Bruckner gets no respect!!!

[Sergeant Rock]

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"....

I'm glad you feel that way, Greg...a mind that is open rather than closed like Paul's. Bruckner is one of the giants...but, like you, at your age, I had a lot of trouble breaking through. I bided my time, and when the time was right....blamo!!!...all was revealed.

Sarge

Edit: This is my 2000th post. I should throw a party. You're all invited 

[greg]

I'm glad you feel that way, Greg...a mind that is open rather than closed like Paul's. Bruckner is one of the giants...but, like you, at your age, I had a lot of trouble breaking through. I bided my time, and when the time was right....blamo!!!...all was revealed.

Sarge

Edit: This is my 2000th post. I should throw a party. You're all invited 

shall we throw on a little Bruckner to celebrate? 

[knight66]

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

Sarge

Well, I have concluded that I am almost alone in my faithfulness and, so I have put on a photo I took in Morocco. I have a feeling it will not last all that long.

Mike

[Sergeant Rock]

shall we throw on a little Bruckner to celebrate? 

I don't know about y'all, but I am: the Sixth, Sawallisch and his Bavarian posse 

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

Well, I have concluded that I am almost alone in my faithfulness and, so I have put on a photo I took in Morocco. I have a feeling it will not last all that long.

Mike

Beautiful photograph, Mike, without a doubt... but...well, there are few things certain in life and your avatar was one of them. I will look forward to its return.

Sarge

[Robert Dahm]

had me up until "harmony in Bruckner almost seems to be beside the point". Gaaaah!

Sorry, I didn't explain myself properly. Of course harmony is important in Bruckner. But, like phrasing (to which it seems intrinsically tied), it takes on a kind of architectonic role. Changes in harmony are often very slow - it will generally last at least a couple of bars. You never get the sense that you have suddenly arrived somewhere weird (as in Mahler), but rather that the weird place you may well have ended up was inevitable, and is part of the bigger scheme of things (as in Schubert - to my ears, anyway).
My point was simply that harmony acts as just another part of the over-arching structure - it's never a 'point' in and of itself, as it is in Mahler.

I still challenge the validity of the Mahler v Bruckner dichotomy, though...

[Sergeant Rock]

I still challenge the validity of the Mahler v Bruckner dichotomy, though...

As do we all, Robert. You are among like-thinking friends here. Why, just the other day I was saying the same thing myself.

Sarge

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Sorry, I didn't explain myself properly. Of course harmony is important in Bruckner. But, like phrasing (to which it seems intrinsically tied), it takes on a kind of architectonic role. Changes in harmony are often very slow - it will generally last at least a couple of bars. You never get the sense that you have suddenly arrived somewhere weird (as in Mahler), but rather that the weird place you may well have ended up was inevitable, and is part of the bigger scheme of things (as in Schubert - to my ears, anyway).
My point was simply that harmony acts as just another part of the over-arching structure - it's never a 'point' in and of itself, as it is in Mahler.

I still challenge the validity of the Mahler v Bruckner dichotomy, though...

Why challenge? Your observations pinpoint exactly the difference between Mahler and Bruckner, composers I love in equal measure - Bruckner is a believer, Mahler a sceptic. Harmony for Bruckner is part of the grand scheme of things, whereas for the ever-enquiring Mahler they can be, to quote Joyce, 'portals of discovery'. Bruckner is architecture, Mahler process with no fixed outcome. Both approaches lead to great art. Only taste, temperament, and perhaps age, decide which you favour most. At present I am more a Brucknerian (with no faith).

[ChamberNut]

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"....

Just as Mahler does also.  Which is why I haven't given up on Mahler, and some of the symphonies of his have now grown on me.

I'll throw a challenge to Paul.  For every Pettersson symphony he recommends to me, I will listen to it, and he thus must in turn listen to a Bruckner symphony I recommend to him.  Are you game, Paul? 

[c#minor]

Sorry, I didn't explain myself properly. Of course harmony is important in Bruckner. But, like phrasing (to which it seems intrinsically tied), it takes on a kind of architectonic role. Changes in harmony are often very slow - it will generally last at least a couple of bars. You never get the sense that you have suddenly arrived somewhere weird (as in Mahler), but rather that the weird place you may well have ended up was inevitable, and is part of the bigger scheme of things (as in Schubert - to my ears, anyway).
My point was simply that harmony acts as just another part of the over-arching structure - it's never a 'point' in and of itself, as it is in Mahler.

Well said, Bruckners music moves like a giant. It lacks agility but in a good sense. It moves slow which makes it feel as if it is larger than life. I can only listen to Bruckner with the lights off, it takes complete concentration from me.

[Sergeant Rock]

Well said, Bruckners music moves like a giant. It lacks agility but in a good sense. It moves slow which makes it feel as if it is larger than life....

A juggernaut, the irresistable force...

Sarge

[Robert Dahm]

A juggernaut, the irresistable force...

Sarge

Like a glacier... or the Amazon

[eyeresist]

Harmony for Bruckner is part of the grand scheme of things, whereas for the ever-enquiring Mahler they can be, to quote Joyce, 'portals of discovery'. Bruckner is architecture, Mahler process with no fixed outcome.

I originally read that as "no fixed income"....


I think you are right about the differences between B and M. It's a cliche, but it is appropriate to think of Bruckner's works as cathedral-like  - the stained-glass windows (melodies) aren't the point; nor are the buttresses (harmony). The point is the cathedral itself, the sum (perhaps greater) of its admirable parts.

For Mahler we could instead think of a Chinese landscape handscroll. The viewer would sit and unroll the beginning of the scroll before him. He would then gradually unscroll with the left hand and wind up the scroll with the right, to see depicted the experiences of a small character journeying through a great and complex landscape. (Obviously the viewer could pause and contemplate as he saw fit.) Towards the end of the scroll, it was standard to culminate in a series of mountain peaks, including finally a grand one that reached up beyond the page. It was a sort of graphic symphony, and I'd love to get hold of some for myself!
Anyway, that's one way to think about Mahler....

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

For Mahler we could instead think of a Chinese landscape handscroll. The viewer would sit and unroll the beginning of the scroll before him. He would then gradually unscroll with the left hand and wind up the scroll with the right, to see depicted the experiences of a small character journeying through a great and complex landscape. (Obviously the viewer could pause and contemplate as he saw fit.) Towards the end of the scroll, it was standard to culminate in a series of mountain peaks, including finally a grand one that reached up beyond the page. It was a sort of graphic symphony, and I'd love to get hold of some for myself!
Anyway, that's one way to think about Mahler....

Striking imagery! And perfectly valid.

[greg]

Just as Mahler does also.  Which is why I haven't given up on Mahler, and some of the symphonies of his have now grown on me.

I'll throw a challenge to Paul.  For every Pettersson symphony he recommends to me, I will listen to it, and he thus must in turn listen to a Bruckner symphony I recommend to him.  Are you game, Paul? 

first he has to give this thread a second chance by visiting it again to even see your post!

[ChamberNut]

first he has to give this thread a second chance by visiting it again to even see your post!

As the saying goes, "Misery loves company".  If the same applies to narrow mindedness, than Paul and Corkin would make a great couple.  And since Paul thinks Handel is interesting looking, Corkin could dress up like Handel.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

As the saying goes, "Misery loves company".  If the same applies to narrow mindedness, than Paul and Corkin would make a great couple.  And since Paul thinks Handel is interesting looking, Corkin could dress up like Handel.

The mind boggles.

[greg]

As the saying goes, "Misery loves company".  If the same applies to narrow mindedness, than Paul and Corkin would make a great couple.  And since Paul thinks Handel is interesting looking, Corkin could dress up like Handel.

then we could put the picture on the future composer cosplay thread we all discussed 

[Michel]

I believe that Bruckner is one of the few composers who is truly great and intensely magical.

[jochanaan]

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

LOL Thanks for the great laugh!

This thread proves that, among the musically informed, Bruckner gets the respect he never really got in his lifetime but richly deserves.

P.S.  Mahler was much better at architecture than some people here give him credit for.  But Bruckner takes the prize for inevitability.  I especially love Bruckner's "giant harmonic strides."