Bruckner good, Mahler boring?

[71 dB]

I feel your pain, dude, and I agree with you. Elgar was a damn fine composer who wrote as many, if not more, masterworks than Bruckner. Let's count: the two symphonies, Falstaff, Enigma, the Cello Concerto, the Violin Concerto, the Piano Quintet, the String Quartet, the Violin Sonata, Gerontius, the Apostles, Sea Pictures, In the South, Cockaigne, the Serenade for Strings, Introduction and Allegro.

Damn right Sarge!

My Trinity is Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner

Mine is Elgar - Bach - Händel.

...but Elgar is definitely in my top ten.

0:)

[Bonehelm]

Come on man! The 4th mov. of Elgar's 2nd symphony, simple? Hell no! Themes overlapped, counterpoint, harmony, melodies,... ...everything constructed together geniously into multidimensional perfection. You're mentally 3 years old, or a bonehead.

Damn it's frustrating to promote Elgar... 

What is it you have heard from Dittersdorf? I guess all people in the 18th century where stupid since they admired Dittersdorf. How many times I have to say the history is twisted and neglects many great composers.

Elgar rules!

Keep lying to yourself, Elgar's nothing compared to Bruckner or Mahler in terms of complexity. That's what 99% of the world's music scholars will tell you. At least I trust Karl (who got a doctoral degree in music) on this. If he thinks Elgar is simple, no one should argue with him.

Btw you don't even have a music education. At least I do.

[greg]

Keep lying to yourself, Elgar's nothing compared to Bruckner or Mahler in terms of complexity. That's what 99% of the world's music scholars will tell you. At least I trust Karl (who got a doctoral degree in music) on this. If he thinks Elgar is simple, no one should argue with him.

Btw you don't even have a music education. At least I do.

i would say that, too.
(although i haven't heard that much, i can tell, reading through an Elgar score isn't as hard as Bruckner and defintely not as hard as Mahler)
he doesn't use as large of an orchestra.... but i wouldn't call his music 'simple' all the time

[Bonehelm]

i would say that, too.
(although i haven't heard that much, i can tell, reading through an Elgar score isn't as hard as Bruckner and defintely not as hard as Mahler)
he doesn't use as large of an orchestra.... but i wouldn't call his music 'simple' all the time

His music is not simple all the time. But it's simple ALL THE TIME when compared to Bruckner or Mahler or Wagner.

[Renfield]

With all due respect to Mr Henning (whose musical knowledge and/or academic credentials cited above I have no reason to doubt), in my world, it takes a lot more than citing the greater authority of one academically-certified professional's opinion (note: perhaps even "professional opinion") to make a point.

If you can argue clearly and concisely regarding why Elgar, Mahler, Bruckner, Mozart, Boris Tchaikovsky or Greg's music is or is not complicated in comparison to an again clearly defined musical "reference form", please, by all means do so.

But I am already clenching my proverbial jaw in remaining cordial before this poor excuse for an argument, on principle: "because I say so", does not cut it. And that applies regardless of the age, experience, or curriculum vitae of the person citing such "evidence".

Otherwise, I might assert the world to be banana-shaped, and myself its king: because "I say so", and because "I know it's true".

[cx]

Well, if you look at Bruckner's early symphonies, 3rd, 4th. Both symphonies were master works, but both suffers from some deficiencies In the 3rd, Bruckner had all sorts of great ideas and it seemed to me that he didn't expressed his ideas in a coherent way. His earlier drafts of the 4th (which had 3 different finales), shows his struggle with writing a coherent final movement. But, Bruckner is improving vastly already, one can see that by listening all 3 versions of the finale of the 4th, where he comes closest with the last version. His fifth, the reason i call it a turning point, is that it seemed to me, from that point on, he concludes his symphonies in ways that is much more convincing than his earlier attempts with the 4th. it also shows the full might of his contrapuntal maturity, writing counterpoint on a scale that is unprecedented in western music.

The finale of the 5th is indeed marvelous. But a turning point? The 5th's finale is quite unique, and when one looks at (for example) the finales of the 6th and 7th symphonies, there isn't really a vast progression of improvement or stylistic change. In fact, I don't think it's a far-fetched claim to say that the finales of the 6th and 7th have more in common with the finale of the 3rd than the 5th. That the finale of the 5th was centered around a fugue really sets it apart from the rest.

And about "writing counterpoint on a scale that is unprecedented in western music" -- don't forget Bach and Beethoven (& co.). 

In a way, Bruckner "recycles", be it thematic materials, or earlier symphonies. It is also interesting to note that they way he quoted Wagner's "Siegfried Idyll" in both his Te Deum and 7th symphony.

I took the phrase "recycled material" to mean a little more than Bruckner quoting himself in passages. Not sure how much he recycles thematic material. I find every one of his symphonies quite unique, each producing its own sound world and going its own way.

Sure, he wrote in much the same form (sonata-allegro form, adagio then scherzo or vice versa, then a finale) and utilized many of the same mechanisms (ie., the "Bruckner rhythm" and forms of broad sequencing). But like any other major composer, he was developing (or had developed) his own voice, and there are bound to be a number of similarities given any two of his works. The consistent style with which he worked and improved over time is one of his admirable traits to some (like me, and you may agree).

It's all a "matter of degree", I s'pose. (And opinion.)

[quintett op.57]

I feel your pain, dude, and I agree with you. Elgar was a damn fine composer who wrote as many, if not more, masterworks than Bruckner. Let's count: the two symphonies, Falstaff, Enigma, the Cello Concerto, the Violin Concerto, the Piano Quintet, the String Quartet, the Violin Sonata, Gerontius, the Apostles, Sea Pictures, In the South, Cockaigne, the Serenade for Strings, Introduction and Allegro.

My Trinity is Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner...but Elgar is definitely in my top ten.

Sarge

Elgar is definitely not in my TOP10, but those who denigrate him and Dittersdorf are just ignorant about their works.
Same with those who've written scornful posts about Vivaldi, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Haydn, Paganini, Scarlatti, Schubert and many more

[cx]

Keep lying to yourself, Elgar's nothing compared to Bruckner or Mahler in terms of complexity. That's what 99% of the world's music scholars will tell you. At least I trust Karl (who got a doctoral degree in music) on this. If he thinks Elgar is simple, no one should argue with him.

Btw you don't even have a music education. At least I do.

First, I don't think Karl seriously thinks Elgar is "simple", but I'll let him clarify.

Second, Karl is not the only one in the world with a degree in music. There have been many world famous musicians who have admired Elgar and never felt it necessary to lower him in the face of, say, Bruckner or Mahler, including Giuseppe Sinopoli, Sir Georg Solti, Adrian Boult, Hans Richter, Fritz Kreisler, Malcolm Sargent, Yehudi Menuhin, Sir John Barbirolli and more, all with pretty good music credentials.

So if we want to appeal to authority, your argument doesn't exactly go through.

And the "99% of the world's music scholars" part is total crap.

In short: your arguments are no better than 71dB's.

[jochanaan]

dare I say this? well, you asked for it anyway. Heart of darkness=quality?

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days now, and I feel that's too simplistic.  Elgar's music has quality, no question about it, and complexity, despite Bonehelm's evaluation.  But what I miss in most of Elgar, except for the Cello Concerto, is the total honesty of a Bruckner or a Mahler, an honesty that reaches to both the darkest and the brightest emotions, the depths and heights of human passions.  And as I said before, I could be wrong; I missed it for a while in Haydn.

[Larry Rinkel]

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days now, and I feel that's too simplistic.  Elgar's music has quality, no question about it, and complexity, despite Bonehelm's evaluation.  But what I miss in most of Elgar, except for the Cello Concerto, is the total honesty of a Bruckner or a Mahler, an honesty that reaches to both the darkest and the brightest emotions, the depths and heights of human passions.  And as I said before, I could be wrong; I missed it for a while in Haydn.

Try Elgar's string quartet, coincidentally (or not) also in E minor.

[BachQ]

but Elgar is definitely in my top ten.

To the extent a "top 10" list comprises 300 entries, then Elgar is a top 10 composer for me as well .......

[mahlertitan]

The finale of the 5th is indeed marvelous. But a turning point? The 5th's finale is quite unique, and when one looks at (for example) the finales of the 6th and 7th symphonies, there isn't really a vast progression of improvement or stylistic change. In fact, I don't think it's a far-fetched claim to say that the finales of the 6th and 7th have more in common with the finale of the 3rd than the 5th. That the finale of the 5th was centered around a fugue really sets it apart from the rest.

I was probably more than just impressed by the fugue to make that statement. But, i will agree with you that the finales of 6,7th have a little in common with the the finale of 5th. But, look at the fifth, and think about Bruckner's symphonies after that. He no longer revise his later works. The fifth version has 2 versions (the latter probably wasn't approved by Bruckner), so does the 6th. The 8th was revised only when Levi said it needed work, not because some nobody told Bruckner to do so, and it worked to his advantage (unlike the 3rd, which only made matters worse). And the 9th, of course was the only version he has written.

I guess the turning point is really Bruckner's increase in self-confidence. I think, after the monumental fifth, Bruckner was convinced of his own abilities, but it took until the premiere of the 7th to make him realize how great a composer he really is.

[BachQ]

Elgar is definitely not in my TOP 10, 

This has tremendous potential as a bumper sticker ........

[BachQ]

Those who denigrate Elgar and Dittersdorf are just ignorant about their works.

You were on a roll with the first half of your statement ....... 

[mahlertitan]

First, I don't think Karl seriously thinks Elgar is "simple", but I'll let him clarify.

Second, Karl is not the only one in the world with a degree in music. There have been many world famous musicians who have admired Elgar and never felt it necessary to lower him in the face of, say, Bruckner or Mahler, including Giuseppe Sinopoli, Sir Georg Solti, Adrian Boult, Hans Richter, Fritz Kreisler, Malcolm Sargent, Yehudi Menuhin, Sir John Barbirolli and more, all with pretty good music credentials.

So if we want to appeal to authority, your argument doesn't exactly go through.

And the "99% of the world's music scholars" part is total crap.

In short: your arguments are no better than 71dB's.

what was the argument? Bonehelm made up a number, 99% of world scholars. Then labeled Karl as the only authority in music, completely ignoring the fact that Karl's taste is purely subjective, and is only valid for himself.

[Peregrine]

Without sounding like the proverbial hippy (man), can't we all just beg to differ and get along? I don't really 'dig' Elgar much, but certainly respect him as a composer and don't own one single Bruckner recording (quite an achievement!).

I couldn't give a flying **** what your tastes are, just pleased we're different. Continuous flaming of people for their taste in music seems so pointless. This thread is starting to remind me of a playground...

[greg]

yeah, what's wrong with the people who are throwing their poop on each other?

[johnQpublic]

yeah, what's wrong with the people who are throwing their poop on each other?

Nothing; it's the poopular thing to do these days.

[greg]

Nothing; it's the poopular thing to do these days.

HAHAHAHAHA 

[jochanaan]

I was probably more than just impressed by the fugue to make that statement. But, i will agree with you that the finales of 6,7th have a little in common with the the finale of 5th. But, look at the fifth, and think about Bruckner's symphonies after that. He no longer revise his later works. The fifth version has 2 versions (the latter probably wasn't approved by Bruckner), so does the 6th. The 8th was revised only when Levi said it needed work, not because some nobody told Bruckner to do so, and it worked to his advantage (unlike the 3rd, which only made matters worse). And the 9th, of course was the only version he has written.

I guess the turning point is really Bruckner's increase in self-confidence. I think, after the monumental fifth, Bruckner was convinced of his own abilities, but it took until the premiere of the 7th to make him realize how great a composer he really is.

An interesting analysis.  The only problem is that it doesn't jive with the known fact that most of the Bruckner "versions" most commonly played were completed in the last decade of his life, AFTER the Eighth's rejection by Hermann Levi.  It was this rejection that evoked the most profound crisis of confidence in Bruckner's life, and indirectly resulted in the Ninth's incomplete state--one of three great musical tragedies/question marks.  (The other two are Bach's Art of the Fugue and Mahler's Tenth.)