Bruckner gets no respect!!!

[greg]

Wait, Greg, did you forget that every one of Mahler's symphonies "embraces everything"? So comparing them with girls and cars are redundant really, as they are already in the music. You just have to use more imagination 

i suppose you're right 
You know, I can imagine his symphonies being about both........

[not edward]

btw, Brittney Spears is disgusting.

So is your spelling.

[greg]

So is your spelling.

oh well...... but nowhere near compared to the disgustingness of Brittney Spears, even with full hair.

and don't get me started on Paris Hilton, too.......

[Ephemerid]

btw, Brittney Spears is disgusting.

"Skanky" is a very accurate description.

[lisa needs braces]

Bruckner > Mahler.

[Robert Dahm]

Apart from the fact that they're both Germanic composers who write overblown Romantic music for big orchestras, I've never quite understood why it is that these two composers spring into the public consciousness as two great rivals. I've been asked several times whether I am a 'Bruckner or a Mahler fan', as if the two are mutually exclusive. As it turns out, I'm a Mahler fan, and I'm not quite sure I 'get' Bruckner.

The manner in which phrasing appears to operate in Bruckner is veeeeeery long. So long that a phrase becomes a valid architectural unit. That is, the basic unit of musical argument is quite broad. In order, then, for the architecture of the whole symphony to work, local detail needs to be subsumed to global architecture in such a way as to almost annihilate local detail. Now, I'm not saying that this isn't exhilarating when it works, but it seems to me to be extraordinarily 'high-risk' music. Unless the interpretation is just right, then the music suffers from a 'zoomed in too far' effect - it sounds like the orchestra is sawing through a bunch of meaningless repeated motifs. The architecture fails. When this happens (and it seems to happen often) the music just degenerates into a counterpoint exercise.
Mahler, on the other hand, deals with a much more localised musical argument. His music is much more 'in-the-moment', so to speak. Also, his use of harmony is highly virtuosic (whereas harmony in Bruckner almost seems to be beside the point). Similarly, the orchestration is, in Mahler, far more interesting (but again, that's not really what Bruckner is getting at). As a result of these, it's far more apparent to the orchestral players what's actually going on in Mahler. It's much lower risk than Bruckner, and even if the interpretation is cringe-worthy, you can generally hear the genius on the page behind the idiocy on the podium.

Now, on the basis of it, Bruckner seems to be a composer I should feel a great deal of affinity for. I'm a composer myself, and architecture is, I think, the condition that allows music to communication, but Bruckner's music is a bit like a cavernous cathedral, and if every arch is not articulated perfectly, the whole thing falls apart. I do find it a little difficult to take Bruckner's music when, to a large extent, you have to imagine what the music should sound like.

Now, the proviso to the foregoing is that the only cycle I have is Jochum on EMI, and I have not listened with the scores. I want to get the box of Knappertsbusch recordings (not a full cycle, unfortunately, but Kna's temperament seems ideal for this music), and I'm open to any further recommendations of cycles that might help me 'get it'. People seem passionate enough about Bruckner that I'm willing to spend the time on it. Also, I think the 4th and the 7th are unalloyed masterpieces.

[O Delvig]

I agree, in that a bad performance of Bruckner can get absolutely nowhere, while a bad Mahler performance will at least keep one's interest. But on the flipside, I feel that a good Bruckner performance is infinitely more satisfying than good Mahler. Might I suggest Giulini or Boulez for the 8th, or Guilini or Skrowaczewski for the 9th? And then there's the realm of Celibidache, best approached with caution. His 4th on EMI is praised a lot, and probably a good starting point, if you're not already familiar with it.

But here I go, comparing two composers who had very different aims with their music! I agree, apart from length, and the use of the title, "Symphony," I don't see much in common with their respective works. Oh, and they're both Austrian. And their names end in "R."

[greg]

"Skanky" is a very accurate description.

thank you.

[paulb]

B is the one major composer I never spent one penny on in 25 yrs.

[c#minor]

Well, c#minor you'll be delighted to know that here on the forum the major Mahler thread - Mahler Mania , Rebooted - counts 17 pages, while the major Bruckner thread - Bruckner's Abbey - counts 32 pages!

That's quite a LOT about nine, ten, uhhmm, eleven symphonies!   

Q

There we go, at least informed people will give Bruckner the respect he deserves.


I just guess most bookstore goers enjoy the Mahler rather than the Bruckner. Well one of these days i suppose B&N and Borders will diversify to give Bruckner equal representation upon the shelf.

Until then boycott your local Borders!!!!!!      just kidding

[eyeresist]

Another great post from Robert, which had me up until "harmony in Bruckner almost seems to be beside the point". Gaaaah! But you're right about everything being subsumed to the structure. I argued in a different forum recently that B is actually a fine melodist, it's just that people tend not to notice.
BTW, I abhor Jochum's Bruckner, for the very reasons you have specified. In this case, Karajan is much more reliable.

Wait, Greg, did you forget that every one of Mahler's symphonies "embraces everything"? So comparing them with girls and cars are redundant really, as they are already in the music. You just have to use more imagination 

"Don't bother looking at those girls, cars and rollercoasters, Bruno.  I've already composed them...."

[Grazioso]

Another great post from Robert, which had me up until "harmony in Bruckner almost seems to be beside the point". Gaaaah! But you're right about everything being subsumed to the structure. I argued in a different forum recently that B is actually a fine melodist, it's just that people tend not to notice.
BTW, I abhor Jochum's Bruckner, for the very reasons you have specified. In this case, Karajan is much more reliable.

"Don't bother looking at those girls, cars and rollercoasters, Bruno.  I've already composed them...."

I know Bruckner certainly isn't for all tastes, but if someone misses the harmonic and melodic strength of his music, they're just not listening.

[paulb]

I know Bruckner certainly isn't for all tastes, but if someone misses the harmonic and melodic strength of his music, they're just not listening.

might be, but there is so much better out there, why bother for less.

[ChamberNut]

might be, but there is so much better out there, why bother for less.

Like who Paul? 

Have you even given Bruckner a chance, or several chances?

[knight66]

B is the one major composer I never spent one penny on in 25 yrs.

Sometimes there is a reason to boast; other times there are things you should not admit even to your priest.

Mike

[orbital]

The manner in which phrasing appears to operate in Bruckner is veeeeeery long. So long that a phrase becomes a valid architectural unit. That is, the basic unit of musical argument is quite broad. In order, then, for the architecture of the whole symphony to work, local detail needs to be subsumed to global architecture in such a way as to almost annihilate local detail. Now, I'm not saying that this isn't exhilarating when it works, but it seems to me to be extraordinarily 'high-risk' music. Unless the interpretation is just right, then the music suffers from a 'zoomed in too far' effect - it sounds like the orchestra is sawing through a bunch of meaningless repeated motifs. The architecture fails.

This is a very accurate description of why I could not warm up to Bruckner very much. (And I have the EMI Jochum set as well)

[Sergeant Rock]

Knight!....what happened to your avatar??  This is a shocking development.

Sarge

[Gustav]

might be, but there is so much better out there, why bother for less.

Normally i would so go after you after saying stupid things like this, but I am too busy at the moment...

[greg]

Like who Paul? 

Have you even given Bruckner a chance, or several chances?

somehow I seriously doubt it.

I'm "learning" the Bruckner symphonies very very slowly but surely. The only one I'm somewhat familiar with at all is 7. It'll take a long time to get familiar with all of his symphonies, but it's still a fun ride. 

He does deserves "several chances"....

[Gustav]

Like who Paul? 

Have you even given Bruckner a chance, or several chances?

I don't think he has an answer for you, because if he did, he can't really prove to you why "they" are better than Bruckner anyways. When you see idiotic statements like that, it would be wise to just ignore it, just pretend you didn't see it, and move on to someone else's post.