# A Mozartian introduction to Dvorak or Bruckner



## Kieran

Can anybody offer me one? I crave a knowledge of these composers, to bring me up to date...


----------



## Manxfeeder

Let's see. From Mozart, maybe think of Bruckner as Schubert on steroids. Maybe start with his motets.


----------



## Vaneyes




----------



## Ukko

Kieran said:


> Can anybody offer me one? I crave a knowledge of these composers, to bring me up to date...


Hah. You still aspire to getting 'up to date'? that rabbit will stay out of reach.

You can get from Mozart to Dvorak via string quartets. Bruckner I dunno.


----------



## clavichorder

What about a Mozartian intro to Dvorak, then a full on Dvorakian intro to Bruckner?


----------



## Art Rock

The Dvorak quartets (or his other chamber music) is a good call. I would indeed think that for someone who loves Mozart, Bruckner would be a step too far. After Dvorak, the 4th symphony or the masses would be a good entry to Bruckner.


----------



## Kieran

Thanks for the replies! 



Art Rock said:


> I would indeed think that for someone who loves Mozart, Bruckner would be a step too far. .


In which way? Is it really such a different musical language? I would well believe it is, by the way, but Bruckner's symphs are held in such high regard, they're something I'd love to appreciate.

Just on a tangent, if I followed the proscribed trail of crumbs through Dvorak to Bruckner, does this inevitably lead to...Mahler? There's a symphonic titan I'd love to love... :tiphat:


----------



## Art Rock

Mahler would be a logical follow-up of Bruckner, yes.

I would in general not hesitate recommending plunging into Bruckner at a relatively early stage in discovering classical music, but since you expressed clear hesitation in your post, I suggested the first Dvorak approach. If your experience is mainly Mozart, Bruckner is quite different.


----------



## Sonata

Approaching Bruckner one movement at a time might not be a bad idea. More digestible chunks to see what he has to offer. That's worked pretty well for me.

And Mahler is wonderful. I highly recommend him!


----------



## Xaltotun

The masses and motets would indeed be good routes from Mozart to Bruckner, as suggested by others. Also, his 1st symphony is the most "classical" of them, although it's more Schubertian than Mozartean. Do you like Schubert, Kieran? He might actually be the best stepping stone.


----------



## Ukko

I wonder if I needed a 'stepping stone' to Bruckner. His symphonies express to me a sort of naïve overconfidence that I find hard to put up with.


----------



## Kieran

Xaltotun said:


> The masses and motets would indeed be good routes from Mozart to Bruckner, as suggested by others. Also, his 1st symphony is the most "classical" of them, although it's more Schubertian than Mozartean. Do you like Schubert, Kieran? He might actually be the best stepping stone.


I do like Schubert. Alongside Beethoven, he would be the composer I listen to most, after Wolfgang. I more familiar with his lieder and last piano sonatas than his symphonic work...


----------



## Mahlerian

Kieran said:


> I do like Schubert. Alongside Beethoven, he would be the composer I listen to most, after Wolfgang. I more familiar with his lieder and last piano sonatas than his symphonic work...


Have you at least heard his "Great" C major symphony? It sounds like proto-Bruckner in spots, with its rhythmic ostinati and expansive length. As for the rest, I second the recommendation of Bruckner's vocal/choral works as a good intro to his style. The Mass in E minor is a particular favorite.

Bruckner and Mahler are very different in both their aims and their methods. Bruckner's works fuse Beethovinian architecture with Baroque polyphony and Wagnerian harmony, while Mahler took the arch-Romantic genre of the symphonic poem and gave it classical developmental form (his first symphony was initially subtitled "A Symphonic Poem in the form of a Symphony"). The primary thing that they share is having written symphonies that last approximately 70-90 minutes.


----------



## davinci

Are u familiar with Beethoven Symphony 1? I hear a lot of Mozart and Haydn in it and then move to #2 where he starts to expand into some Romanticism.
My other suggestion is listen to Bruckner's String Quintet in F major.


----------



## Wandering

Start with lighter things. Bruckner's 3rd with the third and fourth movements give brilliant dance themes, very jubilent, distracted into sheer delight, ironicly contrasing the senstation openings, though they are also upbeat, very Mozartian. Same occurence in the 4th first movement. Also these movements I speak of have something more celibritory and upbeat due to often being in a major cord, he changed this in later symphonies for a more serioso grave grand with the major releaving some all more, more, big things. Some scherzos are releaving this tension, notabyl scherzos of the 5th and 8th, oh boy, I do love them. Bruckner can often de-bog weight with unbelievable beauty. A good deal of his work ventured into some almost impossiblly long phrases slowly shifting upwards and downward, with all their Wangerian implications, an unbelievable headache, I can imagine this, being for a composer, even a counterpoint guy. The so tone obssesed climax in the first movement of the 8th, one of my favorite movements in many ways, I can also see this influencing and inspiring Mahler 6th finale, the first strike climax.

Drifted off topic. The depth of Mozart Requiem, Giovanni's Finale etc. etc. is plenty for 2 + 2


----------



## Kieran

Thanks Mahlerian, da Vinci and Clovis!

I've heard both Schubert's Greatsymph and Beethoven's first. I read that Beethoven's first was loosely modelled on the Jupiter, but not in a slavishly imitative way.

That's a great suggestion, Clovis. I'm going to Tower Records on Saturday, going to sift through Dvorak and Bruckner. I have a box set of old recordings of Mahler symphs, but it was heavy going, which is understandable. I need to join some dots before I get to that stage... :tiphat:


----------



## Manxfeeder

You might find a point of reference between Bruckner's Mass No. 1 and the beginning of Mozart's Requiem. I hadn't noticed it until I heard Gardiner's recording. Bruckner studied the requiem, even citing parts of it which were not written strictly according to the rules to defend his use of them.


----------



## Xaltotun

Hilltroll72 said:


> I wonder if I needed a 'stepping stone' to Bruckner. His symphonies express to me a sort of naïve overconfidence that I find hard to put up with.


Bruckner, to me, is the epitome of musical Idealism. If you're not partial to Idealism as such (and what is naïve overconfidence but a form of extreme idealism?), Bruckner might not be for you. On the other hand, the "overconfident" parts in Bruckner are always contrasted by parts that suggest self-doubt and inner conflict, although the Spirit always triumphs over Matter in the end.

All the things that float around Bruckner can be used as stepping stones: Schubert, Beethoven's 9th, even Bach, and yes, Mahler (although they have their differences, they share a love of pathos and, um, catharsis?). Sibelius is extremely Brucknerian at times (7th symphony, Wood-Nymph, Andante Festivo etc.). Wagner, too, is a no-brainer, although the similarity was probably exaggerated during Bruckner's own time.


----------



## davinci

Very well said by *Xaltotun*. *Kieran*, don't be in a hurry to get to Mahler, the more foundation u have the more appreciation you'll have for Mahler. Some great advice here, so enjoy the ride.


----------



## Kieran

davinci said:


> Very well said by *Xaltotun*. *Kieran*, don't be in a hurry to get to Mahler, the more foundation u have the more appreciation you'll have for Mahler. Some great advice here, so enjoy the ride.


Thanks! I don't feel any pressure to get this, it's just curiosity is making me look outwards at other composers, past my favourite few... :tiphat:


----------



## Aries

Kieran said:


> Can anybody offer me one? I crave a knowledge of these composers, to bring me up to date...


You have to hear it. I need 2 days for Bruckner, but i came from Wagner.

Similarities between Bruckner and Mozart are the sonata form-set, and the catchiness of the themes. But Bruckern is a thousand times more heavy and deeper than mozart.

Hint: Hear a Bruckner-symphony an try to identify the elements of the sonata form-set.


----------



## Mahlerian

Aries said:


> You have to hear it. I need 2 days for Bruckner, but i came from Wagner.
> 
> Similarities between Bruckner and Mozart are the sonata form-set, and the catchiness of the themes. But Bruckern is a thousand times more heavy and deeper than mozart.
> 
> Hint: Hear a Bruckner-symphony an try to identify the elements of the sonata form-set.


It's not quite that simple. A Mozart symphonic exposition has (generally) two themes, two keys, and lasts about 2-3 minutes, after which it is repeated verbatim. The two themes/keys are usually linked smoothly via transition material. A Bruckner exposition has three themes, goes through 4 or more keys, and can last up to 8 minutes or so, not repeated. Sometimes transition material is cut or abbreviated, and ideas are juxtaposed with a brief pause in between, only to later be reconciled in the development or coda.

You can't just say: "this is in sonata form, so is this, so listen to them in the same way". Bruckner, like Mahler, treated form in an idiosyncratic manner that requires a bit of adjustment.

I also wouldn't say so emphatically that Bruckner's music is "deeper". They wrote in different styles. Mozart wrote a number of works that are plenty profound.


----------



## Aries

Mahlerian said:


> It's not quite that simple. A Mozart symphonic exposition has (generally) two themes, two keys, and lasts about 2-3 minutes, after which it is repeated verbatim. The two themes/keys are usually linked smoothly via transition material. A Bruckner exposition has three themes, goes through 4 or more keys, and can last up to 8 minutes or so, not repeated. Sometimes transition material is cut or abbreviated, and ideas are juxtaposed with a brief pause in between, only to later be reconciled in the development or coda.


Ok, there are some differences:
- Mozart use 2 themes, Bruckner use 3 with sub-themes.
- Mozart repeats the exposition, Bruckner not.
- Mozart: reprise = exposition, Bruckner: reprise = varied exposition, late Bruckner: reprise = varied exposition without first theme

But both use still the sonata form set.



Mahlerian said:


> Bruckner, like Mahler, treated form in an idiosyncratic manner that requires a bit of adjustment.


Bruckner requires a bit of adjustment. But he has a strict form. Mahler has often no form at all. Every symphony is complete different and has its own form.


----------



## Mahlerian

Aries said:


> Bruckner requires a bit of adjustment. But he has a strict form. Mahler has often no form at all. Every symphony is complete different and has its own form.


No set form, perhaps, but all of his first movements are roughly in sonata form (second movement in the case of the 5th), with the caveat that everything is always developing, even in the recapitulation and coda. His scherzos are in traditional scherzo form, but with development and usually two trio sections rather than one. His andante movements usually oscillate between two themes, although elements of one may bleed into the other freely at times. His finales are often in modified rondo or sonata form. He composed within forms, but without formula.


----------



## peeyaj

Bruckner as Schubert in steroids. I LOL'ed!


----------



## Kieran

I listened to Mahler's fifth symph the other night. I don't know why I chose that one, other than the key, c-sharp minor. It was conducted by Bruno Walter in New York in 1947. Brand new music for me, I persevered to the end without any real understanding of what I was listening to. Some of it was obviously more appealing/accessible than other parts. Often it sounded like exaggerated emotions, heightened tensions, undeveloped and inarticulate moods that wouldn't sound so effective if they were more developed. I enjoyed it, but in the way you enjoy surviving a peculiar challenge.

I also listened to Schubert's Unfinished and 8th symphs. Not sure on the numbering, but these were more familiar to me. I'm using The Musical Companion, edited by A.L. Bachman in 1934 as my learning tool. I quite enjoy this book, dunno if anyone else has it...


----------



## Mahlerian

Kieran said:


> I listened to Mahler's fifth symph the other night. I don't know why I chose that one, other than the key, c-sharp minor. It was conducted by Bruno Walter in New York in 1947. Brand new music for me, I persevered to the end without any real understanding of what I was listening to. Some of it was obviously more appealing/accessible than other parts. Often it sounded like exaggerated emotions, heightened tensions, undeveloped and inarticulate moods that wouldn't sound so effective if they were more developed. I enjoyed it, but in the way you enjoy surviving a peculiar challenge.


It all fits together, trust me. Every single one of those shifts is carefully designed to fit in with the whole work. For example, the first movement's most surprising moment, that loud outburst that interrupts the trumpet call, is based on themes from the following movement (just as a calmer episode in that movement is based on a secondary theme from the first). Likewise, the entrance of D major in the A minor second movement returns at the D major finale, but without fading away this time. There are subtler connections throughout the entire work, as well.

A note about the key of the work. The movements are in: C# minor, A minor, D major, F major, and D major respectively. You can hardly call it a work "in" C# minor. They usually cut the key designation entirely. Mahler did this sort of thing occasionally.

If you want a Mahler symphony that's easier to digest, though, I would recommend the first. It's not as long, and it's a little less idiosyncratic. At least you're trying!


----------



## Kieran

Thanks Mahlerian, that's very informative. I did enjoy this: I could at least recognise that the work was momentous and ominous and large. The shifts were interesting, gave the work a restless, agitated quality. It was the overwhelming sense of being in a strange ear-place that made me lose concentration, and my Bachman wasn't any help since Mahler wasn't so famous then, maybe... :tiphat:


----------



## Mahlerian

Back in 1936, Mahler was still thought of by most as a great conductor who wrote some overblown/mediocre music on the side. One obituary (he died in 1911) said something to the effect of "We cannot imagine that his music will outlast him". He had his champions in conductors like Bruno Walter and Otto Klemperer, and composers like Schoenberg (and his school), Copland, and Shostakovich admired him, but in the eyes of most critics he was an oddity at best.

One more thing to realize is that the "shock" of listening to Mahler is much more than simply the notes. The way orchestration is handled is unlike anything that came before, especially in the later works. Traditionally, melodic lines would be balanced between winds and strings, and there is a sense of stability of sound. Mahler's orchestration is much more fragmented, with every instrument taking on an individual role, and the kind and coloration of the ensemble changing practically from bar to bar.


----------



## Manxfeeder

If you're getting into Mahler, one book which helped me greatly as my introduction to his music is David Hurwitz's The Mahler Symphonies, an Owner's Manual.  He writes in a conversational, not too technical manner, but he loves these symphonies and conveys that love very well.


----------



## PhileasFogg

odd, I need the opposite, a way to "get" Mozart for someone coming from a late romantic background


----------

