Why (or how) should I listen to Bruckner?

[Daverz]

How should you listen to Bruckner? LOUD!

[mahlertitan]

It's not whimsical, it's stupid! It's a shortened 'Amadeus' version of Bruckner.

Ken Russell also made a Mahler film. The only thing great about it was the Austrian landscape and the music.

That mahler film was actually pretty okay (the only one ever made on the composer!) overall speaking. I agree with what you say, the Bruckner film is idiotic, and stupid, it was 50 minutes of "What the f--K?"

[Bonehelm]

How should you listen to Bruckner? LOUD!

Ditto. Espcially at the endings...you just have to let the last chords fill up and ring in your room...

[hautbois]

A year ago Claus Peter Flor came to Kuala Lumpur to conduct Bruckner 5th for a season finale. I was since hooked. I think that opening is as heavenly as any symphony can ever get.

Howard

[greg]

is it just me or is there some things about Bruckner's music that are just weird? And i mean weird in a bad way.
I listened to the 4th again yesterday, and i can think of a specific moment to point out- the ending. The way the strings do the simplest two-note line repeated to build to the climax of an ending just sounds totally wrong, sounds exactly like something an amateur would do. Also, another example, the first movement of the 9th. I've only head it in MIDI, and followed along with the score, but midway through it he keeps on using these patterns with NO ornamentation at all, i'm just thinking WTF?! And because of the lack of simple ornamentation, it sounded horrible when it could have sounded great. I can't think of any more specific examples right now, but he seems to get caught up in writing patterns that just don't even sound right. But he does seem to avoid it completely in his Scherzos, which are always amazing. And the rest of his music is, too, except for the weird pattern thing he has going on. 

[Montpellier]

How should you listen to Bruckner? LOUD!

Quite right, otherwise it's an excellent cure for insomnia.

[dtwilbanks]

Quite right, otherwise it's an excellent cure for insomnia.

Maybe that's what I've been doing wrong.

[bhodges]

Bruckner, like many other composers, definitely needs to be heard con blasto! 

--Bruce

[marvinbrown]

I've tried several times and he defeats me. Someone on this forum enthused about the adagio in Sym. 8 recently, so I tried it (Barenboim, Berlin Philharmonic). It seems to me like a lot of very slow, blocky, almost Erector-set  buiilding up to climaxes that never arrive; the themes just shift instead of resolving into anything musically satisfying. I love Wagner and Brahms, so this should be my territory. Not every composer is for everyone, so it will be no surprise to me if I never get him. But before giving up for good, I thought I'd try asking here. 

 Chaszz, I know how much you like Wagner and I, two days ago,  have started exploring the symphonies of Bruckner for the first time.  I am quite surprised and sorry to hear of the trouble you are having with Bruckner since I responded so well to him.  Bruckner's first two symphonies (Symphony 0 and 00) show many Wagnerian characteristics.  Highly emotional, with twists and turns, I was captivated by what I heard.  I have not gotten to the 8th Symphony yet, but if I can recommend one thing....start with Symphony No.0 "Nullte" perhaps if you can understand where Bruckner came from "musically" you can better engage in his later symphonies.


 Best of luck!

 marvin
 

[Anne]

Jochum for the 4th and Karajan for the 8th.  The 4th is so much easier than the 8th.  If you get success with it, it will help you persevere for his more difficult works.

[Harry]

Bruckner, like many other composers, definitely needs to be heard con blasto! 

--Bruce

Absolutely, that I can confirm.

But that aside if Bruckner does not appeal to you, don't fret yourself about that, turn to another composer, and try later again.
When I started with Bruckner 35 years ago, I found it infernal noise coming from hell, now I know better, but it took me quite a while.

[dtwilbanks]

Absolutely, that I can confirm.

But that aside if Bruckner does not appeal to you, don't fret yourself about that, turn to another composer, and try later again.
When I started with Bruckner 35 years ago, I found it infernal noise coming from hell, now I know better, but it took me quite a while.

That's right. There is plenty of music out there. Don't get hung up on one composer.

[greg]

?... i write a new post and everyone responds to an old post that's over a month old?
i just have a question: does anyone think this is a flaw in Bruckner's music? (what i wrote in my post)

[Cato]

Thank you all for the advice. I will keep trying, though not steadily, too much music by other composers to hear! The advice to try shorter works and non-symphonies sounds like it may be fruitful. To the one poster who asked if I had experience listening to and enjoying symphonies, yes, fifty years worth!

I have never heard the Barenboim, but your original comment about the climaxes going nowhere or having no point sounds like Barenboim bit the banana pudding.

For a guaranteed performance where you will get the point, try Eugen Jochum on either DGG or EMI.

[Keemun]

I had the same problem getting into Bruckner and even posted a similar thread on another board about it.  I just had to keep trying and I finally achieved a Bruckner-awakening. 

It is absolutely essential to have good performances.  I started listening to Tintner's Bruckner cycle, which received pretty good reviews, but I just didn't like them at all.  Then I listened to Karajan's last recording of the 7th and the difference was incredible.  The conductor's approach to Bruckner is quite important.  Different conductors have different styles (obviously), but I have found that it seems extra important for Bruckner.  Try different ones and see which you like.  Also, the orchestra is pretty important.  Not just any community orchestra can pull off Bruckner well.  It takes some great forces, especially brass, to do it right.

[Cato]

I had the same problem getting into Bruckner and even posted a similar thread on another board about it.  I just had to keep trying and I finally achieved a Bruckner-awakening. 

It is absolutely essential to have good performances.  I started listening to Tintner's Bruckner cycle, which received pretty good reviews, but I just didn't like them at all.  Then I listened to Karajan's last recording of the 7th and the difference was incredible.  The conductor's approach to Bruckner is quite important.  Different conductors have different styles (obviously), but I have found that it seems extra important for Bruckner.  Try different ones and see which you like.  Also, the orchestra is pretty important.  Not just any community orchestra can pull off Bruckner well.  It takes some great forces, especially brass, to do it right.

Steroid use by the brass section should be allowed for Bruckner!   

[Keemun]

Here are some legal live/broadcast recordings of Bruckner's later symphonies for you to try:

Anton Bruckner - Symphony No. 7
Pierre Boulez, conductor
Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra
Live: June 5, 2005
128 kbps/wma

http://www.mediafire.com/?cb12f8yy2y5

Anton Bruckner - Symphony No. 7
Sergiu Celibidache, conductor
Munich Philharmonic Orchestra
Radio Broadcast: January 1, 1992
192 kbps/mp3

(Celibidache conducts Bruckner slowly.)

http://www.mediafire.com/?3vzymnwmncb
http://www.mediafire.com/?bgg1yjq752o

Anton Bruckner - Symphony No. 8
Eugene Jochum, conductor
Bamberg Symphony Orchestra
Live: Tokyo, September 1982
320 kbps/mp3

http://www.mediafire.com/?9nvyzneixes
http://www.mediafire.com/?cmjedvzmdbf
http://www.mediafire.com/?2vmvbo79lwy
http://www.mediafire.com/?1s1hmnzacy9

Anton Bruckner - Symphony No. 9
Pierre Boulez, conductor
Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra
Live: 2001
320 kbps/mp3

http://www.mediafire.com/?71sb9wjwdlx
http://www.mediafire.com/?fnttqce1cw2
http://www.mediafire.com/?79mnmfm51oy

[rappy]

?... i write a new post and everyone responds to an old post that's over a month old?
i just have a question: does anyone think this is a flaw in Bruckner's music? (what i wrote in my post)

I'd like an answer to this by an experienced listener.

[bhodges]

is it just me or is there some things about Bruckner's music that are just weird? And i mean weird in a bad way.
I listened to the 4th again yesterday, and i can think of a specific moment to point out- the ending. The way the strings do the simplest two-note line repeated to build to the climax of an ending just sounds totally wrong, sounds exactly like something an amateur would do. Also, another example, the first movement of the 9th. I've only head it in MIDI, and followed along with the score, but midway through it he keeps on using these patterns with NO ornamentation at all, i'm just thinking WTF?! And because of the lack of simple ornamentation, it sounded horrible when it could have sounded great. I can't think of any more specific examples right now, but he seems to get caught up in writing patterns that just don't even sound right. But he does seem to avoid it completely in his Scherzos, which are always amazing. And the rest of his music is, too, except for the weird pattern thing he has going on. 

Some of Bruckner does sound "like something an amateur would do," in the sense that it is sometimes crafted from very simple components, but he often gets very complex results from those ingredients.  And PS, I wouldn't listen to anything by him in MIDI, since it wouldn't communicate his extraordinary textures at all.  You're right, it probably sounds very simple and "flat" that way.  Get a recording!

Lately I also hear Bruckner as some kind of spiritual forefather to some of today's minimalist composers.  Some people continually seem to link Bruckner and Mahler together but they could not be more different, and unfortunately some approach Bruckner with expectations of Mahlerian angst, mood changes and orchestration.  (Please note, I'm not saying that you do.)  Bruckner has his own orchestration gifts, some of which are related to his experience with organ music, e.g., his huge "blocks" of sound.

Anyway, the most important thing is: find a good recording of the 9th and crank it up, LOUD.   

--Bruce

[Keemun]

Regarding "weirdness" in Bruckner's music, I've never really thought of it that way.  Even when I didn't "get" his music, I found it boring, not weird.  In my relatively inexperienced opinion, I think that his music builds upon itself in layers.  It's kind of like standing at the edge of the ocean and watching the waves crash ashore.  You cannot see all of the waves still to come, and you cannot see the waves that have come before and gone back out as undercurrent.  But the entire thing builds upon itself to create the greatness of the ocean crashing ashore.