Some composers are "love at first sight (listen)" (e.g. Mahler, Beethoven, etc.). But for the longest time I've been trying to like Bruckner!
I know sometimes it might be the lack of quality of the recording, but hardly think that's case for me because the set I own is Jochum's Dresden cycle, one of the most acclaimed by general consensus. It's just sad that this set has been sitting on my shelf for months. Granted, I have not listened to every symphony, but even the most popular 4th didn't whet my appetite.
I really believe that, in time, I'll start to like him. I just wanna get there faster!! Any clues from you guys? Like, which symph should I start, or, what should I listen to when I listen?
Well I enjoy the layers and the building up of his structures.
My favorite symphony is his 9th, as I think it expresses the things that I'm looking for, in symphonic form.
3 is a good place to start. The 1889 version is fully mature Bruckner, but is also not too long. After that I'd just work thru the box again, 1 thru 9.
The most popular are 4 and 7.
6 is again mature but not too long.
Don't be afraid to just sample movements, e.g. scherzos or adagios.
If none of this works, put it away for some other year when he might grab you more.
My favorite is the 4th,but what hooked me was his Motets.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510s9AYEtBL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Interestingly enough, Bruckner was one of the first composers I disliked on first hearing. It certainly wasn't love at first listen for me. My first set was Jochum's on DG with the Bavarian Radio Symphony and Berliners (I believe?) and I just wasn't impressed with the music at all. At that time, I also wasn't impressed with the way Bruckner laid out his symphonies. All of them, except for the 9th, have four movements and in most cases follow the same kind of structure: allegro, adagio, scherzo, allegro. I also wasn't sure why Bruckner used heavy repetition all the time. It seemed like he was just repeating the same phrase over and over again. I basically got fed up with his music and how annoying it was for me at that time, so I moved onto other composers for about six months. Time proved to be a great healer as I acquired a new Bruckner set (Wand's Cologne Radio Symphony cycle on RCA which I got dirt cheap). I fired up Symphony No. 9 and it became a revelation to me. I finally understood what the music or what Bruckner was doing with his music. The music for me is about transcendence or trying to reach for something that is beyond my grasp. In Bruckner's case, this was God. I became so interested in his music and his history. To close this way too lengthy paragraph, you may say don't like something or that you don't get it, but if you're not giving it a chance or doing the research in order to understand it, then you're not only doing yourself a disservice than you're doing the man who created the music a disservice. There's so much to enjoy in his music that I can't help but to laugh at how ignorant I was to dismiss him just because I didn't understand him.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 14, 2011, 09:03:55 PM
but if you're not giving it a chance or doing the research in order to understand it, then you're not only doing yourself a disservice than you're doing the man who created the music a disservice. There's so much to enjoy in his music that I can't help but to laugh at how ignorant I was to dismiss him just because I didn't understand him.
So true! Honestly, that's what I felt like! I felt almost guilty not being able to fully appreciate his music, while the whole world seems to agree that he's rightfully one of the major symphonists in history----and I almost only listen to symphonies!
Quote from: Daverz on January 14, 2011, 08:54:24 PM
3 is a good place to start. The 1889 version is fully mature Bruckner, but is also not too long. After that I'd just work thru the box again, 1 thru 9.
6 is again mature but not too long.
Don't be afraid to just sample movements, e.g. scherzos or adagios.
If none of this works, put it away for some other year when he might grab you more.
Those are good suggestions.....since Bruckner so far gives me the impression of aimless wandering (basically his music always sounds too long for me...) I should start off by digesting pieces of it. =)
If not, time WILL heal. It always does. XD
Alongside the abbreviated third, his sixth is his most concise and "classical" in proportion. But it's still typical Bruckner so I doubt it would do much to convince you until you attune to his compositional style...
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 14, 2011, 09:03:55 PM
Interestingly enough, Bruckner was one of the first composers I disliked on first hearing.
Strangely enough he was my first love. For 5 years in the 70ies I played him intensively. Since then, hardly ever, I find him mostly too longwinded and repetitive, aka boring.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 14, 2011, 09:03:55 PM
Interestingly enough, Bruckner was one of the first composers I disliked on first hearing. It certainly wasn't love at first listen for me. My first set was Jochum's on DG with the Bavarian Radio Symphony and Berliners (I believe?) and I just wasn't impressed with the music at all. At that time, I also wasn't impressed with the way Bruckner laid out his symphonies. All of them, except for the 9th, have four movements and in most cases follow the same kind of structure: allegro, adagio, scherzo, allegro. I also wasn't sure why Bruckner used heavy repetition all the time. It seemed like he was just repeating the same phrase over and over again. I basically got fed up with his music and how annoying it was for me at that time, so I moved onto other composers for about six months. Time proved to be a great healer as I acquired a new Bruckner set (Wand's Cologne Radio Symphony cycle on RCA which I got dirt cheap). I fired up Symphony No. 9 and it became a revelation to me. I finally understood what the music or what Bruckner was doing with his music. The music for me is about transcendence or trying to reach for something that is beyond my grasp. In Bruckner's case, this was God. I became so interested in his music and his history. To close this way too lengthy paragraph, you may say don't like something or that you don't get it, but if you're not giving it a chance or doing the research in order to understand it, then you're not only doing yourself a disservice than you're doing the man who created the music a disservice. There's so much to enjoy in his music that I can't help but to laugh at how ignorant I was to dismiss him just because I didn't understand him.
Fantastically lucid and completely on the money. I'm always interested in how people find composers or how composers find them - in your case with Bruckner, you found him, lost him, then he found you.
Music can be so powerful within us.
ajlee,
I spent several years having an extremely hard time with Bruckner. I've still got only a foothold. I suggest you take it one symphony at a time, and, as Daverz suggests, take it one movement at a time. Which movement depends on you. I gather that Sergeant Rock learned to like Bruckner by listening to his scherzos, and indeed the scherzos are powerful, fierce, immediately clear in their dramatic intent, and un-stop-listen-to-them-able. This is especially true for No 9, but No 7 is striking too.
My own avenue into Bruckner was via the slow movement of Symphony No 7. I still consider No 7 his most "accessible" symphony, because while it's as long as the others and as mystical as many of them, it also has at least two really good tunes. Anyhow, I think several years went by (!) before I was able to listen to any of it other than the slow movement. See, Bruckner's slow movements achieve a sort of calm and transcendence you don't get anywhere else in music, so I lapped up the Seventh's adagio time and time again whenever the mood for that sort of thing struck me. It's so consoling - the kind of thing one wants at one's funeral - with powerfully glum beginnings and a vaguely comforting end but in the middle a climax of absolutely transcendent happiness. Eventually, after a couple years, I was able to play the whole symphony without finding it a disappointment. (BTW, Jochum's Seventh is fantastic.)
Last year, I listened to the Sixth for the first time and found it pretty approachable: it is comparatively concise and straightforward, as Lethe says, but no single movement stands out as an "entry point" to try and make his style approachable. Recently I have taken to the adagio of the Eighth, listening to it on its own as a way of cracking the symphony as a whole. But that's a half-hour long (although the Jochum performance is glorious)!
I still haven't found the Ninth an easy listen to, as a whole, and the Fifth is really way too much of a challenge for me at this point. I agree with you that No 4 is boring, boring, boring. Haven't heard No 3 at all.
So my suggestion is to definitely home in on specific movements that give you a sound and a feeling you don't get anywhere else: adagio from 7, scherzo from 9, or any movement you like when you listen to it, as those are probably the most concise, most striking, most emotionally deep, most "Brucknerian." Then move onward and upward once you're ready - or, if you can't bring yourself to like those, maybe give up and try again next year. But I definitely would NOT try whole symphonies at one sitting until you can find things in the Bruckner style that you like, and until you can even start to anticipate enjoying elements of his style. Otherwise you're just sitting down for 70-minute torture sessions.
I have come late to Bruckner myself (relative to other composers) and am still learning him. I don't listen to any Bruckner symphony regularly except for #9. I love the harmonies and grandeur in the explosions of sound that take place in this symphony. In particular, I like the Haitink version (his second one I think it is), because he seems to go at the music in a straight-forward way with a superb orchestra (Concertgebouw). This is an exciting recording.
But a piece I do listen to more often is the Te Deum. Here is a piece that has the Bruckner sound, but it only lasts 20-25 minutes. It starts off with a big, bold start, but because it is shorter, you may not have quite the same fatigue as with a whole symphony. I have the hyperion recording, but as it is the only recording I have, cannot say if there is anything better out there.
Anyway, just a couple of ideas.
Bruckner is a monument in itself. One of the very great composers, that changed the sound world of classical music completely. There is no composer you can compare with him, and there never was a composer after him able to write such cathedrals of Symphonies. And I say that with much reverence to the man and composer. So many moments of truly religious sightings of heaven, truly emotional pivotal moments that makes your heart beat faster. For me he was and still is a composer I could not live without. And as for recordings Herbert von Karajan still holds the place of honour. The grip this man has on the music is truly amazing too.
Quote from: erato on January 15, 2011, 12:02:06 AM
Strangely enough he was my first love. For 5 years in the 70ies I played him intensively. Since then, hardly ever, I find him mostly too longwinded and repetitive, aka boring.
To each their own. I'm really find his music moving. Long-winded or not, I can't live without his music even if I don't listen to it for another six months.
Quote from: John on January 15, 2011, 12:18:38 AM
Fantastically lucid and completely on the money. I'm always interested in how people find composers or how composers find them - in your case with Bruckner, you found him, lost him, then he found you.
Music can be so powerful within us.
Music is the one thing that keeps me motivated and one aspect of music that I find so amazing, especially in Bruckner's case, is how honest it can be. It can reveal a lot about the people who wrote it. It's almost like a diary set to music. If that makes any sense. :)
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 15, 2011, 06:48:17 AM
It can reveal a lot about the people who wrote it.
In a way, that is true for Bruckner's music alone. ;)
Having struggled with Bruckner's symphonies for years myself, and not yet having came to terms with them, I greatly appreciate the suggestions offered and will try them.
Still I have a question fo Bruckner fans: do you think it's possible that there be a total incompatibility between his music and certain people? IOW, are you sure that, given time and proper listening technique, everyone who so desires will finally enjoy Bruckner?
I got to know Bruckner's symphonies in reverse chronological order, more or less. I heard Bruno Walter's recording of 9, was hugely impressed by it and worked my way backwards. I'm still very sketchy about 1 and 2, but from 3 onwards, Bruckner's symphonies just get better and better. I've got Haitink's RCO set which, apart from a not-well-regarded 8, is a pretty good collection.
I now love Bruckner, have for the past four years. He is my favorite symphonic composer.
I love the suggestions people have regarding approaching his symphonies. Focus on individual movements, or particularly the Adagios. No one wrote such beautiful, other worldly adagios quite like Bruckner.
No need to force the issue though, if Bruckner isn't connecting with you, put it aside, and revisit at a later date.
It took me awhile to get accustomed to many of his symphonies.
Although it's not my favourite symphony as a whole, the tune that opens Symphony No.3 is one of the most beautiful things Bruckner ever wrote. If that doesn't stir something in you, then perhaps Bruckner just isn't for you. There's no harm or shame in that. Rossini bores the pants off me and I'd rather eat my own earwax than listen to Haydn. You don't have to like every composer, even if you know that other people revere them.
I tried and tried, until I heard Celibidache's EMI recordings of Bruckner.
Now I don't try, I just enjoy. 8)
Quote from: MDL on January 15, 2011, 08:14:41 AM
If that doesn't stir something in you, then perhaps Bruckner just isn't for you. There's no harm or shame in that. Rossini bores the pants off me and I'd rather eat my own earwax than listen to Haydn. You don't have to like every composer, even if you know that other people revere them.
Hey, that's quite a relief, since I'd rather have Haydn daily and Rossini each week-end than Bruckner every now and then. ;D
(Just kidding, I do like Bruckner's 1st, 4th and 6th --- yet as a whole his symphonic work eludes me)
Quote from: Florestan on January 15, 2011, 07:36:08 AM
....do you think it's possible that there be a total incompatibility between his music and certain people?
Oh, yes. I think it is possible. I've been trying to convert a close friend--actually, I've been trying for 40 years! and she's Austrian!--but so far nothing has worked. Bruckner may be one of the toughest pre-20th century composers to crack. He demands great patience; he demands acceptance of his OCD that manifests itself in his music. Some people, maybe most people will not, or cannot make the effort.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 15, 2011, 08:35:08 AM
he demands acceptance of his OCD that manifests itself in his music.
Forgive my ignorance, but what's OCD anyway? 0:)
Quote from: Florestan on January 15, 2011, 08:51:49 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but what's OCD anyway? 0:)
I'll tell you just as soon as I finish turning my lightswitches on and off 167 times each. Damn, now you made me lose count...
Quote from: George on January 15, 2011, 08:54:42 AM
I'll tell you just as soon as I finish turning my lightswitches on and off 167 times each. Damn, now you made me lose count...
;D :D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on January 15, 2011, 08:51:49 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but what's OCD anyway? 0:)
Obsessive compulsive disorder. In Bruckner's music it can be heard in the, some would say, obsessive repetitions.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 15, 2011, 09:12:46 AM
Obsessive compulsive disorder.
I somehow felt Bruckner was for psychos... now I have the confirmation from the most authorized source. ;D :P
It might help to play his music while "driving" around in Google Street View. Goes very well together.
Quote from: Florestan on January 15, 2011, 09:25:57 AM
I somehow felt Bruckner was for psychos... now I have the confirmation from the most authorized source. ;D :P
;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on January 15, 2011, 07:36:08 AM
Still I have a question fo Bruckner fans: do you think it's possible that there be a total incompatibility between his music and certain people? IOW, are you sure that, given time and proper listening technique, everyone who so desires will finally enjoy Bruckner?
No, I don't think anyone can want to enjoy Bruckner, and in any case "sure" and "total" have no place. Most people probably don't think wanting has that much to do with it, though it's hard to tell what people really think. Usually music is just supposed to be good or bad and everyone who disagrees is wrong, a wacky view IMO considering the variety of taste among expert listeners.
So I'd ask: How committed are you to liking music that departs from your taste? Most of the time I'm not very, so it takes a long time to develop the tools to like a new composer.
Quote from: drogulus on January 15, 2011, 09:52:42 AM
So I'd ask: How committed are you to liking music that departs from your taste?
For me taste is an evolving concept. A few years ago I wouldn't have listened to anything by Schoenberg or Webern for more than a minute, as they were galaxies apart from my taste. Now I am able to enjoy some of their music for as long as it takes to be performed. :D
In the case of Bruckner, I do like his melodic moments, of which there are plenty in the tradition of Schubert, a composer which I adore. I just don't make much of it as a whole. Now I hear some wonderful, heart-wrenching melody that lift my soul, the next minute I hear the noise of the engine of a three-ton truck leading me nowhere... ;D
I say it agan: I do like Bruckner's 1st, 4th and 6th symphonies from beginning to end, so perhaps there is hope for me... 0:)
Quote from: ajlee on January 14, 2011, 08:25:58 PM
Some composers are "love at first sight (listen)" (e.g. Mahler, Beethoven, etc.). But for the longest time I've been trying to like Bruckner!
I know sometimes it might be the lack of quality of the recording, but hardly think that's case for me because the set I own is Jochum's Dresden cycle, one of the most acclaimed by general consensus. It's just sad that this set has been sitting on my shelf for months. Granted, I have not listened to every symphony, but even the most popular 4th didn't whet my appetite.
I really believe that, in time, I'll start to like him. I just wanna get there faster!! Any clues from you guys? Like, which symph should I start, or, what should I listen to when I listen?
Bruckner was the last of the popular symphonists for me to come to terms with. For years I was overwhelmed by the tedium of everything I tried (note that my own aesthetic was shaped by modernist conciseness). However, I
wanted to learn to appreciate and enjoy whatever virtues caused many other people to admire and even love his music, so I kept my mind open and kept trying. Suggestions of others here, most notably our resident Bruckner-philes, may have helped to pry the door open a bit, but he still didn't catch fire until one evening when I heard Karajan's EMI recording of the 7th with the BP. I was caught up in the current and swept out to sea.
Since then I've come to enjoy most of his symphonies, especially 4,5,6,7,& 9, and though I doubt I'll ever love him the way I love Beethoven or Mahler or Sibelius, I still listen to his symphonies as often as anyone's other than those three. And Karajan--whom I don't much care for in most purely orchestral repertoire--is still among my faves for Bruckner.
Quote from: Florestan on January 15, 2011, 10:25:41 AM
I just don't make much of it as a whole. Now I hear some wonderful, heart-wrenching melody that lift my soul, the next minute I hear the noise of the engine of a three-ton truck leading me nowhere... ;D
I won't put it that way; i.e. I don't find anything quite as jarring as a noisy engine of a truck. ;) I've always felt that Bruckner was bored, so to speak, and he kept on shifting what he composed. The symphonies have interesting sections (within each, and I most familiar with the last 2.75), but I don't see a continuum forming, instead I see blocks [oh, and I'm not going to use that clichéd cathedral analogy here], placed discretely next to each other. (That I find a detriment, BTW.)
Quote from: Florestan on January 15, 2011, 08:25:47 AM
Hey, that's quite a relief, since I'd rather have Haydn daily and Rossini each week-end than Bruckner every now and then. ;D
(Just kidding, I do like Bruckner's 1st, 4th and 6th --- yet as a whole his symphonic work eludes me)
The problem is my lack of taste and nothing to do with Haydn or Rossini. I know that Haydn is one of the greats, and I wish I understood and appreciated his music, not least because you can hear three Haydn symphonies in the time it takes you to hear one Mahler or Bruckner symphony!
And of course I like Rossini's overtures; I'm just not too keen on the operas.
Quote from: Florestan on January 15, 2011, 10:25:41 AM
For me taste is an evolving concept. A few years ago I wouldn't have listened to anything by Schoenberg or Webern for more than a minute, as they were galaxies apart from my taste. Now I am able to enjoy some of their music for as long as it takes to be performed. :D
In the case of Bruckner, I do like his melodic moments, of which there are plenty in the tradition of Schubert, a composer which I adore. I just don't make much of it as a whole. Now I hear some wonderful, heart-wrenching melody that lift my soul, the next minute I hear the noise of the engine of a three-ton truck leading me nowhere... ;D
I say it agan: I do like Bruckner's 1st, 4th and 6th symphonies from beginning to end, so perhaps there is hope for me... 0:)
It sounds like you're over the hard part, where Bruckner sounds like a musical crank. He
is a musical crank, of course, because they all are, it's just that Bruckner is one of the very few composers that touches on greatness and incompetence simultaneously. I don't know why this strange effect doesn't happen more often. Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Mahler and most of the rest of the Greats tuck the awkward joins under like proper seamstresses.* They know that it's part of the job to make everything sound flawless, if not effortless. Bruckner sounds flawed, and effortless is not a word that comes to mind in connection with his music. Yes, there are a few works that have the self-assurance that is supposed to be a sign of greatness (oh, like the 6th and 7th symphonies, the
Quintet and perhaps foremost the
Te Deum).
Bruckner is in my view the baddest of the Greats, in the original sense. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif) If you don't have a problem with that. and maybe you don't, then you may end up with several of his works on you personal top 10 (my TT prominently features the 8th Symphony).
* A partial exception is Mahler, who exposes and exploits awkward and stressful transitions as elements in his design in a manner almost guranteed to piss off the sober-minded. What a trashy composer!?! That's a very different phenomenon.
I think Bruckner would likely win the award for turning nay sayers into believers and devotees of his music. A lot of people can't stomach or 'get' Bruckner's music, but eventually do and REALLY enjoy it. :)
My entry point into Bruckner was with his 7th by Bohm, i was quietly impressed, but nothing earth shattering, this was his only Symphony i owned for about a year, so i was able to concentrate on this one work, i played it roughly once a month.
Then i bought the 4th by Chailly, straight away i could see that they were very similar, and here's one of the downfalls of Bruckner, it's like he composed the same Symphony nine times, it took me ages to see the uniquenesses in these two Symphonies, there's so much repetition from Symphony to Symphony.
Another year went by and i bought two more Symphonies in quick succession, the 9th by Dohnanyi, and the 6th by Sawallisch, and here's where things went wrong!, in my mind neither of these are his best, and i ended up with Bruckner overload, i couldn't honestly tell you what movement went to which Symphony if you put them all on random play, i just couldn't pick out anything unique, they all sounded the same!.
I got rid of the 6th and 9th, and for many years was happy listening to just the 4th and 7th, and then a few years ago i took the plunge and bought the 8th by Wand, straight away it was a revelation!, where had Bruckner been all my life?, his 8th sounded so different, it's long at roughly 90 minutes, the Adagio is transcendent.
This brought a rush of Bruckner recordings, the 5th by Solti [another revelation], and i started buying different versions of Symphonies i already owned, now i see the uniqueness much clearer, i still don't find the 6th and the 9th his very best.
My advice is to take Bruckner slow, don't force yourself to like him, like me it might take many years to fall in love with his music, don't listen to too many of his Symphonies all at once, if you start off with one movement of one Symphony, then i would really recommend the Adagio of the 8th, it's about 30 minutes long, listen to it regular for about a year, then branch out as your love grows, hope this helps.
Quote from: Florestan on January 15, 2011, 07:36:08 AM
Still I have a question fo Bruckner fans: do you think it's possible that there be a total incompatibility between his music and certain people? IOW, are you sure that, given time and proper listening technique, everyone who so desires will finally enjoy Bruckner?
Oh, it's very possible that Bruckner's music just won't connect with many folks--not because of some "lack" in the person but simply because it's a bad fit to their personality.
As for me, I enjoyed Bruckner's music almost at once, but it took me a little while to love it, and longer still to feel I understand what he was doing. Now I feel that Bruckner was an "accidental modernist," one who, while using traditional structures, sparked a quiet revolution in harmony and style. (Sometimes not so quiet, as in the every-note-in-the-scale chord that closes the final climax in the Ninth Symphony's Adagio!) And like Brahms, he looked forward by looking back; his knowledge of Medieval/Renaissance music must have been phenomenal, to judge from his choral music. The E minor Mass, for example, is utterly timeless; it might as easily have been written in the 14th or 21st centuries as in the 19th.
I'm not sure that taking Bruckner in bits and pieces is the best way; you might miss some interconnections, for example, the way that the opening themes almost always return in triumph at the very end. His music works very poorly as sonic wallpaper :) but eminently well as an aid to meditation. 8) (That approach also works well for certain other composers such as Morton Feldman.)
Quote from: MDL on January 15, 2011, 11:53:29 AM
...I know that Haydn is one of the greats, and I wish I understood and appreciated his music...
Haydn just wanted to have fun. :D That's what I love about his music; it's as pure a musical evocation of joy and fun as there is.
Quote from: MDL on January 15, 2011, 11:53:29 AM
And of course I like Rossini's overtures; I'm just not too keen on the operas.
Well, you're not alone. ;D
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 15, 2011, 09:12:46 AM
;D :D ;D
Obsessive compulsive disorder. In Bruckner's music it can be heard in the, some would say, obsessive repetitions.
Sarge
I think that's probably true. However, my loss of interest in Bruckenr since my early obsession in the 1970ies probably has as much to do with the fact that my interest turned to song and smaller formats (ie little "grand" opera and romantic symphonies, I play some Brahms and Mahler but late romanic orchestral repertoire and romantic opera is largely lost on me).
Try to listen to Celibidache and Munchner Phil. plays Symphony n. 4.
Quote from: Octo_Russ on January 15, 2011, 04:05:09 PMthe Adagio of the 8th, it's about 30 minutes long, listen to it regular for about a year, then branch out as your love grows, hope this helps.
Wow, I don't know how anyone can listen to the Adagio of the 8th "regularly" - it's too powerful an experience. You'd be in a constant state of spiritual transcendence. I think if I listened to the Adagio from the 8th even just once a week, I'd be crying all the time! :o
Wow! What a wealth of info from so many people! Thanks!
I shall embark on my journey to Bruckner acceptance---and hopefully, eventually, love.
That said, which conductors do you think are great in Bruckner? I know Jochum is---he seems to be one of the universally admired Brucknerian. I also heard Bohm (I have his 4th), Klemperer (I have his 6th), and Wand are all great.
Quote from: ajlee on January 16, 2011, 02:51:26 AM
Wow! What a wealth of info from so many people! Thanks!
I shall embark on my journey to Bruckner acceptance---and hopefully, eventually, love.
That said, which conductors do you think are great in Bruckner? I know Jochum is---he seems to be one of the universally admired Brucknerian. I also heard Bohm (I have his 4th), Klemperer (I have his 6th), and Wand are all great.
Haitink and Karajan as well. Both get under the skin in this music.
Jochum jigs up the dynamics a lot - I didn't realise this at first when listening, but I think somebody described it as "Beethoven-ising" Bruckner.
Karajan is exceptional in his late recordings of the 7th and 8th, and also in his slightly earlier EMI 4th which sounds utterly spectacular. As you enjoy Böhm's 4th, perhaps his 8th would be a natural thing to check next - there are several slightly different recordings available, but the DG is generally most acclaimed.
Quote from: ajlee on January 16, 2011, 02:51:26 AM
I also heard Bohm (I have his 4th), Klemperer (I have his 6th), and Wand are all great.
Bøhms 4th was the first classical disc I bought, in 1972. Thus started the long road towards ruin.
Quote from: Lethe on January 16, 2011, 03:18:20 AM
Jochum jigs up the dynamics a lot - I didn't realise this at first when listening, but I think somebody described it as "Beethoven-ising" Bruckner.
Karajan is exceptional in his late recordings of the 7th and 8th, and also in his slightly earlier EMI 4th which sounds utterly spectacular. As you enjoy Böhm's 4th, perhaps his 8th would be a natural thing to check next - there are several slightly different recordings available, but the DG is generally most acclaimed.
I'm not a big fan of Jochum in general, so both of his Bruckner cycles did little for me. I think the man absolutely butchered the music. This, of course, is just my opinion and I know I'm in the minority on this one, which is fine, but Wand, Chailly, Giullini, and Bohm are my conductors of choice in Bruckner.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 16, 2011, 05:59:25 AM
I'm not a big fan of Jochum in general, so both of his Bruckner cycles did little for me. I think the man absolutely butchered the music. This, of course, is just my opinion and I know I'm in the minority on this one, which is fine, but Wand, Chailly, Giullini, and Bohm are my conductors of choice in Bruckner.
Yes, it really is to each their own with Bruckner conductors. For me, Jochum/SD does pretty much everything for me. The Giullini/WP however was a breakthrough for the 7th.
Quote from: ChamberNut on January 16, 2011, 06:07:03 AM
Yes, it really is to each their own with Bruckner conductors. For me, Jochum/SD does pretty much everything for me. The Giullini/WP however was a breakthrough for the 7th.
I always loved Giulini's 9th. One of the best recordings of I've heard of this symphony and the Vienna Philharmonic were just outstanding in this recording.
Don't forget Barenboim, Blomstedt, Solti, Harnoncourt, and Sinopoli, each have something really special to say, my one favourite above all others is Gunter Wand, a Brucknerian of real substance.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 16, 2011, 05:59:25 AM
I'm not a big fan of Jochum in general, so both of his Bruckner cycles did little for me.
Have you heard his very late recordings? There are a live 8th and 9th (the 8th in Japan with the Bambergers) kicking around that are different in style to his earlier recordings - more relaxed but very powerful.
Another greatly respected Bruckner conductor--if you can find his recordings and have lots of money :-\ --is Takashi Asahina of Japan. This long-time conductor of the Osaka Philharmonic has a unique yet very idiomatic style; he studied with Furtwangler as I recall, but his notable characteristics are a steady, deliberate pace and magnificent tone. If you're looking for a different approach from Jochum or Wand or Celi, Asahina's work might interest you. 8)
Quote from: Octo_Russ on January 16, 2011, 06:58:29 AM
Don't forget Barenboim, Blomstedt, Solti, Harnoncourt, and Sinopoli, each have something really special to say, my one favourite above all others is Gunter Wand, a Brucknerian of real substance.
I like Sinopoli pretty good. Harnoncourt is decent. Solti just doesn't have the right feel for Bruckner. Blomstedt generally bores me to tears. Barenboim's cycle is decent as well. Wand, for me, is the supreme Brucknerian.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 16, 2011, 07:47:39 AMBlomstedt generally bores me to tears.
Ouch. Blomstedt's Bruckner Seventh easily sits in my 'top tier' with Sanderling and (maybe) Jochum. Harnoncourt is just one tier down: a very fast account at exactly 60:00, but refreshing and engagingly phrased.
Quote from: Lethe on January 16, 2011, 06:59:49 AM
Have you heard his very late recordings? There are a live 8th and 9th (the 8th in Japan with the Bambergers) kicking around that are different in style to his earlier recordings - more relaxed but very powerful.
Quote from: jochanaan on January 16, 2011, 07:31:01 AM
Another greatly respected Bruckner conductor--if you can find his recordings and have lots of money :-\ --is Takashi Asahina of Japan. This long-time conductor of the Osaka Philharmonic has a unique yet very idiomatic style; he studied with Furtwangler as I recall, but his notable characteristics are a steady, deliberate pace and magnificent tone. If you're looking for a different approach from Jochum or Wand or Celi, Asahina's work might interest you. 8)
John Berky (http://www.abruckner.com/downloads/downloadofthemonth/) offers both for free. :)
Norrington is in the middle of a Bruckner cycle, i'm thinking of trying a disc, any feelings on this board for his style?, is he any good?.
Quote from: ajlee on January 16, 2011, 02:51:26 AM
Wow! What a wealth of info from so many people! Thanks!
That said, which conductors do you think are great in Bruckner?
As you can see, ajlee, the wealth of info includes so many opinions that nearly every conductor who ever recorded Bruckner's music has his advocates here. If you're hoping for a clear consensus, you may be out of luck.
Other than the enjoyable camaraderie among many members, what I've found most valuable at GMG are the informed recommendations from others whose tastes in general are similar to my own. To learn who those stalwarts might be for
you, and thus whose advice re. Bruckner conductors might most benefit you, I suggest reading the threads devoted to other composers whose works (and recordings) you're more familiar with. You'll probably identify a few contributors whose tastes parallel your own...as well as some who have no taste and either like or hate everything equally, and some whose taste opposes yours. Note that the last can be as helpful as the first! ;)
Regardless of what you find, I'm sure that most everyone will welcome you to the site and be happy to share their enthusiasms with you. Happy hunting!
Ajlee, perhaps you could try Tintner, on the Naxos label? He is not my cup of tea for Bruckner, but his set is highly acclaimed, and a lot of people swear by him.
Quote from: Octo_Russ on January 16, 2011, 08:07:45 AM
Norrington is in the middle of a Bruckner cycle, i'm thinking of trying a disc, any feelings on this board for his style?, is he any good?.
Sarge and I had a discussion about those in the listening thread just last night. The gist was: his Fourth is awesome but slightly eccentric, his Seventh is bizarre, and ... darn, I forgot what Sarge said about his Third. Just go read it! ;D
Quote from: Octo_Russ on January 16, 2011, 08:07:45 AM
Norrington is in the middle of a Bruckner cycle, i'm thinking of trying a disc, any feelings on this board for his style?, is he any good?.
If you want to sample Norrington's Bruckner, try his Sixth. Here's my review
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,29.msg415558.html#msg415558
and check out Jens review at Ionarts. (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/01/best-recordings-of-2010-almost-list.html#links)
Norrington's Fourth is really good too but it's the first version, very different from the Fourth we all know and love.
Sarge
Quote from: Brian on January 16, 2011, 08:09:58 AM
Sarge and I had a discussion about those in the listening thread just last night. The gist was: his Fourth is awesome but slightly eccentric, his Seventh is bizarre, and ... darn, I forgot what Sarge said about his Third. Just go read it! ;D
I haven't listened to the Stuttgart Third yet. Bought it last May but I'm saving it for a special occasion ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 16, 2011, 08:28:00 AM
Norrington's Fourth is really good too but it's the first version,
As expected when you're HIP. Older = better.
Quote from: erato on January 16, 2011, 09:14:30 AM
As expected when you're HIP. Older = better.
Of course it's not uncommon when we're older to need a HIP replacement....
Quote from: DavidRoss on January 16, 2011, 10:35:38 AM
Of course it's not uncommon when we're older to need a HIP replacement....
;D
Quote from: ajlee on January 14, 2011, 08:25:58 PM
I really believe that, in time, I'll start to like him. I just wanna get there faster!! Any clues from you guys? Like, which symph should I start, or, what should I listen to when I listen?
Listen to the music. ;D
I don't think there are short cuts to liking music. Listen to different performances and put in the time and effort. If you don't want to do that you probably aren't interested enough in his music right now so just wait some months/years until you are.
Thanks, again, for everyone's contribution!
I listened to the Scherzo of No.7 last night, and it actually sounded interesting! The Adagio wasn't bad either, although I did fall asleep towards the end... =P
And I found out one reason that Bruckner wasn't so attractive to me at first. I've always been a "1st-mvt"-type of person, and some of my fav pieces of music include 1st mvts of Beethoven's 3rd & 9th, Mahler's 2nd, 5th & 9th, Schubert's 9th, Brahms's 4th, just to name a few. Upon first listen, Bruckner's 1st mvts sounded too "slow" and ponderous for me. I couldn't quite understand where he is trying to get at, which is the exact opposite of how Beethoven makes me feel.
Therefore, I think it's ingenious that some ppl suggested listening to other mvts first. I think that just might be the ticket!
Quote from: ajlee on January 17, 2011, 07:53:22 PM
...I've always been a "1st-mvt"-type of person, and some of my fav pieces of music include 1st mvts of Beethoven's 3rd & 9th, Mahler's 2nd, 5th & 9th, Schubert's 9th, Brahms's 4th, just to name a few...
Ah, that says a lot. In classical-period symphonies, the first movement is almost invariably the weightiest musically. It was Beethoven who began the shift in emphasis from first movement to last, in the Fifth with its integrated musico-dramatic progression. Bruckner, following Beethoven, often brought back musical material from previous movements in his finales, notably in the Eighth's ending in which the themes from ALL the other movements are played together. 8)
Quote from: ajlee on January 17, 2011, 07:53:22 PM
Thanks, again, for everyone's contribution!
I listened to the Scherzo of No.7 last night, and it actually sounded interesting! The Adagio wasn't bad either, although I did fall asleep towards the end... =P
And I found out one reason that Bruckner wasn't so attractive to me at first. I've always been a "1st-mvt"-type of person, and some of my fav pieces of music include 1st mvts of Beethoven's 3rd & 9th, Mahler's 2nd, 5th & 9th, Schubert's 9th, Brahms's 4th, just to name a few. Upon first listen, Bruckner's 1st mvts sounded too "slow" and ponderous for me. I couldn't quite understand where he is trying to get at, which is the exact opposite of how Beethoven makes me feel.
Therefore, I think it's ingenious that some ppl suggested listening to other mvts first. I think that just might be the ticket!
The emphasis on the first movement is in general more a trait of the Classical style than the Romantic. The first movement of Bruckner's 7th has great ideas in it though as well as being quite tautly structured in my opinion.
Very possibly the most immediately engaging first movement is the Sixth. The Seventh opens beautifully, and ends with a spectacular coda, but the second subject always makes me wonder "why bother?" and it IS pretty long. The Sixth's has the advantage of an unmistakeable opening theme that's as exciting as Bruckner ever gets, and most of the movement goes by very quickly. But after that, you have clearance to turn it off if you go to sleep as the adagio is spookily ethereal... no shame in a movement at a time!
Quote from: ajlee on January 17, 2011, 07:53:22 PMalthough I did fall asleep towards the end... =P
Okay, DON'T listen to anything that says "Celibidache" on it! ;D
ajlee,
A couple of things.
1. You say you're a first movement kind of guy. How do you like the 1st movement of Beethoven's 9th? That's basically the blueprint for a lot of things Bruckner is trying to do. If you want to understand Bruckner, take your favorite recording of LvB 9 and listen to the first movement carefully. That opening with fragments of the main theme coming in from the distance through a fog of string tremolo and sustained woodwind notes and gradually building into a coherent statement, is essentially how Bruckner in one fashion or another starts every one of his symphonies. In the 3rd he even uses the same exact pitches as Beethoven's theme, and in the 8th he uses the same rhythm. Bruckner's music is to a great extent not a fixed musical statement, but the coming into being of a musical idea. That's why you hear what seems like repetition, but is in fact more like gradually getting ever closer to a musical goal. There is always only one real climax in a Bruckner movement. A good interpretation builds gradually but inexorably towards that goal. The other three movements of LvB 9 are also crucial for understanding the structure of Bruckner. All of Bruckner's weirdness exists in embryonic form in LvB 9. Another of Bruckner's favorite tics is to quote material from the preceding movements in the finale, just like Beethoven does in the 9th. This is especially apparent in the finale Bruckner's 5th, where the clarinet constantly interrupts quotations from the preceding movements only to launch the orchestra into a mega-fugue, built on the clarinet's fragmentary interjections.
2. Listen to his choral music! The masses, especially the E minor mass, I think will open your ears to his world a lot more quickly than the symphonies. Bruckner comes from a long church music tradition and his orchestral writing to a great deal mimics choral writing. If you listen to the masses and then think of the brass and winds as choirs, the symphonies will make a lot more sense, I think. You just have to abandon a few symphonic preconceptions you may have and think of it more as instrumental choral music for orchestra pressed into an oversized symphonic form.
3. Forget Jochum for the time being. He's an acquired taste. You may be better served with more 'middle-of-the-road' Brucknerians like Wand, Karajan, Barenboim, Böhm, Skrowaczewski, Maazel or Haitink. After you have acquired a better idea where Bruckner is going you can always explore (or re-explore) the extreme ends of the interpretive spectrum (Celibidache on one end, Jochum on the other).
Mensch,
Wow, that's a lot of good insights! Much appreciated.
Yes! Like I mentioned above, LvB's mvt1 of Sym9 is one of my favorite pieces of music, ever. I guess building my Bruckner appreciation from there won't be too hard! Interestingly, I read somewhere that essentially every one of Bruckner's works is trying to become Beethoven's 9th. That's, of course, exaggeration, but I guess there IS some truth in that. =)
Incidentally, I'm glad to hear that mvt1 of Bruckner's 6th is one of his most exciting, because I have a supposedly classic recording of the 6th---ol' Klemp's on EMI---that's been gathering dust on my shelf (yes, I can be quite impulsive sometimes...).
Thanks again for all the contribution!
The performance of the first movement of the 7th that convinced me back in the early 90s was one with Karajan conducting. He laid out the structure of it quite well. I remember playing it on my walkman a bit while at university at the time. :D
If you are patient and have an open-mind then Bruckner's sound-world will reward you for the rest of your life, that is, if you're familiar with his harmonic and melodic language and understand his background. In many ways, Bruckner is a minimalistic composer and by this I mean that his music uses a small amount of ideas and the means in which he uses to express these ideas are stretched out and developed until that musical idea has been exhausted, which is why his music is in long movements. But it is within this sparse musical framework that Bruckner is able to transcend banality and create hypnotic soundscapes. One of the things I admire about his music besides the minimal usage of ideas is the way he's able to constantly push his ideas forward into unique, truly spiritual directions. It's this ideal of "reaching for the cosmos" that I find appealing.
If you don't understand his music after giving it some listening, then go listen to another composer, then come back. If you're still not hearing anything, then take a couple of months off. This proved to be one of the best things I did for myself. Sometimes some time away can give you a fresher outlook.
Good luck.
What prompted you to reply to a post from last January? The original poster seems to be long gone.
And what a lot of nonsense posted in this thread.
Bruckner incompetent? I think rather the commenter is incompetent.
Rather than being an "acquired taste", Jochum is disliked by some Brucknerians with already developed tastes. His Bruckner is immediately exciting to anyone else. Especially that Dresden set with brass that will blow you out of your seat.
I have "developed tastes" :)
Quote from: Daverz on September 12, 2011, 11:12:03 PM
Rather than being an "acquired taste", Jochum is disliked by some Brucknerians with already developed tastes. His Bruckner is immediately exciting to anyone else. Especially that Dresden set with brass that will blow you out of your seat.
Heck yeah! 8)
Quote from: Daverz on September 12, 2011, 11:12:03 PM
And what a lot of nonsense posted in this thread.
Bruckner incompetent? I think rather the commenter is incompetent.
No, I said what I meant, which is success. But perhaps you disagree with my point about Bruckner, which is that his music strikes listeners as not merely uninteresting but flawed. It sounds like he is trying to do something which is beyond his resources. I imagine that as not entirely a bad thing. You might also think there is a fact of the matter than contradicts what I said, something like "anyone who thinks the Great Bruckner is flawed is incompetent." I don't think that is a fact, and I don't think that my impressions are an attempt to establish facts beyond the way a composers strikes me, and many others, too, as Bruckner's notoriety attests. After all, the realization that there is a "Bruckner Problem" is kind of intrinsic to the thread, don't you think? Oh, you probably don't. You think it comes down to "nonsense posted in this thread", which you will no doubt identify as opinions contrary to your own.
It's funny, but Bruckner has never been any problem for me. As a young teenager I started with Beethoven and Wagner, then got to know Mahler, and went on to Bruckner. His sense of musical space and time is very individual, but it 'clicks' with me. I love all of his symphonies. The first two are perhaps the most spontaneous and could be excellent entry-points. With the Third Bruckner finally finds his inimitable form. I don't hear any "incompetence" in Bruckner, only a different way of creating musical wholes. I never had any trouble adjusting. Question of temperament, perhaps.
Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on September 13, 2011, 05:41:44 AM
It's funny, but Bruckner has never been any problem for me. As a young teenager I started with Beethoven and Wagner, then got to know Mahler, and went on to Bruckner.
Same (excluding Mahler)! The opening of the 8th sold me immediately when I advanced from Beethoven's 9th and Wagner's overtures and was looking for similarly 'big' symphonies. An existing familiarity with pop, film and especially videogame music meant that I didn't even notice the repetitions as being out of the usual.
One of the more interesting things about the composer is how his invention doesn't rest on the form he choses, but in his craft within his chosen template of expression. Any ass (to paraphrase Brahms) can see that he wrote his symphonies with a similarity of layout unique to the great composers, but it's seeing what he is doing beyond this that makes listening so rewarding.
I find Bruckner's symphonies (although there are obvious repetitions) builds and builds on the use of the materials and themes. Like a great baklava, they are built and built slowly, layer upon layer.
The entire 8th symphony is a perfect example, and then the final climax at the end of the 8th, which is the equivalent of an = sign.
The Adagio of the 7th is another great example of Bruckner's layering technique.
He was, in a sense, a genius of building upon the same theme and adding more and more complex layers to the theme.
Quote from: Daverz on September 12, 2011, 11:12:03 PM
What prompted you to reply to a post from last January? The original poster seems to be long gone.
The poster may be gone, but this doesn't mean that he/she doesn't visit this forum to read it from time to time or even everyday. Just because somebody doesn't post anymore doesn't mean that they're no longer with us.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 13, 2011, 08:14:58 AM
The poster may be gone, but this doesn't mean that he/she doesn't visit this forum to read it from time to time or even everyday. Just because somebody doesn't post anymore doesn't mean that they're no longer with us.
AND - it opened up another round of an interesting debate...
Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on September 13, 2011, 08:17:47 AM
AND - it opened up another round of an interesting debate...
Well I'm not here to debate people per se, I was really just trying to help the OP. But in all honesty, Bruckner's merits and whether he's incompetent or not aren't really up for debate. His music, while not as popular as say Beethoven, Mahler, or Schubert, is still being performed and recorded to this day and it also lives in the concert hall. People can disagree with me all they want to but the truth is in the pudding.
A debate isn't necessarily a bad thing, you know.
Quote from: Opus106 on September 13, 2011, 08:26:50 AM
A debate isn't necessarily a bad thing, you know.
Well no, of course not, but I don't see any point in debating about composers with an already established position in the history of classical music. Like, for example, I don't like Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart, but you don't see me debating as whether they were competent or incompetent. They knew what they were doing or they wouldn't have succeeded. History recognized this. To say that Bruckner was incompetent or that he was working with ideas that were beyond his ability is an uneducated criticism I think. Was Bruckner a humble person? Absolutely, but he was also incredibly self-critical, but this didn't hamper the fact that the music still came out of him in an honest, genuine way. The man was also an incredible musician. I read somewhere that he played an improvisation on the organ and it completed floored Saint-Saens. Bruckner was a real and honest composer. His ideas, no matter how unorthodox they may have seemed during their time, were laying the foundation for the future of music.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 13, 2011, 08:23:28 AM
Well I'm not here to debate people per se, I was really just trying to help the OP. But in all honesty, Bruckner's merits and whether he's incompetent or not aren't really up for debate. His music, while not as popular as say Beethoven, Mahler, or Schubert, is still being performed and recorded to this day and it also lives in the concert hall. People can disagree with me all they want to but the truth is in the pudding.
"The truth is the truth. You can't really have an opinion about it." -
Peter Schickele ;D
Quote from: Cato on September 13, 2011, 09:27:40 AM
"The truth is the truth. You can't really have an opinion about it." - Peter Schickele ;D
:P
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 13, 2011, 08:23:28 AM
but the truth is in the pudding.
The PROOF is in the pudding. :D
Quote from: drogulus on September 13, 2011, 05:07:37 AM
No, I said what I meant, which is success. But perhaps you disagree with my point about Bruckner, which is that his music strikes listeners as not merely uninteresting but flawed. It sounds like he is trying to do something which is beyond his resources. I imagine that as not entirely a bad thing. You might also think there is a fact of the matter than contradicts what I said, something like "anyone who thinks the Great Bruckner is flawed is incompetent." I don't think that is a fact, and I don't think that my impressions are an attempt to establish facts beyond the way a composers strikes me, and many others, too, as Bruckner's notoriety attests. After all, the realization that there is a "Bruckner Problem" is kind of intrinsic to the thread, don't you think? Oh, you probably don't. You think it comes down to "nonsense posted in this thread", which you will no doubt identify as opinions contrary to your own.
I think you're taking my comments too seriously, but at the same time, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. That some people don't like Bruckner says nothing about his competence, and you seem to be admitting that.
Also the "Bruckner Problem" usually alludes to a problem with editions, not to the fact that some people have a problem appreciating Bruckner.
Quote from: eyeresist on September 14, 2011, 06:51:55 PM
The PROOF is in the pudding. :D
That's the phrase I was looking for. :D
Google results:
+"the proof is in the pudding" - 2,250,000
+"the proof of the pudding is in the eating" - 1,010,000
(The + sign means it only pulls exact matches.)
The eating of the pudding is the proof. No eating means there may be no pudding.
And the continued listening to Bruckners music is the proof that it works. Whether the composer incompetently stumbled into a formula that works, or was a farsighted and revolutionary genius, none of us will know, and I seriously doubt it matters. Come to think of it, even Anton himself may have been unsure.
And it has to be chocolate pudding. A waste of good pudding otherwise! And that's the truth! :-* :P >:D
Bruckner and chocolate pudding - the perfect combination?