How does one begin to appreciate Bruckner??? Help needed!

[ajlee]

Some composers are "love at first sight (listen)" (e.g. Mahler, Beethoven, etc.). But for the longest time I've been trying to like Bruckner!
I know sometimes it might be the lack of quality of the recording, but hardly think that's case for me because the set I own is Jochum's Dresden cycle, one of the most acclaimed by general consensus. It's just sad that this set has been sitting on my shelf for months. Granted, I have not listened to every symphony, but even the most popular 4th didn't whet my appetite.
I really believe that, in time, I'll start to like him. I just wanna get there faster!! Any clues from you guys? Like, which symph should I start, or, what should I listen to when I listen?

[Philoctetes]

Well I enjoy the layers and the building up of his structures.

My favorite symphony is his 9th, as I think it expresses the things that I'm looking for, in symphonic form.

[Daverz]

3 is a good place to start.  The 1889 version is fully mature Bruckner, but is also not too long.  After that I'd just work thru the box again, 1 thru 9.

The most popular are 4 and 7. 

6 is again mature but not too long.

Don't be afraid to just sample movements, e.g. scherzos or adagios.

If none of this works, put it away for some other year when he might grab you more.

 

[Bogey]

My favorite is the 4th,but what hooked me was his Motets. 

[Mirror Image]

Interestingly enough, Bruckner was one of the first composers I disliked on first hearing. It certainly wasn't love at first listen for me. My first set was Jochum's on DG with the Bavarian Radio Symphony and Berliners (I believe?) and I just wasn't impressed with the music at all. At that time, I also wasn't impressed with the way Bruckner laid out his symphonies. All of them, except for the 9th, have four movements and in most cases follow the same kind of structure: allegro, adagio, scherzo, allegro. I also wasn't sure why Bruckner used heavy repetition all the time. It seemed like he was just repeating the same phrase over and over again. I basically got fed up with his music and how annoying it was for me at that time, so I moved onto other composers for about six months. Time proved to be a great healer as I acquired a new Bruckner set (Wand's Cologne Radio Symphony cycle on RCA which I got dirt cheap). I fired up Symphony No. 9 and it became a revelation to me. I finally understood what the music or what Bruckner was doing with his music. The music for me is about transcendence or trying to reach for something that is beyond my grasp. In Bruckner's case, this was God. I became so interested in his music and his history. To close this way too lengthy paragraph, you may say don't like something or that you don't get it, but if you're not giving it a chance or doing the research in order to understand it, then you're not only doing yourself a disservice than you're doing the man who created the music a disservice. There's so much to enjoy in his music that I can't help but to laugh at how ignorant I was to dismiss him just because I didn't understand him.

[ajlee]

but if you're not giving it a chance or doing the research in order to understand it, then you're not only doing yourself a disservice than you're doing the man who created the music a disservice. There's so much to enjoy in his music that I can't help but to laugh at how ignorant I was to dismiss him just because I didn't understand him.

So true! Honestly, that's what I felt like! I felt almost guilty not being able to fully appreciate his music, while the whole world seems to agree that he's rightfully one of the major symphonists in history----and I almost only listen to symphonies!

3 is a good place to start.  The 1889 version is fully mature Bruckner, but is also not too long.  After that I'd just work thru the box again, 1 thru 9.

6 is again mature but not too long.

Don't be afraid to just sample movements, e.g. scherzos or adagios.

If none of this works, put it away for some other year when he might grab you more.

Those are good suggestions.....since Bruckner so far gives me the impression of aimless wandering (basically his music always sounds too long for me...) I should start off by digesting pieces of it. =)

If not, time WILL heal. It always does. XD

[Lethevich]

Alongside the abbreviated third, his sixth is his most concise and "classical" in proportion. But it's still typical Bruckner so I doubt it would do much to convince you until you attune to his compositional style...

[The new erato]

Interestingly enough, Bruckner was one of the first composers I disliked on first hearing.

Strangely enough he was my first love. For 5 years in the 70ies I played him intensively. Since then, hardly ever, I find him mostly too longwinded and repetitive, aka boring.

[mahler10th]

Interestingly enough, Bruckner was one of the first composers I disliked on first hearing. It certainly wasn't love at first listen for me. My first set was Jochum's on DG with the Bavarian Radio Symphony and Berliners (I believe?) and I just wasn't impressed with the music at all. At that time, I also wasn't impressed with the way Bruckner laid out his symphonies. All of them, except for the 9th, have four movements and in most cases follow the same kind of structure: allegro, adagio, scherzo, allegro. I also wasn't sure why Bruckner used heavy repetition all the time. It seemed like he was just repeating the same phrase over and over again. I basically got fed up with his music and how annoying it was for me at that time, so I moved onto other composers for about six months. Time proved to be a great healer as I acquired a new Bruckner set (Wand's Cologne Radio Symphony cycle on RCA which I got dirt cheap). I fired up Symphony No. 9 and it became a revelation to me. I finally understood what the music or what Bruckner was doing with his music. The music for me is about transcendence or trying to reach for something that is beyond my grasp. In Bruckner's case, this was God. I became so interested in his music and his history. To close this way too lengthy paragraph, you may say don't like something or that you don't get it, but if you're not giving it a chance or doing the research in order to understand it, then you're not only doing yourself a disservice than you're doing the man who created the music a disservice. There's so much to enjoy in his music that I can't help but to laugh at how ignorant I was to dismiss him just because I didn't understand him.

Fantastically lucid and completely on the money.  I'm always interested in how people find composers or how composers find them - in your case with Bruckner, you found him, lost him, then he found you.
Music can be so powerful within us.

[Brian]

ajlee,

I spent several years having an extremely hard time with Bruckner. I've still got only a foothold. I suggest you take it one symphony at a time, and, as Daverz suggests, take it one movement at a time. Which movement depends on you. I gather that Sergeant Rock learned to like Bruckner by listening to his scherzos, and indeed the scherzos are powerful, fierce, immediately clear in their dramatic intent, and un-stop-listen-to-them-able. This is especially true for No 9, but No 7 is striking too.

My own avenue into Bruckner was via the slow movement of Symphony No 7. I still consider No 7 his most "accessible" symphony, because while it's as long as the others and as mystical as many of them, it also has at least two really good tunes. Anyhow, I think several years went by (!) before I was able to listen to any of it other than the slow movement. See, Bruckner's slow movements achieve a sort of calm and transcendence you don't get anywhere else in music, so I lapped up the Seventh's adagio time and time again whenever the mood for that sort of thing struck me. It's so consoling - the kind of thing one wants at one's funeral - with powerfully glum beginnings and a vaguely comforting end but in the middle a climax of absolutely transcendent happiness. Eventually, after a couple years, I was able to play the whole symphony without finding it a disappointment. (BTW, Jochum's Seventh is fantastic.)

Last year, I listened to the Sixth for the first time and found it pretty approachable: it is comparatively concise and straightforward, as Lethe says, but no single movement stands out as an "entry point" to try and make his style approachable. Recently I have taken to the adagio of the Eighth, listening to it on its own as a way of cracking the symphony as a whole. But that's a half-hour long (although the Jochum performance is glorious)!

I still haven't found the Ninth an easy listen to, as a whole, and the Fifth is really way too much of a challenge for me at this point. I agree with you that No 4 is boring, boring, boring. Haven't heard No 3 at all.

So my suggestion is to definitely home in on specific movements that give you a sound and a feeling you don't get anywhere else: adagio from 7, scherzo from 9, or any movement you like when you listen to it, as those are probably the most concise, most striking, most emotionally deep, most "Brucknerian." Then move onward and upward once you're ready - or, if you can't bring yourself to like those, maybe give up and try again next year. But I definitely would NOT try whole symphonies at one sitting until you can find things in the Bruckner style that you like, and until you can even start to anticipate enjoying elements of his style. Otherwise you're just sitting down for 70-minute torture sessions.

[mc ukrneal]

I have come late to Bruckner myself (relative to other composers) and am still learning him. I don't listen to any Bruckner symphony regularly except for #9. I love the harmonies and grandeur in the explosions of sound that take place in this symphony. In particular, I like the Haitink version (his second one I think it is), because he seems to go at the music in a straight-forward way with a superb orchestra (Concertgebouw). This is an exciting recording.

But a piece I do listen to more often is the Te Deum. Here is a piece that has the Bruckner sound, but it only lasts 20-25 minutes. It starts off with a big, bold start, but because it is shorter, you may not have quite the same fatigue as with a whole symphony. I have the hyperion recording, but as it is the only recording I have, cannot say if there is anything better out there.

Anyway, just a couple of ideas.

[Harry]

Bruckner is a monument in itself. One of the very great composers, that changed the sound world of classical music completely. There is no composer you can compare with him, and there never was a composer after him able to write such cathedrals of Symphonies. And I say that with much reverence to the man and composer. So many moments of truly religious sightings of heaven, truly emotional pivotal moments that makes your heart beat faster. For me he was and still is a composer I could not live without. And as for recordings Herbert von Karajan still holds the place of honour. The grip this man has on the music is truly amazing too.

[Mirror Image]

Strangely enough he was my first love. For 5 years in the 70ies I played him intensively. Since then, hardly ever, I find him mostly too longwinded and repetitive, aka boring.

To each their own. I'm really find his music moving. Long-winded or not, I can't live without his music even if I don't listen to it for another six months.

[Mirror Image]

Fantastically lucid and completely on the money.  I'm always interested in how people find composers or how composers find them - in your case with Bruckner, you found him, lost him, then he found you.

Music can be so powerful within us.

Music is the one thing that keeps me motivated and one aspect of music that I find so amazing, especially in Bruckner's case, is how honest it can be. It can reveal a lot about the people who wrote it. It's almost like a diary set to music. If that makes any sense.

[Opus106]

It can reveal a lot about the people who wrote it.

In a way, that is true for Bruckner's music alone.

[Florestan]

Having struggled with Bruckner's symphonies for years myself, and not yet having came to terms with them, I greatly appreciate the suggestions offered and will try them.

Still I have a question fo Bruckner fans: do you think it's possible that there be a total incompatibility between his music and certain people? IOW, are you sure that, given time and proper listening technique, everyone who so desires will finally enjoy Bruckner?

[MDL]

I got to know Bruckner's symphonies in reverse chronological order, more or less. I heard Bruno Walter's recording of 9,  was hugely impressed by it and worked my way backwards. I'm still very sketchy about 1 and 2, but from 3 onwards, Bruckner's symphonies just get better and better. I've got Haitink's RCO set which, apart from a not-well-regarded 8, is a pretty good collection.

[Brahmsian]

I now love Bruckner, have for the past four years.  He is my favorite symphonic composer. 

I love the suggestions people have regarding approaching his symphonies.  Focus on individual movements, or particularly the Adagios.  No one wrote such beautiful, other worldly adagios quite like Bruckner.

No need to force the issue though, if Bruckner isn't connecting with you, put it aside, and revisit at a later date.

It took me awhile to get accustomed to many of his symphonies.

[MDL]

Although it's not my favourite symphony as a whole, the tune that opens Symphony No.3 is one of the most beautiful things Bruckner ever wrote. If that doesn't stir something in you, then perhaps Bruckner just isn't for you. There's no harm or shame in that. Rossini bores the pants off me and I'd rather eat my own earwax than listen to Haydn. You don't have to like every composer, even if you know that other people revere them.

[George]

I tried and tried, until I heard Celibidache's EMI recordings of Bruckner.

Now I don't try, I just enjoy.