Brahms vs. Bruckner as Symphonist

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

This seems like an obvious comparison but I don't think we've done it.

I find it interesting because, even though Brahms' symphonies seem to me much more formally perfect, I would rather listen to Bruckner's despite their various imperfections.

[MusicTurner]

Bruckner, by a Marathon distance ... I find there's much more of a timeless, abstract quality with Bruckner - and the mosaic-like compositions, of many contrasting block-episodes with inserted pauses, make the music more repeatedly rewarding, adding a transcendent dimension beyond the literal ongoings, somehow. Plus you also have epic and grand melodical features especially in some of the slower movements.

[Mirror Image]

Bruckner by a million miles. I never cared much for Brahms' music.

[Symphonic Addict]

Taking into account amount, Bruckner. But if I were to choose the first 4 symphonies of Bruckner to be on pair with Brahms, the latter would be the winner.

[Brian]

Hmm. Interesting poll. To me Brahms only wrote three great symphonies and Bruckner only wrote two great symphonies (plus a nearly great symphony, a great unfinished symphony, a great adagio in a boring symphony, and a great finale to a different boring symphony). I guess that means Brahms had a higher batting average!

[TheGSMoeller]

Hmm. Interesting poll. To me Brahms only wrote three great symphonies and Bruckner only wrote two great symphonies (plus a nearly great symphony, a great unfinished symphony, a great adagio in a boring symphony, and a great finale to a different boring symphony). I guess that means Brahms had a higher batting average!

Brian, I need specifics on your Bruckner list!

And I do understand your point, but I would go a little further and say Brahms is batting .940 (is my math correct?), I've never been a fan of the 4th's third mvt.

[Jo498]

I'd also be interested in a resolution of Brian's riddle
The ungreat Brahms is probably the 1st?

Bruckner:
great unfinished is easy: 9
great: 8 and 7?
nearly great: 5th?
great adagio in boring 6th? or 3rd?
great finale to otherwise boring 4th or 5th?

[Jo498]

I prefer Brahms as a composer but I think his chamber music and also concertos are relatively stronger than his symphonies.  I like them but there is often one movement I don't particularly care about (e.g. the 3rd mvmts. both of the 3rd and 4th). Whereas Bruckner's strongest works are his symphonies.
As for Bruckner, I sometimes think I like his symphonies despite not being too fond of his overall style. I love most of his slow movements, but I find his overall style too "brassy", too repetitive and often too bombastic. So I cannot really answer. Many times I'd rather listen to Brahms but some Bruckner is very special and more impressive than Brahms' symphonies, like the 9th or the adagio of the 8th.

[Brian]

I'd also be interested in a resolution of Brian's riddle
The ungreat Brahms is probably the 1st?

Bruckner:
great unfinished is easy: 9
great: 8 and 7?
nearly great: 5th?
great adagio in boring 6th? or 3rd?
great finale to otherwise boring 4th or 5th?

Haha, I didn't mean to create a riddle with my idiosyncratic, eccentric personal opinion!

I do think Brahms' 1st is a misfire, yes. Too ambitious, too concerned with the Beethoven "inheritance." Structurally odd: the drama is all resolved in the first movement, then two pastoral movements follow, and then...more drama. Odd. And you got three more of my opinions right - great unfinished of course, great - 7, and great finale to otherwise boring - 5th. I love the adagio to the 8th but I don't "get" the outer movements...and the scherzo is a nightmare of repetition.    For me nearly great is 6 (and maybe 4...both have finale problems to me) and the other great symphony is...now here is where I really go off the deep end... 3 

[FelixSkodi]

For me, it's Brahms ... by a marathon distance ... 

I rate all of Brahms's symphonies above Bruckner save Bruckner's 9th, which I think is the best of the bunch.

[Todd]

Brahms. 

[JBS]

Hmm. Interesting poll. To me Brahms only wrote three great symphonies and Bruckner only wrote two great symphonies (plus a nearly great symphony, a great unfinished symphony, a great adagio in a boring symphony, and a great finale to a different boring symphony). I guess that means Brahms had a higher batting average!

But quantitywise that means Bruckner had more "greatness".

As for Bruckner, I sometimes think I like his symphonies despite not being too fond of his overall style. I love most of his slow movements, but I find his overall style too "brassy", too repetitive and often too bombastic.

I think that criticism is correct...but I prefer Bruckner. I think his approach to musical structure was more original.  It's sort of as if Brahms was afraid of being too original, while Bruckner didn't care. Johannes wrote symphonies that mix well with other works of the era, while Anton didn't.

You know how in class pictures there was one kid whose clothes were superneat, whose hair was perfectly combed, and sat in the middle of the front row? That was Brahms.  Bruckner was the kid at the far end of the row, with the untucked shirt, stained pants, and Boris Johnson hairdo. 

[Jo498]

I struggle to keep focus during the finale of the 8th. (I have heard it live only once and it is HUGE in a real hall, but on recordings I struggle.) Its first movement is quite compact for Bruckner and the scherzo has a nice trio and faster interpretations are easier to endure. I basically agree about the 6th, don't care much for the 4th (which used to be by far the most popular). I used to like the 3rd more when I first got into classical and Bruckner almost 30 years ago. While I still don't know the original version well enough, Brucker cut the finale to shreds for the common 1889 version, so I suspend my opinion of the 3rd for now. I like the 5th better than you do.

As for Brahms' 1st, you have several good points. I still love it. The drama in the first movement and the beginning of the finale works so well despite the overambition and the shadow of Beethoven although I tend to get annoyed a little in the finale. (I think the finale has another problem of dramatic logic, in addition to the whole piece because again the drama is resolved by the horn call, chorale and big tune but then there needs to be some kind of development section and whipping up pseudo-drama with the big tune etc.)

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I prefer Brahms as a composer but I think his chamber music and also concertos are relatively stronger than his symphonies. 

I agree with this. I never really understood Brahms' stellar reputation until I listened to the chamber music.

As of now, Anton leads in the poll 2-1. Interesting how tastes change. I suspect if such a poll had been done before c. 1980, the result would have been the opposite.

[Mahlerian]

Both composers had a good sense of long-range planning, though Bruckner's chromatic harmony goes far further afield and more quickly. Both composers wrote very expressive works, though Bruckner's manner of expression is more direct and Brahms's much more reserved.

My favorite symphony from either composer may be Brahms's Fourth, and as composers generally I'd place Brahms in the lead for a very wide breadth of mastery, but as symphonists I enjoy them both and don't want to make a decision.

[Jo498]

As of now, Anton leads in the poll 2-1. Interesting how tastes change. I suspect if such a poll had been done before c. 1980, the result would have been the opposite.

Yes. Bruckner was huge in Austria already in the 1950s but when I started listening to classical music as a teenager in 1986 or 87 or more precisely when i "got to" Bruckner about 2 years later, still in the late 1980s, Bruckner (and also Mahler) were considered somewhat acquired tastes even in Germany, not as mainstream as Tchaikovsky, Brahms (or Strauss or Debussy), certainly not for beginners. Both in high school music class and in such series with 20 or 50 LPs of "classical masterworks" Bruckner was often skipped and one got a symphony by Brahms, Dvorak's new world and then a Strauss tone poem and afterwards La Mer and Le sacre. I dimly recall that I found the idea of symphonies exceeding Beethoven's 9th in length and ambition (needing two bloody LPs!) somewhat ludicrous.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Yes. Bruckner was huge in Austria already in the 1950s but when I started listening to classical music as a teenager in 1986 or 87 or more precisely when i "got to" Bruckner about 2 years later, still in the late 1980s, Bruckner (and also Mahler) were considered somewhat acquired tastes even in Germany, not as mainstream as Tchaikovsky, Brahms (or Strauss or Debussy), certainly not for beginners. Both in high school music class and in such series with 20 or 50 LPs of "classical masterworks" Bruckner was often skipped and one got a symphony by Brahms, Dvorak's new world and then a Strauss tone poem and afterwards La Mer and Le sacre. I dimly recall that I found the idea of symphonies exceeding Beethoven's 9th in length and ambition (needing two bloody LPs!) somewhat ludicrous.

The first Bruckner I ever bought was the HvK 6th, with the bird's wing in powdered sugar (or whatever it was) on the cover. It hooked me for life. I was in high school at the time and had discovered Mahler the previous year. I dimly remember that Bruckner was considered an esoteric, "mystical" composer, who would probably never become really popular. I thought it sounded like cosmic space music, and I liked it for that reason.

And "two bloody LPs" was part of the attraction. This must be some really serious, grand music to be sold that way (often in boxes, like an opera).

[Karl Henning]

Fascinating q. With the exception (commutual with Greg) of the Allegro deciso of the Fourth, I exult in the perfection of the Brahms symphonies, such gems that, great as the chamber music is, I could never subscribe to the hypothesis that the symphonies suffer anything like inferiority.

I came to the Bruckner symphonies much later. I don't believe that Brahms's symphonic perfection means that Bruckner's are "imperfect"; what Bruckner had to say were unsuited to the trim, at times breathtaking economy of the Brahms symphonies.

[Jo498]

In my time it was the tail end of the LP era (although some like Bruckner's 8th or 5th were sometimes on two CDs) and while I didn't buy any LPs of these composers I remember both the "fossilized wing" of Karajan's Bruckner as well as the "feather detail" Mahler covers for Abbado. I think the first Bruckner I bought was the 5th with Günter Wand but I probably had listened to another one (the 4th maybe) at a friend's or in the radio.

[TheGSMoeller]

Haha, I didn't mean to create a riddle with my idiosyncratic, eccentric personal opinion!

I do think Brahms' 1st is a misfire, yes. Too ambitious, too concerned with the Beethoven "inheritance." Structurally odd: the drama is all resolved in the first movement, then two pastoral movements follow, and then...more drama. Odd. And you got three more of my opinions right - great unfinished of course, great - 7, and great finale to otherwise boring - 5th. I love the adagio to the 8th but I don't "get" the outer movements...and the scherzo is a nightmare of repetition.    For me nearly great is 6 (and maybe 4...both have finale problems to me) and the other great symphony is...now here is where I really go off the deep end... 3 

Great, more riddles.
Which version of the 3rd?