I'm lost in Mahler/Brucker's music.

[Bonehelm]

I'm lost..(in the bad way) in Mahler/Brucker's music.

I just don't get the point in their music, unlike Beethoven/Mozart/Chopin's music (which is what I mostly listen to), the theme development in their music is clear and every note, every passage, feels like it belongs in the piece and contributes to the subject as it evolves. Take Beethoven's 5th for example, I simply CANNOT find a single passage where I feel "What? why is this here? whats the point?" since everything sounds so melodic and smooth to the ear. An example would be when the tension builds up with the timpani doing the crescendo while the strings go up and down (5th symphony, 3rd movement).

However, in Brucker/Mahler's music, a lot of things don't seem to be "right" to me. It isn't anything primitive like Stravinsky or dissonant like Schoenberg. It's emotional (sometimes even overwhelming, especially in Mahler's finales), but I just don't get how he put his music together. It sounds like every passage is not connected to another one logically. It's....its....RANDOM! One moment you have the strings singing a beautiful chorale and the next thing you know the percussion just started roaring with the support of 12394809 heavy brass instruments (exaggeration, yes). And then suddenly the soprano comes in and sing for a while. And then gongs and mallets and timpani and bass drums and offstage instruments blast into a brilliant flourish. Just when I thought the whole things is over, the violin starts delivering yet another tune. One I haven't heard of before, nor had any anticipation for. Everything is just random to me. I have no idea when or where the climax is, where the theme is fully developed and ready to climb back down. It all just sounds like a bunch of unchained melody to me...with some occasional crashes and whams and bams. Powerful--yes, but I don't get the feelings/message the composers are trying to convey.

Please help the classical music newbie! I need more beginner friendly music 

[dtwilbanks]

Try some Schubert, Brahms and Schumann.

Now isn't that better? 

[mahlertitan]

simple, you are not ready for Mahler and Bruckner, listen some more Beethoven, and Schubert, and maybe start to listen some music by Wagner. I can assure you that nothing in Mahler, or Bruckner is "random". Obviously the late romantics wanted to go another direction than the early middle romantics, otherwise just go listen to Reis.

[Bonehelm]

Sure...but when will I know when I'm ready for Mahler/Bruckner?

[quintett op.57]

What have you got?

I suggest you start with Mahler 1 (Titan) and Bruckner 4 & 6.

If you're a beginner, just be patient.

How do you enjoy Haydn & Bach?
Maybe you'll find it's a strange question, but I think it's important to realise melody is not the only thing in music. Bach & Haydn could compose some great melodies but they are 2 composers whose music is mainly based on variations or development.   
I think Haydn is a good introduction to later symphonists : It's pleasant for many people at first hearing but is also very rich in development, orchestration and counterpoint. Of course, the atmosphere of his works is completely different.

You'll have to listen carefully if you want to enjoy all the works by Bruckner and Mahler. Then, maybe you'll get even more pleasure when you listen Beethoven 5 again.

[AnthonyAthletic]

Great post from the source!!

Just wait till you jump on the Pettersson/KA Hartmann scene, you will think Bruckner as mild as Haydn in comparison 

Seriously, stick with what you like for the moment, you have years and years to get your teeth into those big Wagnerian Bruckner symphonies, and the delight of Mahler.

Mahler 1 or 4 are already advised as good starting points, enjoy whatever you decide 

[Bonehelm]

I think Haydn is boring. All of his symphonies seem to follow the same pattern...and his music is so..balanced and carefully metered. I know that is classical period's style...but I prefer Mozart over him.

As for Bach, I haven't listened to him much, but I know he's a genius at counterpoint and fugue. All I know about his music is that it's very complex as he makes use of the contrapuntal texture in most of his music.

[Mark]

Sure...but when will I know when I'm ready for Mahler/Bruckner?

I couldn't stand either composer for years. Nor Schoenberg. Nor Stravinsky (sorry, Karl). Nor dozens of others: Shostakovich, even Brahms and Mozart! Schumann still foxes me at times.

Then one day, something you once heard and didn't like just starts making sense. It speaks to you. It's like you've passed some esoteric initiation ceremony that you didn't even know was going on. At least, it was like that for me. These days, I can handle much, much, much more than I could 10 years ago. Even the likes of Eisler, Hartmann and Lutoslawski no longer scare me.

Keep at it. The rewards come to the persistent ear.

[Cato]

Are you able to read music?  You might try following the scores.

And you might try starting at the beginning and following the symphonies chronologically.  Bruckner makes a leap with the Symphony #3, and some of the later works each represent large giant steps forward: #7-9.

With Mahler, most people put the first 4 symphonies together, and see a change with the Fifth Symphony.  The great Eighth can be seen as a Janus-like work, harking back to #2 and #3, while also looking forward somewhat, but the Symphonies #9 and #10 represent Mahler as a bridge to Schoenberg and even Webern.

I am happy that you are attempting to follow their works!   0:)   Trust us    it will be worth the time and effort!

[AnthonyAthletic]

Yes, Stravinsky.  I'm not a Stravinsky Virgin but I am only just past the touchy feely/snog behind the bike sheds in my exploration.

The Ballets I find superb, but need full concentration to listen to Stravinsky.  He is hardly background music, is he? I almost bought that Huge Strav does Strav set a while ago from HMV for £35, should have as its double and more the price now  

[mahlertitan]

Sure...but when will I know when I'm ready for Mahler/Bruckner?

well, it took me 2-3 years (listening to intro classical music) to get to like Mahler, and it it's going to take a long time for me to fully understand Bruckner, but, you should start listening to Mahler's 1st, 5th, symphonies. As for Bruckner, start with his 7th, 9th, 4th symphonies, another advice is, be patient, if you just wanted to be entertained, listening to rossini or something, but if you want music to touch you in a deeper way, be patient, and be prepared to listening to slow 30 minute movements, and listening to it repeatedly.

welcome to late romanticism, where things are beginning to get very complicated.

[Cato]

well, it took me 2-3 years (listening to intro classical music) to get to like Mahler, and it it's going to take a long time for me to fully understand Bruckner, but, you should start listening to Mahler's 1st, 5th, symphonies. As for Bruckner, start with his 7th, 9th, 4th symphonies, another advice is, be patient, if you just wanted to be entertained, listening to rossini or something, but if you want music to touch you in a deeper way, be patient, and be prepared to listening to slow 30 minute movements, and listening to it repeatedly.

welcome to the late romanticism, where things are beginning to get very complicated.

Agreed!  Patience!

In Bonehelm's original post it seems "he" (?) was listening fairly closely, but things were not falling into place.

Which recordings were you listening to?  It is possible you are perhaps the victim of Celibadache in Bruckner !   

[Drasko]

I almost bought that Huge Strav does Strav set a while ago from HMV for £35, should have as its double and more the price now  

That huge box is getting re-released next month so the prices should go back down.

ot: did your Brasilian friend managed to get that Goldenweiser Piano Trio, seems like a strange piece - large one movement theme & variations construction.

[Don]

Sure...but when will I know when I'm ready for Mahler/Bruckner?

Keep a few Mahler and Bruckner recordings in your music library, and go back to them every few months.  Chances are that a time will come when the music, all of a sudden, makes sense to you.

The above regimen has always worked for me - good luck, and whatever you do, don't worry about it.

[mahlertitan]

it takes a lot of maturity to appreciate slow music.

[Bunny]

Bonehelm, it's not a matter of being mature enough, or ready or unready.  It's all about listening without preconceived notions.  Start with Mahler's 4th symphony.  Listen to it and see if you can visualize a narrative for it, as if it were the soundtrack for a movie that you see in your mind's eye.  I suggest the 4th for two reasons: It is his most classically structured symphony and it is also one of the most visually evocative of symphonies.  It starts with sleigh bells jingling at the pace of a horse trotting easily.  First you hear the bells, and then as the first theme starts it's as if the sleigh the horses are pulling has come into sight.  Let the symphony carry you into a landscape in your imagination.  Mahler is like a trip through a landscape -- certain things seem to show up over and over, like a glimpse of a mountain in the distance or sunlight filtered through the branches of a tree.  His symphonies grow organically, going in strange directions at times before coming back to more familiar ground.  To emphasize this, there is only one expositional repeat in all of Mahler, and that is in his 6th Symphony.  Mahler's landscape is alien territory right now, but given time it will become more familiar and suddenly you will feel more at home in it.

Bruckner is also a composer who did not structure his symphonies classically.  Instead, if you are at all familiar with modern art, think of his symphony as a monumental abstract canvas by an artist such as Barnett Newman or Mark Rothko, or better yet Morris Louis.  Think of layers of color (sound) being laid down and then built up in washes.  Take your time with these works.  Don't force anything, it's really a zen thing.  You just have to go with the flow.  (And I can't believe I just wrote that. )

[springrite]

It is OK never to like Bruckner/Mahler. Different people simply respond differently to different music. Sometimes it clicks and other times it does not. My wife Vanessa's first favorite composer was Mahler, and still is -- that is without ANY previous exposure to classical music, no music appreciation classes, no background knowledge on theory, history of music, nothing! She still thinks Bach, Haydn and Mozart are boring (except the clarient quintet and a Kleiber DVD of Linz).

[mahlertitan]

it took me quite a while to appreciate bruckner, in comparison, it probably took me 2-3 minutes to realize the greatness of Mahler.

[Cato]

Bonehelm, it's not a matter of being mature enough, or ready or unready.  It's all about listening without preconceived notions.  Start with Mahler's 4th symphony.  Listen to it and see if you can visualize a narrative for it, as if it were the soundtrack for a movie that you see in your mind's eye.  I suggest the 4th for two reasons: It is his most classically structured symphony and it is also one of the most visually evocative of symphonies.  It starts with sleigh bells jingling at the pace of a horse trotting easily.  First you hear the bells, and then as the first theme starts it's as if the sleigh the horses are pulling has come into sight.  Let the symphony carry you into a landscape in your imagination.  Mahler is like a trip through a landscape -- certain things seem to show up over and over, like a glimpse of a mountain in the distance or sunlight filtered through the branches of a tree.  His symphonies grow organically, going in strange directions at times before coming back to more familiar ground.  To emphasize this, there is only one expositional repeat in all of Mahler, and that is in his 6th Symphony.  Mahler's landscape is alien territory right now, but given time it will become more familiar and suddenly you will feel more at home in it.

Bruckner is also a composer who did not structure his symphonies classically.  Instead, if you are at all familiar with modern art, think of his symphony as a monumental abstract canvas by an artist such as Barnett Newman or Mark Rothko, or better yet Morris Louis.  Think of layers of color (sound) being laid down and then built up in washes.  Take your time with these works.  Don't force anything, it's really a zen thing.  You just have to go with the flow.  (And I can't believe I just wrote that. )

Dudette!       You're in the club!!!    0:)

[springrite]

it took me quite a while to appreciate bruckner, in comparison, it probably took me 2-3 minutes to realize the greatness of Mahler.

Similar experience here, only it took me less time for Mahler, even longer for Bruckner (whom I still don't consider to be nearly in the same class!)!