Bruckner good, Mahler boring?

[greg]

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

why don't we set up a petition to have the outer movements officially deleted so the symphonies are left as two-movement works with just the inner movements?

[drogulus]

"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 think this is right, but doesn't answer the objection that such prolixity is unattractive anyway.

By the way, I don't think Mahler studied with Bruckner. He admired Bruckners artistic integrity, and attended his concerts (including the famous one where the audience walked out, leaving Mahler and a few others to console the composer/conductor). However, when Mahler conducted Bruckner in the '90s, he cut the symphonies, just like others did.

As for Elgar, 71dB, I feel he's too tainted by Victorian positivism and sentimentality to be a truly great composer.  He's more than competent, and the Cello Concerto shows what he could do when he opened up his heart--but he doesn't maintain that level consistenly, at least from what I've seen.  But I may be wrong.

Elgars problem, as I see it, is that he belongs to the group of artists (and some athletes) who display enormous ability without much sense of what to do with it. Elgar is very uneven. Some people believe that consistency is a hallmark of the greatest artists, and I think I understand this point of view, but I can't quite share it. For me consistency is beside the point when I'm moved by a great work. In the Olympic Composer Diving Contest, I only save the high marks. Consistency plays a background rather than a foreground role in my preferences. I can't imagine disliking a work because of displeasure at something else the composer produced. But that may be a failure of imagination on my part.

But I may be wrong.

I once attended a concert and obtained the completely wrong impression that I enjoyed it. Later someone patiently explained to me that I only seemed to enjoy it, but in fact didn't, and now I understand how I could be so wrong. 

Seriously jochanaan, I think you're right. I love Elgar for his great works, and parts of others, with no demerits for the rest (I think).

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.

I think the concept of "old fashioned" is exemplified by Elgars music, and has been for a long time now. Even I react that way, and I'm aware that the old-fashionedness, like the supposed "Britishness" is something of an illusion. That too is a matter of definition, since we decide how British something sounds in part by whether it sounds like Elgar.

[BachQ]

why don't we set up a petition to have the outer movements officially deleted so the symphonies are left as two-movement works with just the inner movements?

YES!

And let's go through the ENTIRE Elgar catalogue, and delete everything that's utter crap!  We'll end up with the Enigma Variations, the Cello Concerto, some marches (I suppose), and a few scattered movements here and there ..........   

[karlhenning]

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. 

Well, because it's more like a graduated scale, and not an either/or matter 

[BachQ]

Elgar symphonies are almost never performed in the US these days .... [Indeed], virtually nothing ... of [Elgar's] 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.

God Bless America! ! !

[Cato]

In contrast, the Sahara of the Bozart still offers a good number of orchestras performing Bruckner and Mahler symphonies this year!

Two symphonies by an English composer...anyone?  Edward...anyone?...anyone?  Sir Edward...anyone? anyone?...Elgar?

[jochanaan]

Really? I haven't heard Varèse's music. Or maybe I have. I don't remember...

You'd remember.

...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.

A legitimate criticism, but the parallel is inexact.  Music, even more so than literature, happens in time; and part of Bruckner's and Mahler's greatness is that no moment of the music seems wasted--not even the pregnant pauses...

[mahlertitan]

legitimate criticism, but the parallel is inexact.  Music, even more so than literature, happens in time; and part of Bruckner's and Mahler's greatness is that no moment of the music seems wasted--not even the pregnant pauses...

word

[BachQ]

***legitimate criticism, but the parallel is inexact.  Music, even more so than literature, happens in time; and part of Bruckner's and Mahler's greatness is that no moment of the music seems wasted--not even the pregnant pauses...

........ beautifully stated .........

[m_gigena]

why don't we set up a petition to have the outer movements officially deleted so the symphonies are left as two-movement works with just the inner movements?

Only if you set a restriction to your petition. Otherwise, only symphonies with an odd number of movements will survive... as single movement works.
If you cut the outer movements of a four pieced Bruckner symphony, the remaining two parts are inner and external limits to the work at the same time. Sequentially, you will dismantle each and every even movemented symphony out there.

Eventually, Mahler's fifth will be no more than a single Scherzo. And the only Bruckner left will be the Scherzo of the 9th.

[71 dB]

YES!

And let's go through the ENTIRE Elgar catalogue, and delete everything that's utter crap!  We'll end up with the Enigma Variations, the Cello Concerto, some marches (I suppose), and a few scattered movements here and there ..........   

Let's silence all stupid people like you. Just don't listen to Elgar if it's too sophisticated for you empty head. Let other people enjoy Elgar's wonderful musical legacy. Let's go through all your posts and delete everything that's utter crap! We'll end up with just a few posts. 

[longears]

You can "think" all you want, but Mahler was a pupil of Bruckner.

He was?  You must be very certain, to be so adamant about it, especially considering your track record.  Can you cite your source, please? 

[Larry Rinkel]

Let's silence all ... Elgar if it's too ... empty. Let other people enjoy Elgar's ... utter crap!

The joys of creative editing . . .

[Cato]

He was?  You must be very certain, to be so adamant about it, especially considering your track record.  Can you cite your source, please? 

It is an historical fact: Mahler, along with others (e.g. Hans Rott), had Bruckner as a teacher in Vienna.

See the memoirs of Mahler's wife Alma for various stories about Bruckner and Mahler.

[longears]

It is an historical fact: Mahler, along with others (e.g. Hans Rott), had Bruckner as a teacher in Vienna.

See the memoirs of Mahler's wife Alma for various stories about Bruckner and Mahler.

I've heard about Rott as a student of Bruckner and a fellow student with Mahler at the Vienna Conservatory, but I thought the relationship between Mahler and Bruckner was more ambiguous and not a formal teacher-student one.  Not that it matters much to me, but the claim caught my attention because I had never heard that Mahler was a student of Bruckner's before now. 

[mahlertitan]

He was?  You must be very certain, to be so adamant about it, especially considering your track record.  Can you cite your source, please? 

you want my source? fine, from the book "Mahler and his world" i quote from page 240

"Mahler studied composition under the celebrated Anton Bruckner..."


Also indirectly, we can deduce that Mahler studied with Bruckner because in Paul Banks "An Early Symphonic Prelude by Mahler" he writes:
"In 1876 this circle was not large, and its
most talented members were Krzyzanowski,
Hans Rott (1858-84), and Mahler. Hugo Wolf
may be excluded from consideration for, although
a Bruckner supporter and a musician of
genius, he was never a Bruckner pupil, never
showed the influence of Bruckner, and in 1876
was composing in a style, based on early
ninteenth-century models, far removed from
that of the Symphonic Prelude." 

Paul Banks
19th-Century Music, Vol. 3, No. 2. (Nov., 1979), pp. 141-149.

[Renfield]

you want my source? fine, from the book "Mahler and his world" i quote from page 240

"Mahler studied composition under the celebrated Anton Bruckner..."


Also indirectly, we can deduce that Mahler studied with Bruckner because in Paul Banks "An Early Symphonic Prelude by Mahler" he writes:
"In 1876 this circle was not large, and its
most talented members were Krzyzanowski,
Hans Rott (1858-84), and Mahler. Hugo Wolf
may be excluded from consideration for, although
a Bruckner supporter and a musician of
genius, he was never a Bruckner pupil, never
showed the influence of Bruckner, and in 1876
was composing in a style, based on early
ninteenth-century models, far removed from
that of the Symphonic Prelude." 

Paul Banks
19th-Century Music, Vol. 3, No. 2. (Nov., 1979), pp. 141-149.

Adding to the above, I can quote Bruno Walter explicitly referring to Mahler as Bruckner's student in a radio interview. (As part of the Bruno Walter Original Jacket Collection, currently on Sony, if you're interested.) And as Walter was Mahler's own student, I'd think he would know.

[longears]

How interesting!  And yet Bruno Walter in Chord and Dischord writing about the relationship between Mahler and Bruckner never mentions this student teacher relationship.  See this.

Dika Newlin, in Bruckner-Mahler-Schoenberg, 2007, quotes a letter of Mahler's in which he characterized Bruckner as "mediocre" and then says, "these opinions contrast strangely with the picture we had formed of Mahler as a sincere admirer and disciple (if not pupil) of Bruckner...." p.107.

Herta Blaukopf in Mahler Studies says the relationship between Bruckner and Mahler is unclear, and cites University of Vienna records showing Mahler having entered Bruckner's class twice in enrollment records but with it having been scratched out both times. pp 15-18

And in one of Mahler's letters quoted by Gabriel Engel in Gustav Mahler – Song Symphonist, 1932, Mahler wrote:

"I was never a pupil of Bruckner. The world thinks I studied with him because in my student days in Vienna I was so often in his company and was reckoned among his first disciples. In fact, I believe, that at one time my friend Krzyzanowski and I were his sole followers. In spite of the great difference in age between us, Bruckner's happy disposition and his childlike, trusting nature rendered our relationship one of open friendship. Naturally the realization and understanding of his ideals which I then arrived at cannot have been without influence upon my course as artist and man. Hence I believe I am perhaps more justified than most others in calling myself his pupil and I shall always do so with deep gratitude."

see bottom of web page here.

[drogulus]

   OK, I found this from a biography of Mahler by Jonathan Carr, reviewed in the NYTimes here:

Mahler said flatly in a letter written in 1902 that `I was never a pupil of Bruckner's; this rumour must have arisen from the fact that I was continually seen about with him in my earlier days in Vienna, and that I was certainly one of his most enthusiastic admirers and publicists. Indeed, I believe at that time I was the only one there was, apart from my friend [Rudolf] Krzyzanowski.' Here Mahler's recollection is partly at fault. Bruckner had many keen followers, at least among the students. For them he was both an eminent master and, although he was already in his fifties, a naive but agreeable companion. On the one hand he was instructor in harmony and counterpoint at both the conservatory and Vienna university, as well as a genius in improvising at the organ. On the other he liked little better than to stump off in his baggy old trousers for a chat over a few beers, or to stand at concerts with young people rather than sit with his prim and proper peers.

It appears Mahler was so often in the company of Bruckner at various events that it was assumed that their relationship was that of student and teacher. In a formal sense, it wasn't, as Mahler says. There is some question of whether Mahler attended some lectures by Bruckner, so there's some ambiguity on that point.

[71 dB]

Elgars problem, as I see it, is that he belongs to the group of artists (and some athletes) who display enormous ability without much sense of what to do with it. Elgar is very uneven. Some people believe that consistency is a hallmark of the greatest artists, and I think I understand this point of view, but I can't quite share it. For me consistency is beside the point when I'm moved by a great work. In the Olympic Composer Diving Contest, I only save the high marks. Consistency plays a background rather than a foreground role in my preferences. I can't imagine disliking a work because of displeasure at something else the composer produced. But that may be a failure of imagination on my part.

I don't agree. In my opinion Elgar was able to develop an amazing style out of the many influences of earlier masters. Elgar is versatile having composed all kind of works from rather simple salon works all way up to very sophisticated and complex symphonies and other orchestal/choral works. That's not uneven artistry but versatility and that takes talent. Bruckner and Mahler are significantly less versatile making them also less interesting artists. Elgar's problem is his art takes an open and intellectual mind to fully understand.

I think the concept of "old fashioned" is exemplified by Elgars music, and has been for a long time now. Even I react that way, and I'm aware that the old-fashionedness, like the supposed "Britishness" is something of an illusion. That too is a matter of definition, since we decide how British something sounds in part by whether it sounds like Elgar.

Everything turns "old fashioned" in time.