Bruckner good, Mahler boring?

Started by 12tone., October 28, 2007, 07:44:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mahlertitan

Quote from: Cato on November 01, 2007, 02:56:37 PM
A "weak" Bruckner symphony!  Which one might that be...if any?   :o

stop thinking about it, there is no such thing.

karlhenning


BachQ

Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on November 01, 2007, 03:03:38 PM
mmm.... yummy.... after Schubert 8th, nice  8)

Yeah, Schubert 8 ........ I listen to that only about 6,400 times per year ........ I wish someone would record that symphony at some point ........

Bonehelm

Quote from: MahlerTitan on November 01, 2007, 05:05:40 PM
that's 17 times a day... about 7 hours. You spend 7 hours a day just listen to Schubert's 8th? wow, how do you find time to listen to other music?

And how do you find a balance between eating, sleeping, listening to Schubert's 8th, other music, and taking a shit?

12tone.

Quote from: Bonehelm on November 01, 2007, 08:34:17 PM
And how do you find a balance between eating, sleeping, listening to Schubert's 8th, other music, and taking a dung-a-lung?

Just one big Shuby 8 loop going on his house 24 hours a day.  You can sleep, eat, dung-a-lung or whatever while it's going. 

jochanaan

Quote from: 71 dB on November 01, 2007, 11:49:03 AM
The law of sub-minorities. Of ALL people only a minority likes classical music. Of ALL fans of classical music only a minority admires Elgar. Of ALL Elgar fans only a minority thinks the 2nd symphony is better than the 1st...
I could, and have, said the same things about Edgard Varèse. :)
Imagination + discipline = creativity

Cato

Quote from: MahlerTitan on November 01, 2007, 03:45:46 PM
stop thinking about it, there is no such thing.

Aye, "weak" and "Bruckner" just do not fit in the same breath!   8)
"Meet Miss Ruth Sherwood, from Columbus, Ohio, the Middle of the Universe!"

- Brian Aherne introducing Rosalind Russell in  My Sister Eileen (1942)

karlhenning

Quote from: jochanaan on November 01, 2007, 09:52:04 PM
I could, and have, said the same things about Edgard Varèse. :)

And Varèse is much greater than Elgar;D

longears

Quote from: bhodges on November 01, 2007, 12:33:27 PMInteresting that Bruckner seems to be identified more with serenity, cathedrals, and slow-moving changes, whereas Mahler is a world of angst, surprises, and passages that clash violently against each other.  (I'm speaking in very general terms of course, since Bruckner has plenty of torridness, and Mahler, some of the gentlest music anywhere.) 

It always perplexes me why they are spoken of in the same breath, however, since they could not be more different.  Sometimes I can almost fall into a trance listening to Bruckner, but never with Mahler, who is much more about chaos, unbridled emotion, abrupt movement, and unusual combinations of instruments. 
For me, Bruce, though their music is so different I would not likely mistake that of one for the other, they are similar in their Wagner-infected Germanic late-Romantic excesses that rub my decidedly 20th Century aesthetic sense the wrong way. 

longears

Karl, is there a yappy little Chihuahua in your neighborhood that you love to taunt?

karlhenning

Quote from: longears on November 02, 2007, 05:01:34 AM
Karl, is there a yappy little Chihuahua in your neighborhood that you love to taunt?

Our landlord's dog is a Chihuahua-&-something mix, and we are on excellent terms.

Why do you ask?  0:)  ;D

karlhenning

And BTW, that Chihuahua-&-something mix has better ears than Some Certain Neighbors here . . . .

longears

I'm not sure the ears are at fault; something seems awry in the processing equipment.

I did enjoy seeing earlier on this thread some comments from you favorable towards both Bruckner and Mahler's music.  You're one of the few who doesn't attack me as some kind of Philistine when I express the opinion regarding either that they wrote some very fine music--however, according to my aesthetic sense, their artistry falls short of the highest level because neither cared to say in twenty measures what they could say in 100. 

In saying this I'm not saying that others are idiots who disagree, nor that I alone am equipped to discern the Absolute Truth about their merit.  I recognize that they were very much products of a cultural milieu that celebrated excess at the height (or nadir!) of Hapsburg decadence.  And that I am very much a product of post-War America with an entirely different set of values largely shaped by modernism in all the arts.

greg

ok, last night i listened to a MIDI of Elgar's 2nd (i could only find a MIDI).
besides a few really nice sections and an interesting scherzo, the symphony is very incoherent and sounds like it needs to take a breath and seperate one section from the next way more than it does (not saying it ever does). The first movement was somewhat enjoyable, the 2nd not so much, the 3rd was nice and the 4th was hideous. It is complex, though i wouldn't say more complex than something like the 3rd movement of Mahler 9, which also relies heavily on counterpoint.

and don't blame it on the MIDI! i've heard stuff that since i liked it so much on MIDI that i decided to get the real recording (Webern op.1, Schoenberg Transfigured Night, for example)

so i have an even better idea of what Herzog was talking about

Larry Rinkel

Quote from: longears on November 02, 2007, 05:22:36 AM
I'm not sure the ears are at fault; something seems awry in the processing equipment.

I did enjoy seeing earlier on this thread some comments from you favorable towards both Bruckner and Mahler's music.  You're one of the few who doesn't attack me as some kind of Philistine when I express the opinion regarding either that they wrote some very fine music--however, according to my aesthetic sense, their artistry falls short of the highest level because neither cared to say in twenty measures what they could say in 100. 

In saying this I'm not saying that others are idiots who disagree, nor that I alone am equipped to discern the Absolute Truth about their merit.  I recognize that they were very much products of a cultural milieu that celebrated excess at the height (or nadir!) of Hapsburg decadence.  And that I am very much a product of post-War America with an entirely different set of values largely shaped by modernism in all the arts.


"neither cared to say in twenty measures what they could say in 100" - the problem, though, is that even if one accepts this, what could be cut? Great length is part of both composers' aesthetic. If you try to trim their works down, you're left with something thin and incoherent.

longears

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 02, 2007, 06:03:00 AM
"neither cared to say in twenty measures what they could say in 100" - the problem, though, is that even if one accepts this, what could be cut? Great length is part of both composers' aesthetic. If you try to trim their works down, you're left with something thin and incoherent.
I certainly agree with the italicized statement above--that was my point in comparing differing aesthetics.  Never having tried to trim either's work, I couldn't say whether the last statement is true, but I suspect not--there's a lot of meat on those bones, but I think more fat than required for flavor. 

Although I have a little training in music, I've far more training in literature and the plastic arts.  I come to this issue largely from a literary perspective.  What I see as the excesses of B & M are similar to the verbosity of 19th Century literature--not that they were being paid by the note as Dickens was by the word!  I'm not saying Dickens was a bad writer, just that by 20th Century standards shaped by Anderson and Hemingway and Williams and so on, his story-telling would benefit from liberal use of the blue pencil. 

Think about this and you will understand why I regard Sibelius as a quintessentially modern composer and shake my head in wonderment at those who consider him a romantic.  ;)

Larry Rinkel

Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on November 02, 2007, 05:55:12 AM
ok, last night i listened to a MIDI of Elgar's 2nd (i could only find a MIDI).
besides a few really nice sections and an interesting scherzo, the symphony is very incoherent and sounds like it needs to take a breath and seperate one section from the next way more than it does (not saying it ever does). The first movement was somewhat enjoyable, the 2nd not so much, the 3rd was nice and the 4th was hideous. It is complex, though i wouldn't say more complex than something like the 3rd movement of Mahler 9, which also relies heavily on counterpoint.

and don't blame it on the MIDI! i've heard stuff that since i liked it so much on MIDI that i decided to get the real recording (Webern op.1, Schoenberg Transfigured Night, for example)

so i have an even better idea of what Herzog was talking about

As with the first symphony, I most dislike the outer movements of the second and much prefer the scherzo and slow movement.

It is interesting that the Elgar symphonies are almost never performed in the US these days. I found a site giving performance statistics for a recent year (but can't find it again), and while the two string concertos and Enigma are fairly common, virtually nothing else of his is played on these shores. Either conductors don't care for the music, or they don't think they can sell it to Ameican listeners.

BachQ

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 02, 2007, 06:54:50 AM
It is interesting that the Elgar symphonies are almost never performed in the US these days.

Imagine that! .........

greg

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 02, 2007, 06:54:50 AM
As with the first symphony, I most dislike the outer movements of the second and much prefer the scherzo and slow movement.

It is interesting that the Elgar symphonies are almost never performed in the US these days. I found a site giving performance statistics for a recent year (but can't find it again), and while the two string concertos and Enigma are fairly common, virtually nothing else of his is played on these shores. Either conductors don't care for the music, or they don't think they can sell it to Ameican listeners.
hehehehe probably both reasons  >:D

BachQ

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 02, 2007, 06:54:50 AM
As with the first symphony, I most dislike the outer movements of the second and much prefer the scherzo and slow movement.

I don't detest the inner movements either.  But if the composer can't sell the first movement, then the entire symphony should be trashed, and no amount of greatness in the inner movements will cure the symphony's overall defeciencies if the first movement sucks.

So much depends on the first movement ........

If others enjoy the inner movements in isolation, so be it .........