I'm lost..(in the bad way) in Mahler/Brucker's music.
I just don't get the point in their music, unlike Beethoven/Mozart/Chopin's music (which is what I mostly listen to), the theme development in their music is clear and every note, every passage, feels like it belongs in the piece and contributes to the subject as it evolves. Take Beethoven's 5th for example, I simply CANNOT find a single passage where I feel "What? why is this here? whats the point?" since everything sounds so melodic and smooth to the ear. An example would be when the tension builds up with the timpani doing the crescendo while the strings go up and down (5th symphony, 3rd movement).
However, in Brucker/Mahler's music, a lot of things don't seem to be "right" to me. It isn't anything primitive like Stravinsky or dissonant like Schoenberg. It's emotional (sometimes even overwhelming, especially in Mahler's finales), but I just don't get how he put his music together. It sounds like every passage is not connected to another one logically. It's....its....RANDOM! One moment you have the strings singing a beautiful chorale and the next thing you know the percussion just started roaring with the support of 12394809 heavy brass instruments (exaggeration, yes). And then suddenly the soprano comes in and sing for a while. And then gongs and mallets and timpani and bass drums and offstage instruments blast into a brilliant flourish. Just when I thought the whole things is over, the violin starts delivering yet another tune. One I haven't heard of before, nor had any anticipation for. Everything is just random to me. I have no idea when or where the climax is, where the theme is fully developed and ready to climb back down. It all just sounds like a bunch of unchained melody to me...with some occasional crashes and whams and bams. Powerful--yes, but I don't get the feelings/message the composers are trying to convey.
Please help the classical music newbie! :( I need more beginner friendly music :)
Try some Schubert, Brahms and Schumann.
Now isn't that better? :)
simple, you are not ready for Mahler and Bruckner, listen some more Beethoven, and Schubert, and maybe start to listen some music by Wagner. I can assure you that nothing in Mahler, or Bruckner is "random". Obviously the late romantics wanted to go another direction than the early middle romantics, otherwise just go listen to Reis.
Sure...but when will I know when I'm ready for Mahler/Bruckner?
What have you got?
I suggest you start with Mahler 1 (Titan) and Bruckner 4 & 6.
If you're a beginner, just be patient.
How do you enjoy Haydn & Bach?
Maybe you'll find it's a strange question, but I think it's important to realise melody is not the only thing in music. Bach & Haydn could compose some great melodies but they are 2 composers whose music is mainly based on variations or development.
I think Haydn is a good introduction to later symphonists : It's pleasant for many people at first hearing but is also very rich in development, orchestration and counterpoint. Of course, the atmosphere of his works is completely different.
You'll have to listen carefully if you want to enjoy all the works by Bruckner and Mahler. Then, maybe you'll get even more pleasure when you listen Beethoven 5 again.
Great post from the source!!
Just wait till you jump on the Pettersson/KA Hartmann scene, you will think Bruckner as mild as Haydn in comparison ;D
Seriously, stick with what you like for the moment, you have years and years to get your teeth into those big Wagnerian Bruckner symphonies, and the delight of Mahler.
Mahler 1 or 4 are already advised as good starting points, enjoy whatever you decide :D
I think Haydn is boring. All of his symphonies seem to follow the same pattern...and his music is so..balanced and carefully metered. I know that is classical period's style...but I prefer Mozart over him.
As for Bach, I haven't listened to him much, but I know he's a genius at counterpoint and fugue. All I know about his music is that it's very complex as he makes use of the contrapuntal texture in most of his music.
Quote from: Bonehelm on May 20, 2007, 03:26:35 PM
Sure...but when will I know when I'm ready for Mahler/Bruckner?
I couldn't stand either composer for years. Nor Schoenberg. Nor Stravinsky (sorry, Karl). Nor dozens of others: Shostakovich, even Brahms and Mozart! Schumann still foxes me at times.
Then one day, something you once heard and didn't like just starts making sense. It speaks to you. It's like you've passed some esoteric initiation ceremony that you didn't even know was going on. At least, it was like that for me. These days, I can handle much, much, much more than I could 10 years ago. Even the likes of Eisler, Hartmann and Lutoslawski no longer scare me. ;D
Keep at it. The rewards come to the persistent ear.
Are you able to read music? You might try following the scores.
And you might try starting at the beginning and following the symphonies chronologically. Bruckner makes a leap with the Symphony #3, and some of the later works each represent large giant steps forward: #7-9.
With Mahler, most people put the first 4 symphonies together, and see a change with the Fifth Symphony. The great Eighth can be seen as a Janus-like work, harking back to #2 and #3, while also looking forward somewhat, but the Symphonies #9 and #10 represent Mahler as a bridge to Schoenberg and even Webern.
I am happy that you are attempting to follow their works! 0:) Trust us 8) it will be worth the time and effort!
Yes, Stravinsky. I'm not a Stravinsky Virgin but I am only just past the touchy feely/snog behind the bike sheds in my exploration.
The Ballets I find superb, but need full concentration to listen to Stravinsky. He is hardly background music, is he? I almost bought that Huge Strav does Strav set a while ago from HMV for £35, should have as its double and more the price now :o
Quote from: Bonehelm on May 20, 2007, 03:26:35 PM
Sure...but when will I know when I'm ready for Mahler/Bruckner?
well, it took me 2-3 years (listening to intro classical music) to get to like Mahler, and it it's going to take a long time for me to fully understand Bruckner, but, you should start listening to Mahler's 1st, 5th, symphonies. As for Bruckner, start with his 7th, 9th, 4th symphonies, another advice is, be patient, if you just wanted to be entertained, listening to rossini or something, but if you want music to touch you in a deeper way, be patient, and be prepared to listening to slow 30 minute movements, and listening to it repeatedly.
welcome to late romanticism, where things are beginning to get very complicated.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on May 20, 2007, 03:48:45 PM
well, it took me 2-3 years (listening to intro classical music) to get to like Mahler, and it it's going to take a long time for me to fully understand Bruckner, but, you should start listening to Mahler's 1st, 5th, symphonies. As for Bruckner, start with his 7th, 9th, 4th symphonies, another advice is, be patient, if you just wanted to be entertained, listening to rossini or something, but if you want music to touch you in a deeper way, be patient, and be prepared to listening to slow 30 minute movements, and listening to it repeatedly.
welcome to the late romanticism, where things are beginning to get very complicated.
Agreed! Patience!
In
Bonehelm's original post it seems "he" (?) was listening fairly closely, but things were not falling into place.
Which recordings were you listening to? It is possible you are perhaps the victim of Celibadache in
Bruckner ! :o
Quote from: AnthonyAthletic on May 20, 2007, 03:47:56 PM
I almost bought that Huge Strav does Strav set a while ago from HMV for £35, should have as its double and more the price now :o
That huge box is getting re-released next month so the prices should go back down.
ot: did your Brasilian friend managed to get that Goldenweiser Piano Trio, seems like a strange piece - large one movement theme & variations construction.
Quote from: Bonehelm on May 20, 2007, 03:26:35 PM
Sure...but when will I know when I'm ready for Mahler/Bruckner?
Keep a few Mahler and Bruckner recordings in your music library, and go back to them every few months. Chances are that a time will come when the music, all of a sudden, makes sense to you.
The above regimen has always worked for me - good luck, and whatever you do, don't worry about it.
it takes a lot of maturity to appreciate slow music.
Bonehelm, it's not a matter of being mature enough, or ready or unready. It's all about listening without preconceived notions. Start with Mahler's 4th symphony. Listen to it and see if you can visualize a narrative for it, as if it were the soundtrack for a movie that you see in your mind's eye. I suggest the 4th for two reasons: It is his most classically structured symphony and it is also one of the most visually evocative of symphonies. It starts with sleigh bells jingling at the pace of a horse trotting easily. First you hear the bells, and then as the first theme starts it's as if the sleigh the horses are pulling has come into sight. Let the symphony carry you into a landscape in your imagination. Mahler is like a trip through a landscape -- certain things seem to show up over and over, like a glimpse of a mountain in the distance or sunlight filtered through the branches of a tree. His symphonies grow organically, going in strange directions at times before coming back to more familiar ground. To emphasize this, there is only one expositional repeat in all of Mahler, and that is in his 6th Symphony. Mahler's landscape is alien territory right now, but given time it will become more familiar and suddenly you will feel more at home in it.
Bruckner is also a composer who did not structure his symphonies classically. Instead, if you are at all familiar with modern art, think of his symphony as a monumental abstract canvas by an artist such as Barnett Newman or Mark Rothko, or better yet Morris Louis. Think of layers of color (sound) being laid down and then built up in washes. Take your time with these works. Don't force anything, it's really a zen thing. You just have to go with the flow. (And I can't believe I just wrote that. :o )
It is OK never to like Bruckner/Mahler. Different people simply respond differently to different music. Sometimes it clicks and other times it does not. My wife Vanessa's first favorite composer was Mahler, and still is -- that is without ANY previous exposure to classical music, no music appreciation classes, no background knowledge on theory, history of music, nothing! She still thinks Bach, Haydn and Mozart are boring (except the clarient quintet and a Kleiber DVD of Linz).
it took me quite a while to appreciate bruckner, in comparison, it probably took me 2-3 minutes to realize the greatness of Mahler.
Quote from: Bunny on May 20, 2007, 05:09:28 PM
Bonehelm, it's not a matter of being mature enough, or ready or unready. It's all about listening without preconceived notions. Start with Mahler's 4th symphony. Listen to it and see if you can visualize a narrative for it, as if it were the soundtrack for a movie that you see in your mind's eye. I suggest the 4th for two reasons: It is his most classically structured symphony and it is also one of the most visually evocative of symphonies. It starts with sleigh bells jingling at the pace of a horse trotting easily. First you hear the bells, and then as the first theme starts it's as if the sleigh the horses are pulling has come into sight. Let the symphony carry you into a landscape in your imagination. Mahler is like a trip through a landscape -- certain things seem to show up over and over, like a glimpse of a mountain in the distance or sunlight filtered through the branches of a tree. His symphonies grow organically, going in strange directions at times before coming back to more familiar ground. To emphasize this, there is only one expositional repeat in all of Mahler, and that is in his 6th Symphony. Mahler's landscape is alien territory right now, but given time it will become more familiar and suddenly you will feel more at home in it.
Bruckner is also a composer who did not structure his symphonies classically. Instead, if you are at all familiar with modern art, think of his symphony as a monumental abstract canvas by an artist such as Barnett Newman or Mark Rothko, or better yet Morris Louis. Think of layers of color (sound) being laid down and then built up in washes. Take your time with these works. Don't force anything, it's really a zen thing. You just have to go with the flow. (And I can't believe I just wrote that. :o )
Dudette! 8) You're in the club!!! 0:)
Quote from: MahlerTitan on May 20, 2007, 06:03:03 PM
it took me quite a while to appreciate bruckner, in comparison, it probably took me 2-3 minutes to realize the greatness of Mahler.
Similar experience here, only it took me less time for Mahler, even longer for Bruckner (whom I still don't consider to be nearly in the same class!)!
...so am I and I LOVE IT! 8)
Wow you guys give in-depth and constructive comments. It's great I can get this much help from a community I'm relatively new to. :)
For those who want to know, I was listening to Mahler's resurrection symphony with Claudio Abbado conducting the Lucerne Festival Orchestra. Any comments on that combo?
Again, thanks for all your input. Looking forward to learn more from you guys. ;D
Quote from: Bonehelm on May 20, 2007, 07:08:49 PM
Wow you guys give in-depth and constructive comments. It's great I can get this much help from a community I'm relatively new to. :)
For those who want to know, I was listening to Mahler's resurrection symphony with Claudio Abbado conducting the Lucerne Festival Orchestra. Any comments on that combo?
Again, thanks for all your input. Looking forward to learn more from you guys. ;D
Hey,
bonehelm. :)
You generally cannot go wrong as reference the likes of Abbado/Tennstedt/Szell/Bernstein, so you're in for a treat with the Abbado. Of course, we can only provide reviews based on your reactions to the experiences you're having with Mahler. If this is to you're liking, I would reccomend his more than excellent recordings with the LSO on DG. If you fancy the conducting, you'll certainly enjoy these others. I would reccomend taking on the 7th with Abbado/LSO.
If not, you might want to visit Berstein. Happy travels. :)
Quote from: springrite on May 20, 2007, 06:07:10 PM
Similar experience here, only it took me less time for Mahler, even longer for Bruckner (whom I still don't consider to be nearly in the same class!)!
Believe me, Bruckner can easily stand shoulder to shoulder with any composer, be it Mahler or whomever...
Would I lie to you? ;D
Quote from: donwyn on May 20, 2007, 08:12:09 PM
Believe me, Bruckner can easily stand shoulder to shoulder with any composer, be it Mahler or whomever...
Would I lie to you? ;D
that's probably true.
Hi Bonehelm! I'm glad you're up for trying Mahler and Bruckner so quickly, it took me 10 years to get around to it. :)
I've been focusing on Mahler this spring, but look forward to taking on Bruckner this summer. Both of them wrote very LONG symphonies, so that in itself can make them trying, I started with Mahler by listening to one or two movements at a time, sometimes more than once through and this seemed to help a lot. One symphony all at once was just overload!
It might help to start with his all-symphonic symphonies, as the voice just adds another layer to think about. I started with the 5th and 7th, both colorful and enjoyable, and the 5th has a somewhat more comprehensible form. The slow Adagietto is gorgeous and very accessible. The 4th is also very immediately likeable.
Actually the first symphony of Mahler's I sat down and heard all the way through was the 7th on the radio, I didn't have a clue what composer it was, and my reaction was so much like yours I laughed out loud at reading it! It was like deja-vu of my thoughts during my first listening of the 7th. ;D But I enjoyed the confusion immensely, I found it really exciting to listen to because I never knew what he'd throw at me next.
Every time you think he's done, he teases you and jaunts away with another idea, which is something I have come to appreciate. One thing that helped me is to read about his symphonies, he created programs for many of them (even though he later rejected them) and this can give you some clue as to what he was trying to communicate.
Here's a great resource:
Gustav Mahler page at Andante (http://www.andante.com/profiles/Mahler/MahlerIntro.cfm)
Definitely the 2nd is IMO rather dense and overwhelming, I've been listening to it a lot lately, and I can hardly think of a work that is quite so emotionally powerful, it's very deep. Do you have the libretto? It takes a few tries but following along with the words as they are sung really brings it home. Such a truly awe-inspiring work.
Anyway, good luck, we're here and glad to help, you've touched on two of the most dense, and thrilling, composers out there, and we were all once in your shoes!
Quote from: donwyn on May 20, 2007, 08:12:09 PM
Believe me, Bruckner can easily stand shoulder to shoulder with any composer, be it Mahler or whomever...
Would I lie to you? ;D
I hope to one day reach that point with Bruckner. :)
It took me some time to really "get" Mahler. While I found his music enjoyable and interesting the first time I heard it (Symphony No. 1), I didn't appreciate the deeper meanings and the structure of the works. It took some time to get to that, and once I got there, I appreciated his music even more. I would agree with others who suggest Nos. 1 and 4; they are perhaps the easiest to understand. Also, the earlier song cycles might be good choices.
Bruckner has always been just beyond the horizon for me; I haven't collected all of his symphonies yet, and most of what I have is on LPs that I bought years ago and listened to a few times - just enough to make me curious. My impression is that, if I put the kind of effort into understanding his music that I have into Mahler's, my efforts are likely to be greatly rewarded. However, I won't find out until I really jump in and listen closely and repeatedly. It is probably about time for me to shift my attention to Bruckner; I have been taking note of reviews and discussions here, and I have been eyeing CDs in the stores. Before long, I am sure I will be posting short reviews of Bruckner CDs in the "purchases today" thread.
This is the sort of music that might be enjoyable to listen to at first hearing, but to gain a deeper understanding takes a lot of time and patience. For me, it has been worth the effort in the case of Mahler, and I will be surprised if Bruckner's music doesn't also reward this kind of effort.
Heather
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/discoveringmusic/audioarchive.shtml
this website should help to ease the Bruckner problem
Wow MahlerTitan, are those free and full tracks? Thanks for the link!
Quote from: Bonehelm on May 20, 2007, 09:44:28 PM
Wow MahlerTitan, are those free and full tracks? Thanks for the link!
you are mistaken my friend, it's better, they are commentaries, if you want to access to more classical music, give me a PM, i might give you some good insights. ;)
a thousand thanks to all of you!
I have this cd of Chailly's Bruckner 8th:
(http://www.concertgebouworkest.nl/imgdb/cd/no/no_Bruckner8_175x175.jpg)
After attempting yet another try at Bruckner's 1rst by Jochum from this set I still find his Bruckner boring:
(http://www.clubdial.fr/img/visuals/medium/184747.jpg)
So find a conductor that's good. The only Bruckner symphony I have by Chailly is the one above and I really enjoy it. I can make it through a Bruckner symphony!!! Yaaaay! The adagio is stunning and the two sections -- the "harp melody" and the "horn melody", both of which have variations; harp has 3[?] and the horn has 2 -- are just amazing and really 'make' the symphony for me.
The layout as it were of the symphony is indeed not 'classical' but should be seen as something different. I see in the second movement big blocks that go []__[]__[]__[] and so on. You have this big orchestral section which plays this hefty, pounding tune that comes and goes throughout the movement. The movement both starts with it and ends with it. And, correct me if I'm wrong but it's actually repeated for the ending (they play it twice).
I might try Chailly's other recordings too. I bought this too recently: (http://www.classical.net/music/recs/images/e/emi62621.jpg)
I don't care for it. It's a great recording but I just don't 'get' it like I do the eighth.
Oh one thing else. If you like Wagner, try and listen to how much Wagnerish the Bruckner's 8th sounds. I wish all of Bruckner's symphonies were this 'Austrian / German' sounding. Big brass everywhere!
I also have the Bruckner 8th with Chailly and it is an excellent recording and on one disc too.
Bruckner is often regarded as some Wagnerian symphonist but I find their harmonic language very different. The only thing they have in common is the heavy brass and huge orchestra otherwise I think their mediums manifest very sounds and messages. Had Wagner been more serious about symphonies, I imagine it would have sounded very different from Bruckner.
Bonehelm - I had a similar problem initially with Mahler until I discovered his 4th which is very pastoral in nature and has some beautifully haunting tunes. This is where I suggest that you start with Mahler and if you get the Klemperer or the Szell you will be well served. See below for both.
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41370HGCDWL._SS500_.jpg)
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51C5NDaF6PL._SS500_.jpg)
The Klemperer is much better IMO.
Once you get the 4th then #1 is next
Quote from: Heather Harrison on May 20, 2007, 08:36:54 PM
It is probably about time for me to shift my attention to Bruckner; I have been taking note of reviews and discussions here, and I have been eyeing CDs in the stores. Before long, I am sure I will be posting short reviews of Bruckner CDs in the "purchases today" thread.
This is the sort of music that might be enjoyable to listen to at first hearing, but to gain a deeper understanding takes a lot of time and patience. For me, it has been worth the effort in the case of Mahler, and I will be surprised if Bruckner's music doesn't also reward this kind of effort.
Heather
Heather,
It seems you and I have been almost on the same track this year. :D
-Greta
Quote from: max on May 21, 2007, 12:24:02 AM
Bruckner is often regarded as some Wagnerian symphonist but I find their harmonic language very different. The only thing they have in common is the heavy brass and huge orchestra otherwise I think their mediums manifest very sounds and messages. Had Wagner been more serious about symphonies, I imagine it would have sounded very different from Bruckner.
As someone said before, Bruckner's symphonies are not structured the same way than classical symphonies (one could see the trace Beethoven left at the beginning of the XIXth). But he way he uses the beginning of his themes several times and the way he developes them in many different ways show he is a heir of the first Vienna school.
The other great influence we can hear in his works is the Romanticism (not only Wagner, but also Berlioz, Liszt and, of course, Beethoven who carries both classical and romanticism).
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41NZEVNJMWL._AA240_.jpg)Here is the CD I'd love to get if I had to get introduced to Bruckner's music.
Bonehelm, if you like chamber music, don't forget he's composed one of the most beautiful string quintet.
I am suprised you lump these together.
I do some sympathy if you feel that way with Mahler, even I do, too. Perhaps you could start with his songs? They contain the building blocks of some of the symphonies and will maybe help you understand what Mahler was hoping to do in his music.
Bruckner, on the other hand, I think is very accesible. He was one of the first composers I got into in a big way - start with his 7th, I would say.
Quote from: Michel on May 21, 2007, 02:10:57 AM
Bruckner, on the other hand, I think is very accesible. He was one of the first composers I got into in a big way - start with his 7th, I would say.
Maybe it's a good suggestion, but I don't agree at all ;D :
I maintain you should start with 6th.
Personally, it's Mahler I find very accessible. ;D
think 'longer phrases'. that helped me some.
dj
All the answers you got are insightful and helpful, Bonehelm. But keep in mind one thing: despite all that, you might never get to like / love Mahler and Bruckner.
I personally like them and hope you will one day, too. But if you don't, this is not something to be ashamed or afraid of.
Quote from: Florestan on May 21, 2007, 02:36:16 AM
All the answers you got are insightful and helpful, Bonehelm. But keep in mind one thing: despite all that, you might never get to like / love Mahler and Bruckner.
I personally like them and hope you will one day, too. But if you don't, this is not something to be ashamed or afraid of.
Quite! I know someone who loves going about saying how much he hates Mahler! ;D
Maybe I would suggest Mahler 1 as an intro - it isn't very "modern", I don't think, and is just cool.
I have never understood why some people find Bruckner boring or difficult. For me it's the least boring music in the world. So emotional, powerful and unique. You just have to listen very carefully and concentrate fully on the music, and you will be rewarded in the end.
Quote from: Bonehelm on May 20, 2007, 03:39:20 PM
I think Haydn is boring. All of his symphonies seem to follow the same pattern...and his music is so..balanced and carefully metered. I know that is classical period's style...but I prefer Mozart over him.
Actually, Mozart is the more obsessively balanced, predictable one in my experience. Haydn's the guy who likes to throw you a curve.
Have you listened to the talks on Bruckner and Mahler here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/discoveringmusic/audioarchive.shtml ? They might help you get a better grasp of what's going on in their music.
Quote from: Bruckner is God on May 21, 2007, 02:50:25 AM
I have never understood why some people find Bruckner boring or difficult. For me it's the least boring music in the world. So emotional, powerful and unique. You just have to listen very carefully and concentrate fully on the music, and you will be rewarded in the end.
I understand that reaction, though personally, I got into Mahler and Bruckner right at the start of my classical listening and never found them confusing or daunting (beyond the extreme lengths of the symphonies taxing my attention span at times). It's the classicists that took me a decade or more to warm to.
People that hate predictability I guess don't listen to music more than once-- because that's all that separates unsuspected from predictable-- listen to it again and you know what to expect! :D
I think that people miss the point of Mahler and Brucker because it's less of a point and more of a surface. Their works are incredibly complex, it's not just about length. The evolution of the melodies, the polyphonic and highly chromatic nature of the harmonic structure, the subtle (and gross!) use of tonal shading with large orchestras, the less trivial rhythmic variety that adventurous conductors might bring to the music (no wonder some appreciate the uniformity of Horenstein)... it's a hell of alot to swallow! It takes many repeated sessions of concentrated listening to appreciate either composer beyond the trivial sensualist level. It's just a huge step up from Brahms. Mahler, Bruckner (and Strauss) epitomize the breaking point of Romanticism-- where too much has been added and threatens the listener with works so broad that on first blush appear to be nearly featureless landscapes of musical notes.
The brevity, elegance, and balance that composers like Webern brought must have been like a breath of fresh air! :D Nah, don't take that to be snarky, you know I love Mahler and Bruckner, I just want to put them into perspective to the listener new to them. :)
Quote from: springrite on May 20, 2007, 05:13:44 PM
She still thinks Bach, Haydn and Mozart are boring (except the clarient quintet and a Kleiber DVD of Linz).
I'd very much like to meet your wife. We seem to have lots in common.
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll get myself a Mahler 1 and Bruckner 7 recording soon. I think I will go with Abaddo/Karajan/Bernstein.
Quote from: Bonehelm on May 21, 2007, 01:28:54 PM
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll get myself a Mahler 1 and Bruckner 7 recording soon. I think I will go with Abaddo/Karajan/Bernstein.
The "new" Boulez recordig of the
Mahler I and the classic Jochum performance on DGG for the
Bruckner VII are also highly recommended!
The 7th symphony of Bruckner is a good place to start. I have at last count 5 different versions of this work. The one I'm most impressed with is the Georg Tintner version on Naxos. Not one of the most well known of conductors or orchestra [Royal Scottish National Orchestra] but one of the greatest recordings I know of the work! Tintner's finesse is incredible.
Quote from: max on May 21, 2007, 05:20:58 PM
The 7th symphony of Bruckner is a good place to start. I have at last count 5 different versions of this work. The one I'm most impressed with is the Georg Tintner version on Naxos. Not one of the most well known of conductors or orchestra [Royal Scottish National Orchestra] but one of the greatest recordings I know of the work! Tintner's finesse is incredible.
you should check out the one by Yannick Nezet-Seguin, Montreal Metropolitan Orchestra. exquisite performance,
Quote from: 12tone. on May 20, 2007, 11:24:33 PM
I bought this too recently: (http://www.classical.net/music/recs/images/e/emi62621.jpg)
I don't care for it. It's a great recording but I just don't 'get' it like I do the eighth.
That recording is one of the fault lines that runs through Bruckner appreciation. For some it's the gold standard, for others it's more like an obstacle in the path. I am in the latter group. It wasn't until I stopped trying to listen to that recording and found another I liked better, that the work really clicked for me. It is very different from the 8th BTW: you need different expectations - or better yet, none at all.
Quote from: Bonehelm on May 20, 2007, 03:08:10 PM
I'm lost..(in the bad way) in Mahler/Brucker's music.
I haven't got their music either so don't worry. The most important thing is you get
somebody's music. ;)
Instead of Mahler and Bruckner, I have got
Elgar, the fantastic composer most people ignore without realising what they miss. I have also got Dittersdorf, Hasse, Buxtehude, Torke, Taneyev, Vanhal, Hofmann, Graupner, Fasch, Villa-Lobos, Granados, Fauré, Rameau, Charpentier, Marais, Puccini, etc.
Recently I tried to get Mahler but it's only okay music for me. It does not blow me away. Why should I worry if I am not into Mahler & Bruckner? They are only 2 composers! I have already far too many favorite composers to explore! ;D
No, don't follow his advices! he's been dangerously elgarized.!!! ;D
Quote from: quintett op.57 on May 22, 2007, 05:27:30 AM
No, don't follow his advice! he's been dangerously elgarized.!!! ;D
Cato says Amen to that! 0:)
Another idea: try listening to the
Schumann Second Symphony and then compare it to
Bruckner's Sixth Symphony.
Thou shalt be amazed! 0:)
Quote from: quintett op.57 on May 22, 2007, 05:27:30 AM
No, don't follow his advices! he's been dangerously elgarized.!!! ;D
At least I am not Mahlerized or Brucknerized. ::)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 22, 2007, 06:37:41 AM
At least I am not Mahlerized or Brucknerized. ::)
Maybe you should just be
Mahlered! $:)
Quote from: Cato on May 22, 2007, 06:44:01 AM
Maybe you should just be Mahlered! $:)
I should be myselfed and everybody else should be themselved.
Find time to be yourself!
Quote from: 71 dB on May 22, 2007, 04:30:43 AM
I haven't got their music either so don't worry. The most important thing is you get somebody's music. ;)
Instead of Mahler and Bruckner, I have got Elgar, the fantastic composer most people ignore without realising what they miss. I have also got Dittersdorf, Hasse, Buxtehude, Torke, Taneyev, Vanhal, Hofmann, Graupner, Fasch, Villa-Lobos, Granados, Fauré, Rameau, Charpentier, Marais, Puccini, etc.
Recently I tried to get Mahler but it's only okay music for me. It does not blow me away. Why should I worry if I am not into Mahler & Bruckner? They are only 2 composers! I have already far too many favorite composers to explore! ;D
you should worry, because you like Dittersdorf more than Mozart.
every time you bring up Dittersdorf, it just cracks me up, maybe you should also include Ferdinand Reis, and say his music is better than that Of Beethoven's.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 22, 2007, 06:51:30 AM
I should be myselfed and everybody else should be themselved.
Find time to be yourself!
I used to be myself, but they said that was illegal! $:)
And speaking of sick birds, the Cincinnati Symphony last autumn combined
Messiaen with
Mahler!
QuoteTwo deeply spiritual composers with distinct musical vocabularies are the focus of concerts by Paavo Järvi and the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra on November 10 and 11 at 8 p.m. at Music Hall. The composers are Olivier Messiaen and Gustav Mahler, and their music is about journeys, transitions, earthly life and new dimensions.
Messiaen's L'Ascension: quatre méditations symphoniques (Ascension: Four Symphonic Meditations) was written in 1932-1933 in the composer's own iridescent musical language. The music reflects Messiaen's deep devotion to the Catholic faith. Mahler's ninth and final symphony, completed in 1910, was written while he was approaching the end of his life. (He died in 1911.) Mahler also sensed that his Ninth marked the end of a cultural and philosophical era.
"This program may move listeners to pause and reflect. One might even ask, 'how do these two pieces relate?'" said Paavo Järvi. "Mahler's Ninth is one of the most important pieces ever written. It represents Mahler facing the end of his own life and the end of the Romantic symphony, and finally, the composer's transition from earthly life to a spiritual state. Messiaen's piece uses a very different musical language and perspective to portray his interpretation of a journey to ascension."
http://www.cincinnatisymphony.org/Media/releases/mahler_messiane.asp
And the dithering about Dittersdorf is fun at times! ;D
Quote from: Bonehelm on May 21, 2007, 01:28:54 PM
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll get myself a Mahler 1 and Bruckner 7 recording soon. I think I will go with Abaddo/Karajan/Bernstein.
Try to find the Gielen Mahler 1 which is available from BMG Music club or Yourmusic.com. It's probably one of the better ones out there and more structured interpretation as well as being quite cheap. The other one to look for is the Kubelik. Kubelik's performance on Audite is more exciting if less "perfect" being a live performance. The sound on the newly remastered Audite series is also better than the studio sound of the Kubelik on DG. Abbado is not the best choice when starting out -- he can bore a beginner to death. Bernstein/Sony is better. I don't have the Karajan Mahler 1 so I can't comment. I only have Karajan's recordings of the later Mahler symphonies.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on May 22, 2007, 07:04:50 AM
you should worry, because you like Dittersdorf more than Mozart.
every time you bring up Dittersdorf, it just cracks me up, maybe you should also include Ferdinand Reis, and say his music is better than that Of Beethoven's.
Wrong. Mozart is number 4 for me, Dittersdorf isn't even in top 10! However, I enjoy his music a lot and keep bringing him up because he is a perfect example of an unjustly ignored composer.
Unfortunately I haven't heard Ries' music. Beethoven is my number 10 composer. I doubt Ries could enter my top 10.
Quote from: Bunny on May 22, 2007, 07:33:15 AM
I don't have the Karajan Mahler 1 so I can't comment.
Karajan recorded a Mahler 1st? I only know of 4,5, 6, Das Lied and 9(x2).
Quote from: 71 dB on May 22, 2007, 08:04:09 AM
Wrong. Mozart is number 4 for me, Dittersdorf isn't even in top 10! However, I enjoy his music a lot and keep bringing him up because he is a perfect example of an unjustly ignored composer.
Unfortunately I haven't heard Ries' music. Beethoven is my number 10 composer. I doubt Ries could enter my top 10.
what about haydn, how do you rank him?
Quote from: MahlerTitan on May 22, 2007, 09:23:47 AM
what about haydn, how do you rank him?
My top 10:
Elgar
Bach
Handel
Mozart
Buxtehude
Bruhns
Rameau
Haydn
Villa-Lobos
Beethoven
Mahler and Bruckner were both pretty tough for me at first, and I did get lost in all of the patches of their music (with the exception of Gustav's First and Bruckner's Ninth). It seems that I also had to evolve my taste before I could really 'get' their music (although it didn't take very long, really--no where near as long as it did to come around to Schoenberg).
I have all of Bruckner's Symphonies, all of Chailly with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra or the Deutsches Symphonie-Orchester Berlin. I also have an extra version of the 4th with Barenboim and the Chicago SO. So far, I only love the 2nd mvmt of the 7th symphony, and I remember some mvmts from the 4th. The others I have not had the mental energy to explore yet. I just received these symphonies earlier this year though.
Mahler, on the other hand, I found the 4th mvmt of the 5th Symphony on one of my compilation albums, loved it, and order the 5th with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra with Daniele Gatti conducting, a 1998 recording. It took me probably about half a year to actually listen to the other movements without the 4th only and understand them. Let me tell you, learning Mahler's musical language was one of the top 5 experiences so far in classical music discovery. I got the 8th too, but it took me even longer to get it, now it is something I'm always in the mood for every month or so. I went on to get the 6th, which is my current favourite, I loved it from first listen, to me it was close to the 5th in language, I love the 2nd mvmt immensely. I've got 2 versions of the 4th, but still need to learn it better. The 1st I just got, and find it very different from my other Mahler, will need to explore more, but love the 3rd mvmt (the reason for purchase). I have a video of the 2nd and need to watch it somemore. I have a crappy college orchestra recording of the 9th, I'm not going to ruin that symphony, but will wait till I can afford a decent recording. I have the 10th Adagio and it is gorgeous. Next on my list is the 7th, haven't heard a single bar of it anywhere yet!
Hope this was meaningful...
Quote from: Bonehelm on May 20, 2007, 03:08:10 PM
I'm lost..(in the bad way) in Mahler/Brucker's music.
I just don't get the point in their music, unlike Beethoven/Mozart/Chopin's music (which is what I mostly listen to), the theme development in their music is clear and every note, every passage, feels like it belongs in the piece and contributes to the subject as it evolves. Take Beethoven's 5th for example, I simply CANNOT find a single passage where I feel "What? why is this here? whats the point?" since everything sounds so melodic and smooth to the ear. An example would be when the tension builds up with the timpani doing the crescendo while the strings go up and down (5th symphony, 3rd movement).
However, in Brucker/Mahler's music, a lot of things don't seem to be "right" to me. It isn't anything primitive like Stravinsky or dissonant like Schoenberg. It's emotional (sometimes even overwhelming, especially in Mahler's finales), but I just don't get how he put his music together. It sounds like every passage is not connected to another one logically. It's....its....RANDOM! One moment you have the strings singing a beautiful chorale and the next thing you know the percussion just started roaring with the support of 12394809 heavy brass instruments (exaggeration, yes).
Interesting. Bruckner's Fourth Symphony was my first love in classical music at age 19. To me, Bruckner is incredibly coherent, "the theme development is clear", nothing is "random", and everything is "connected logically".
On the old board there was a thread "Motivic development", and to D Minor who asked:
"Is there any doubt that Beethoven and Brahms are the Gods of motivic development? . . . . .",
I replied:
I very well can see your point, but add Bruckner to the list (and many other composers are up there as well). Actually, studying the motivic development might be a way for some to come to appreciate Bruckner's "technical" mastery (apart from studying the harmonic development in his symphonies; both of course are linked), instead of upholding that he is a second-rate composer.
Listen for example, what happens to the main theme of the first movement of the Eighth symphony (how he divides it into the smallest cells and works with them, rhythmically, harmonically, timbrally, dynamically etc.), or how the main theme of the adagio of the Ninth is developed. It boggles your mind – at least, it does mine.
Also, it is immensely fascinating how the first and third theme of the finale of the Seventh are related. Probably unrecognized by most listeners – at least initially –, the first, lightfooted theme in the strings, and the third, very heavy theme in full brass, are one and the same (even though played in different keys). The finale has often been described as the weakest movement of the symphony, but once you recognize that relationship, the movement may very well become a riveting experience.
Additionally, even though development is so extensive, in general thematic/motivic coherence within any given Bruckner movement is absolutely superb. Usually everything can be strongly interrelated down to the smallest detail. Don't be fooled by the fact that instead of two, Bruckner routinely uses three themes in his outer movements (mostly not related as in the finale of the Seventh), and at times four. Also, sometimes a theme becomes a "theme complex", as musicologists name it. For example, after the first part of the main theme in the adagio of the Ninth is heard, it is, impressively, divided into two motivic cells which, in counterpoint, form the element of a slow build-up to a climax; once it is reached, the second part of the main theme is announced by fortissimo brass – this concludes the first theme complex (that both parts belong together becomes clear not just from the logic of this initial build-up and climax, but also from the further thematic development).
***
By the way, in Beethoven the motivic development is always clear to me just like for you, but it is not always for me in Mozart.
As one tiny example of motivic unity, recall the odd chord opening the Scherzo of the Ninth Symphony: the only notes being plucked by the strings up and down the scale in that opening are the ones in that chord.
E-G#-Bb-C#
Quote from: Al Moritz on May 22, 2007, 04:22:54 PM
By the way, in Beethoven the motivic development is always clear to me just like for you, but it is not always for me in Mozart.
Al, that was an interesting post. I'm replying to this part, even though it's an aside, because it was on my mind. I think that the difficulty in tracing the motivic development in Mozart's works is because I think that he commonly likes to deal with the entire theme as a whole. I don't know though, it would be an interesting discussion, I think I'll start a thread. :)
Quote from: Bonehelm on May 20, 2007, 03:39:20 PM
I think Haydn is boring. All of his symphonies seem to follow the same pattern...and his music is so..balanced and carefully metered...
I have to take issue with this. Have you really
listened to Haydn's music? Especially his later symphonies. There's always some surprise, especially when we can be sure Haydn really wrote the music that bears his name. (He was such a powerful figure in his own day that less-than-scrupulous publishing companies would publish pieces by other composers with his name on them so they'd sell more. :o) The famous "Surprise" symphony (#94) is only the best-known example; I've heard very few Haydn pieces that didn't have some brilliant irregularity, most often a completely blank measure or two--a virtual Haydn trademark. ;D
Quote from: Cato on May 22, 2007, 05:06:21 PM
As one tiny example of motivic unity, recall the odd chord opening the Scherzo of the Ninth Symphony: the only notes being plucked by the strings up and down the scale in that opening are the ones in that chord.
E-G#-Bb-C#
Yes. And what's even more amazing is that the following chords progress with deep inner logic yet build the tension almost to the breaking point, making the pounding rhythm on D all the stronger when it hits. (Note that the chord just before these Ds is an inversion of the original four-note chord!) Bruckner was a great master of primal harmonic motion.
Bonehelm, the inner logic is there in Bruckner and Mahler, as deep and profound as any in Beethoven. And if you can follow the motivic development in Beethoven's Third and Ninth, you shouldn't have any real problem with the other two. But none of these composers take well to being relegated to the background; they demand your full attention--not an edge-of-the-seat attention, rather the kind of attention that sits back and lets the music bathe you outside and in.
Quote from: jochanaan on May 23, 2007, 03:28:14 PM
Yes. And what's even more amazing is that the following chords progress with deep inner logic yet build the tension almost to the breaking point, making the pounding rhythm on D all the stronger when it hits. (Note that the chord just before these Ds is an inversion of the original four-note chord!) Bruckner was a great master of primal harmonic motion.
Bonehelm, the inner logic is there in Bruckner and Mahler, as deep and profound as any in Beethoven. And if you can follow the motivic development in Beethoven's Third and Ninth, you shouldn't have any real problem with the other two. But none of these composers take well to being relegated to the background; they demand your full attention--not an edge-of-the-seat attention, rather the kind of attention that sits back and lets the music bathe you outside and in.
Thanks for your comment, I'm currently listening to Mahler's 2nd. Hope it'll all work out in my mind when it's over.
It's funny how you descripe music!! :D
In my opinnion your description fits better to Mahler's music (he said once- to Sibelius- that a symphony must be like the world; "es muss alles umfassen!") but not so much to Bruckner. Everything is NOT just "random" in Bruckner! In a way he was quite conservative in his structures (I read somewhere that he used to count the number of bars in advance- seems little restricted in a way)."Always" the same "pattern";
- first movement sonata form
- slow movement or scherzo in ternary or sonata form or rondo
- last movement sonata form
Like the 7th symphony; it doesn't go much further structurally than the Schubert "great".
And he didn't use various percussion instruments. That's Mahler!
Sometimes Bruckner seem's-I admit- to be difficult to follow, like in the String Quintet first movement where things always come somehow unecpectedly.You never know what comes next but still I get little bored! Though the music is gorgeous... ::) The scherzo is magical and there-in the trio- is SO strange sounding passage! Like Gage- almost minimalistic :o
Anyways, maybe if you want to get to Bruckner think of Schubert and the great C-major symphony (btw they both were Austrian, and i think you can hear that in their music, thats one dimension there). And for the Bruckner Adagios, particularly the 9th, you could look the two last (op.62) nocturnes of Chopin and find similarities.
I know I find some;
The atmosphere. And the structure of the themes: the trio of the symphony/ or the theme in A flat- look Chopin Nocturne in B op.62/1 (the trio section). The themes share something!And then the first theme of the Brucner Adagio- the first theme of the E- major Chopin Nocturne. Again, two very far-reaching themes. There IS something similar...!
Quote from: Bonehelm on May 20, 2007, 03:08:10 PMHowever, in Brucker/Mahler's music, a lot of things don't seem to be "right" to me. It isn't anything primitive like Stravinsky or dissonant like Schoenberg. It's emotional (sometimes even overwhelming, especially in Mahler's finales), but I just don't get how he put his music together.
You are far from alone in this!
I know very few musicians who like
everything. Instead you find what you like, and then find more things you like, and before you know it there is a lifetime's great music ahead of you. Exercising your taste and discrimination
actively is a positive sign!
Mahler will always be there for you to come back to later, if you want to? You might find that your tastes eventually lead you back to him. But there is no obligation to like Mahler more than any other composer! He is not (despite what his slightly wild-eyed fans may claim) any kind of "pinnacle".
Don't allow the fixed pompous opinions of a few very vocal fanatics make you feel "bad" about your own tastes!! You like Schoenberg? Great, because comparatively few people do! How about Berg? Have you heard much of his work - for example SIX EARLY SONGS, which are quite different to how he wrote later :) How about music from the C15th, and the C14th? How do you feel about Ockeghem, Dufay, Landini, Machaut, or Lionel Power? (Hint - very few Bruckner fans have even heard their names ;) ) How are you on opera? It's a huge repertoire of music which one lifetime isn't enough to know fully. Have you tried Janacek? Start with CUNNING LITTLE VIXEN - if you find Bruckner's slabs of sound hard to take, then maybe the delicacy, subtlety and utterly individual sound of Janacek's music will grab you? I first heard Janacek nearly 32 years ago, and it blew me utterly away - it was what made me want to do what I do now.
I'm not going to write bad stuff about Mahler or Bruckner. I hope one day I will come to enjoying them, and I confidently hope to. But my teetering pile of "have to listen to this next!" disks gets ever-higher, and I haven't had time to return to ol' Anton just yet :)
PS and for chrisake avoid "Top Ten" lists. They're the sign of a closed mind.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 13, 2010, 11:46:13 AM
...How do you feel about Ockeghem, Dufay, Landini, Machaut, or Lionel Power? (Hint - very few Bruckner fans have even heard their names ;) )...
The only one I don't know from that list is Lionel Power; the other I do know and love, and can see how greatly they influenced Bruckner--you only have to listen to his E minor Mass to realize that! :D
Quote from: False_Dmitry on May 13, 2010, 11:46:13 AM
PS and for chrisake avoid "Top Ten" lists. They're the sign of a closed mind.
Either that or an active classical music forum on the web. ;)