf


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Of course it doesn't. But what could anyone say that would, in your mind, lead to that "corrollary"? I'm just trying to point you in the right direction. These judgments are finally up to one's own ears and brain. My ears and brain, which have been listening to and studying music for six-plus decades, place Bruckner in a small group of composers who have a musical vision difficult to account for or understand by reference to any precedent. I don't think I can do better than quote a post I wrote a few years ago in another Bruckner discussion (which is worth reading for others' contributions as well): https://www.talkclassical.com/31624-bruckner-3.html?highlight=bruckner
> 
> _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.
> 
> ...


Thanks Woodduck - very insightful (as always) - and something I shall keep in mind as I continue to listen to his music.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

joen_cph said:


> p.13 in "United Kingdom Sibelius Society Newsletter - Issue 76 (January 2015)"
> 
> cf. http://www.anglo-danishsociety.org.uk/uploads/images/file/UK SS Newsletter 2015.pdf


Thank you so much


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

DeepR said:


> The other day I was listening to Bruckner during a plane flight. While looking at the beautiful, majestic structures of the sunlit clouds I realized that that's where his music takes place. Bruckner takes you up there and sets you free.


To those struggling with Bruckner, here's a fantastic live recording of the 9th that helped me to get into the music (Günter Wand / Deutsches Symphonie-Orchester Berlin):
https://app.box.com/s/7tur59c5imeknmr5xfdyqq7nwqexeinf

This recording used to be on youtube, but luckily I saved it before it was taken down. I don't think it is commercially available. The first movement has been pretty much my favorite piece of music this whole year.

I haven't been able to appreciate other recordings in the same way. Sound, performance and interpretation is everything. What I'm trying to say is, listen to different recordings before making up your mind about Bruckner; you might just find that one recording that really clicks. I can't stand Celibidache myself.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

13hm13 said:


> This raises a bigger issue on *how long one should try to get into a composer before backing off*. I.e., invest time into some other composer or music style. This is tricky stuff ... I've had several CDs on the shelf that were rarely played for years ... but then, something clicked (old age wisdom/maturity coming into play, perhaps) ... and now those CDs/composers are favorites.


That's a question one must answer for oneself. Periodically over several decades, having heard the praise of people whose opinions I otherwise respect, I decide once again to try to appreciate Bruckner's symphonies. I listen to all of them. I listen with full attention, which is pretty much the only way I listen in any case. I listen multiple times. The end result is always the same: Nothing about Bruckner's writing interests me.

But I'll probably try again at some point in the future. Sigh.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> I listen multiple times. The end result is always the same: Nothing about Bruckner's writing interests me.
> 
> But I'll probably try again at some point in the future. Sigh.


Do persist. I ignored Bruckner for years and it was a mistake; my mistake being thinking the lengthiness indicated a sprawling mass. However the 'system' of Bruckner is pretty much set in stone from Symphony 3. It is almost predictable and that, strangely, is part of the appeal, for me anyway. You sort of know what is coming, but there are little surprises... and those brass fanfares, sublime.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

DeepR said:


> To those struggling with Bruckner, here's a fantastic live recording of the 9th that helped me to get into the music (Günter Wand / Deutsches Symphonie-Orchester Berlin):
> https://app.box.com/s/7tur59c5imeknmr5xfdyqq7nwqexeinf
> 
> This recording used to be on youtube, but luckily I saved it before it was taken down. I don't think it is commercially available. The first movement has been pretty much my favorite piece of music this whole year.
> .


It sounds clearer than the 2009 Profil boxset.
Did you save the video if there was one? Vimeo or DailyMotion may be a good way of sharing


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> I listen with full attention, which is pretty much the only way I listen in any case.


This is not (nor has it ever been) my music-appreciating "strategy". Not even with artists/composers I _really_ like.
Usually, I'm listening to a playlist (or radio) thru my computer (over headphones) _all the while _I'm working on other "computer stuff" (including my day job). 
More of my attention is on non-music ("computer stuff", work) ... but ... if my sub-conscious detects something it likes (in background playlist or radio), I'll be distracted _to_ the music. It's a sort of litmus test as to what my brain _really_ likes. 
When I have time for music (dedicated, undivided attention), I'll explore music here on TC or sample chunks on YouTube. Maybe that'll lead to a purchase decision. If I do buy something, it'll go back to the playlist for daily listening.

About the only way I can give my total 100% attention to music -- for extended periods of time -- is watching a concert on YouTube.

Haven't come to decision about AB yet.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

eugeneonagain said:


> Do persist. I ignored Bruckner for years and it was a mistake; my mistake being thinking the lengthiness indicated a sprawling mass. However the 'system' of Bruckner is pretty much set in stone from Symphony 3. It is almost predictable and that, strangely, is part of the appeal, for me anyway. You sort of know what is coming, but there are little surprises... and those brass fanfares, sublime.


I keep trying Bruckner but like EdwardBast it's not happening. Can you point to just one passage or phrase that is incontrovertibly without precedent and new in flavour?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I keep trying Bruckner but like EdwardBast it's not happening. Can you point to just one passage or phrase that is incontrovertibly without precedent and new in flavour?


I don't think any of it will feel 'new', it's from the 19th century. I suppose it's down to what you want from the music.

The passage in the first movement of the 6th symphony from about nine minutes in, where it reaches a crescendo (one of so many!) is excellent. I like brass, so it appeals to me.

IMO the way into Bruckner is through the scherzos, they are shorter and compact with exciting themes. The 3rd, 6th, 7th and 9th are my choices. Try the 6th or 3rd. I'm posting them here.

6 and 7 are the ideal length for the time it takes me to knead bread dough. the 8th for wholemeal bread....:lol:


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Even when not listening to Bruckner will full attention (something I might do when I know the piece inside out), I'm still grabbed by its highlights and get goosebumps all the same. It's a visceral experience that relies heavily on memory. Indeed, Bruckner's music started to work for me once I knew exactly what's coming. Memory, memory, memory...


----------



## Brucknerphile (Sep 5, 2018)

You can tell from my handle on this website that I am enveloped by the music of Anton Joseph Bruckner--that is the orchestral music--I have yet to fully jump into his choral music and masses.

It's reassuring to read all those comments from everyone about Bruckner's music, including those who don't get it...Who is this guy who goes on for so long with a small theme or maybe has written the same symphony nine times over. Just keep at it friends, it should come to you.

I really like the comments of the person who listened to AB's music while in flight near and through clouds, yes, it really fits. Also listening while thinking of giant landscapes with lots of big mountains--the mountains of Austria, the mountains of the American West, the mountains of the mind??

Reading all these comments reminds me of what I decided to do at one point in my life regarding Bruckner's music. I had the opportunity of going on a very long road trip after graduating from college; a trip of three months to be exact. The year was 1970 and the car I would be traveling in I knew had only a radio, I think only an AM wavelength one at that, I could be wrong. But the main point is that by the time of the trip I had really thrown myself into Bruckner's orchestral music. I started absorbing his music in early high school years and had been listening very intently to his music, sometimes with a score in hand, for about six years by the time of the trip.

Well, long long story made very short...I knew I would be away from my LP records of the Bruckner symphonies (by the way, the Eugen Jochum LP set on DGG) for a long time and I knew of that fact months before we all left on our trip so I decided to play the symphonies in rotation every day for as many days as possible before the trip. In a sense I tried to _memorize_ them! I think I succeeded; not every blasted measure, not every blasted section but certainly enough to keep a ten minute movement going in my aural memory for 8 or 9 minutes. My memory of the movements and themes was probably not enough to conduct them without a score, (I am not a conductor although in my fantasy thoughts I sometimes want to be.) but it was certainly enough to be able to recall them at some length when we were driving through the jungles and deserts--I have not mentioned that our trip was a road trip from the New York city area through all of Mexico and Central America to the Panama Canal and back--quite an expedition!!

At those times when viewing great landscapes and when in a reflective mood on this trip I was able to successfully recall enough of each symphony to replay them in my brain with great internal pleasure. It is a nice series of memories that this discussion has revived for me. I may try to do it again with his symphonies...

It is wonderful to share the profound depth of feeling that many of the writers here have about Bruckner's music. It is enlightening to hear how everyone has a slightly different approach in the hearing and appreciation of his music. It is reassuring that so many of you have the depth of feeling that recalling his music makes such a great contribution of all of your lives.

I am constantly rewarded listening to his music.


----------

