Hey again,
So It's been awhile with me checking out all the Bruckner symphonies on Chailly's box set:
(http://www.deccaclassics.com/dmgcat/images/475/028947533122-CvrSmall.jpg)
I'm really enjoying them a lot and find them deeply moving. But now, having been a Mahler fan before, going back to Mahler, I'm finding his music disturbingly violent and not as nice as I used to think it as.
I know I enjoyed his 1rst and 5th symphonies especially and going back to them, especially with the 5th, very violent and gritty.
Anyone else feel this way? I know I can't listen to Mahler much anymore...
I know what you mean. I don't think Bruckner has the childish frivolity of Mahler, that makes me happy sometimes. There are obviously many other differences between the two. If you don't like Mahler anymore, don't listen to him.
I seldom listen to Mahler nowadays, not because I don't like his music, or his "Childish frivolity". I feel that once you have listened to Bruckner, it's hard to go back and listen anyone else, he moves you in ways no other composers do.
Some conductors can overdo the Vehemenz in Mahler, at least so you might not want to listen to them every day. You might try a gentler Mahler conductor like Walter, or a more "objective" interpreter like Bertini. I do listen to a lot more Bruckner than Mahler. Often I'll hear the start of a Bruckner symphony, and I'll have to stay for the whole ride. Listening to Mahler doesn't bore me, but it can tire me.
I forgot to say that the Mahler box I have is the Chailly one as well, except that it's the cheaper reissue. So it's this box but packaged at, what was it... $40 or something, instead of the $110?
(http://www.benheppner.com/images/discography/cdcomp36.jpg)
It's from the same company that put out the cheaper box of Levine's Ring cycle, and Ashy's Mozart PC cycle. Those black and white boxes, except this Chailly box is in color.
I find Chailly's Bruckner good, but his Mahler certainly doesn't stand up against Abbado...at least for me. I might try Abbado again...
Quote from: 12tone. on October 28, 2007, 08:11:03 PM
I forgot to say that the Mahler box I have is the Chailly one as well, except that it's the cheaper reissue. So it's this box but packaged at, what was it... $40 or something, instead of the $110?
(http://www.benheppner.com/images/discography/cdcomp36.jpg)
It's from the same company that put out the cheaper box of Levine's Ring cycle, and Ashy's Mozart PC cycle. Those black and white boxes, except this Chailly box is in color.
I find Chailly's Bruckner good, but his Mahler certainly doesn't stand up against Abbado...at least for me. I might try Abbado again...
If you want dramatic/heavy-handed Mahler, you can't go wrong with the late Bernstein DG set. It's never boring.
Maybe 'boring' was the wrong word. I mean I didn't like the music much at all. I find Mahler too violent and gritty...
I like the calmness of Bruckner now.
Quote from: 12tone. on October 28, 2007, 08:11:03 PM
I forgot to say that the Mahler box I have is the Chailly one as well, except that it's the cheaper reissue. So it's this box but packaged at, what was it... $40 or something, instead of the $110?
(http://www.benheppner.com/images/discography/cdcomp36.jpg)
It's from the same company that put out the cheaper box of Levine's Ring cycle, and Ashy's Mozart PC cycle. Those black and white boxes, except this Chailly box is in color.
I find Chailly's Bruckner good, but his Mahler certainly doesn't stand up against Abbado...at least for me. I might try Abbado again...
I have no quarrels with Chailly's Bruckner, they are excellent. But, you need to get yourself a copy of 1873 version of Bruckner's 3rd.
QuoteBruckner good, Mahler boring?
Other way around. ;D
For me there isn't a single symphony - not by Beethoven, Mahler or Brahms - that's equal to a late Bruckner work!
Quote from: 12tone. on October 28, 2007, 08:54:44 PM
Maybe 'boring' was the wrong word. I mean I didn't like the music much at all. I find Mahler too violent and gritty...
I strongly agree with
Daverz here.
You just discovered that most conductors overegg the pudding in Mahler.
Mahler does not need 20th century hysteria projected upon his music. He was a late Romantic Viennese composer with Bohemian roots - it seems very hard for modern conductors the conceptualise his music accordingly. ::)
Go for Bruno Walter, or Kubelik, or the more "objective" Haitink.
Q
The problem is that people always talk about the two composers in the same sentence, as if they were somehow related and one has to choose between them. The men and their works bear little in common. Heck, why not talk about Hans Rott?
That said, I no longer enjoy Mahler as much (though I appreciate and admire his work even more), while I do enjoy Bruckner about as much as ever. But having "been there, done that", I'm generally more interested in exploring other (quasi)Romantic symphonists these days.
Quote from: 12tone. on October 28, 2007, 07:44:26 PM
going back to Mahler, I'm finding his music disturbingly violent and not as nice as I used to think it as.
NICE??? NICE??
I'm pretty sure Mahler did not intend on his expression to be merely nice.
Bruckner good, Mahler good. Both long-winded enough to severely challenge the sleep-deprived.
Mahler good
Bruckner better
Elgar best
;D
Meh.
Report Card
Bruckner: Good
Mahler: Good
Elgar: Below Average - needed a good case of Mountain Dew next to his desk before starting assignments.
Well, to answer Grazioso's post, Bruckner had been Mahler's teacher for a time, and the influences of the former in the latter's music are, at least to my ears, very much present. Not as present as Wagner is in Bruckner, but then again almost everyone is present in Mahler, anyway! ;D
More seriously, I consider Bruckner like the philosopher Edmund Husserl: he was in his own world, focused in his art (or craft, if you will, for he did craft his symphonies most meticulously) and seeking to perfect a form under his own standards. His music is "ideal".
Mahler's music, on the other hand, is a direct product of his expectations and worries, not necessarily his ideals alone (semantically, and as I see it). In a very existentialist mentality, he meant to be disturbing, and he meant to appear "crass". His music "had a point."
In other words, two completely different aims, from two rather different composers. And frankly, having listened to a lot of Mahler, and then going through Bruckner (and listening a lot of his work too), I still listen to Mahler with the greatest pleasure, whether conducted emotionally, dispassionately or merely "to the letter". It's always Mahler. :)
Quote from: Renfield on October 29, 2007, 06:33:33 AM
Well, to answer Grazioso's post, Bruckner had been Mahler's teacher for a time, and the influences of the former in the latter's music are, at least to my ears, very much present. Not as present as Wagner is in Bruckner, but then again almost everyone is present in Mahler, anyway! ;
interesting claim....
In many ways it's unfortunate that Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler are so often spoken of as a sort of trinity, since they are so different spiritually. Both Mahler and Bruckner revered Wagner, of course, and you hear the Bayreuth master's influence all over their music--but the other two are too strongly individualistic to be classed as mere Wagner disciples.
Lately when I hear Bruckner, what strikes me is just how much the old Renaissance polyphonists influenced him. He would have grown up with this music, of course, and you can hear it echoing in his choral music and even his symphonies. This and his faith give his music a deeply "grounded" yet transcendent feel even at its most extreme (think the final climax of the Ninth Symphony's Adagio).
Mahler, though, was most strongly influenced by folk music and the "pop" music of his time. Des Knaben Wunderhorn, the German folk poetry collection, was his Bible for a time as a child, and the fantasy element in his music is very strong even in the "realistic" middle-period symphonies; but he was too sensitive to the world's unhappiness to be as grounded and transcendent as Bruckner. His music IS violent and crass, but still filled with longing for a better world--and that's why I still love his music as much or more as I ever did; it's a synthesis of heavenly aspirations and earthly emotions. He said to Jean Sibelius, "A symphony must be like the world; it must embrace everything", and I feel his music does. ("Boring" is definitely the wrong word. His music is many things, but never boring. :o)
As for Elgar, 71dB, I feel he's too tainted by Victorian positivism and sentimentality to be a truly great composer. He's more than competent, and the Cello Concerto shows what he could do when he opened up his heart--but he doesn't maintain that level consistenly, at least from what I've seen. But I may be wrong. :)
Quote from: jochanaan on October 29, 2007, 07:42:39 AMAs for Elgar, 71dB, I feel he's too tainted by Victorian positivism and sentimentality to be a truly great composer. He's more than competent, and the Cello Concerto shows what he could do when he opened up his heart--but he doesn't maintain that level consistenly, at least from what I've seen. But I may be wrong. :)
I couldn't care less about Victorian positivism and sentimentality. I don't care if Elgar sounds "Victorian" or whatever because it just sounds so awesome! As for the claims that Elgar could not be a truly great composer that's complete BS. His music is increadible rich with influences from Bach to Brahms yet he was able to develop his distinctive sound (That "Victorian" sound if you will). He was an amazing orchestrator and his music is structurally very complex. I just listened to Bruckner 8. So simple compared to Elgar's symphonies! Bruckner and Mahler show the same kind of complexity level as Elgar does in his lighter orchestral works.
Sibelius sounds very Finnish/scandinavian and the music is filled with Finnish national romantism. Why is he taken seriously?
Quote from: 71 dB on October 29, 2007, 08:17:58 AM
I just listened to Bruckner 8. So simple compared to Elgar's symphonies! Bruckner and Mahler show the same kind of complexity level as Elgar does in his lighter orchestral works.
see, if you continue to make immature statements like those, you just gonna get yourself into another heated argument. Of course, an argument that you have yet won.
Please, don't let it start all over again, it's getting old...
Quote from: 71 dB on October 29, 2007, 08:17:58 AM
...He was an amazing orchestrator and his music is structurally very complex...
You're right there. I do love Elgar's way with orchestras and form. But I guess I'm too depressive to really like music that doesn't have a "heart of darkness." Bruckner and Mahler (and Sibelius) have such a heart; I don't see it at all in Elgar except in the Cello Concerto and (very slightly) the Enigma Variations. That may be a failing on my part--but a lot of people here seem to feel the same way. :)
Quote from: MahlerTitan on October 29, 2007, 08:30:44 AM
see, if you continue to make immature statements like those, you just gonna get yourself into another heated argument...
Not as long as I'm doing the "arguing." :)
Quote from: jochanaan on October 29, 2007, 07:42:39 AM
In many ways it's unfortunate that Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler are so often spoken of as a sort of trinity, since they are so different spiritually. Both Mahler and Bruckner revered Wagner, of course, and you hear the Bayreuth master's influence all over their music--but the other two are too strongly individualistic to be classed as mere Wagner disciples.
Lately when I hear Bruckner, what strikes me is just how much the old Renaissance polyphonists influenced him. He would have grown up with this music, of course, and you can hear it echoing in his choral music and even his symphonies. This and his faith give his music a deeply "grounded" yet transcendent feel even at its most extreme (think the final climax of the Ninth Symphony's Adagio).
Mahler, though, was most strongly influenced by folk music and the "pop" music of his time. Des Knaben Wunderhorn, the German folk poetry collection, was his Bible for a time as a child, and the fantasy element in his music is very strong even in the "realistic" middle-period symphonies; but he was too sensitive to the world's unhappiness to be as grounded and transcendent as Bruckner. His music IS violent and crass, but still filled with longing for a better world--and that's why I still love his music as much or more as I ever did; it's a synthesis of heavenly aspirations and earthly emotions. He said to Jean Sibelius, "A symphony must be like the world; it must embrace everything", and I feel his music does. ("Boring" is definitely the wrong word. His music is many things, but never boring. :o)
As for Elgar, 71dB, I feel he's too tainted by Victorian positivism and sentimentality to be a truly great composer. He's more than competent, and the Cello Concerto shows what he could do when he opened up his heart--but he doesn't maintain that level consistenly, at least from what I've seen. But I may be wrong. :)
I agree wholeheartedly. People always put Mahler and Bruckner together, making up some sort of
magical relationship. But, I have never detected anything substantial in their music to support that wild claim. Sure, Mahler was a student and a good friend of Bruckner, so? Bruckner's music was barely even performed in his day, and Mahler had his own symphonic language. They are different people, with different musical goals.
Like Jochanaan said, stylistically, the two can not be more different. Bruckner has a cathedral, pre-classical sound. Mahler was more in tune with "folk music and the 'pop' music". Furthermore, two men had different backgrounds, different upbringings. Mahler had an extremely messed up life, (dysfunctional family, anti-semitism, marriage issues, personal tragedies, etc....). All of that was reflected in his music to some extend. On the other hand, Bruckner, who had a "normal" upbring, and a relativiely "decent" life (not saying it's a great one), wrote music to praise his lord.
We have here, two very different individuals; One who continues to question, and to search for God, and the other who always praised, believed in God. How can the two share anything in common?
Quote from: jochanaan on October 29, 2007, 07:42:39 AM
As for Elgar, 71dB, I feel he's too tainted by Victorian positivism and sentimentality to be a truly great composer. He's more than competent, and the Cello Concerto shows what he could do when he opened up his heart--but he doesn't maintain that level consistenly, at least from what I've seen. But I may be wrong. :)
I'll buy into this ........
Quote from: jochanaan on October 29, 2007, 08:33:26 AM
You're right there. I do love Elgar's way with orchestras and form. But I guess I'm too depressive to really like music that doesn't have a "heart of darkness." Bruckner and Mahler (and Sibelius) have such a heart; I don't see it at all in Elgar except in the Cello Concerto and (very slightly) the Enigma Variations. That may be a failing on my part--but a lot of people here seem to feel the same way. :)
What the hell is "heart of darkness."? Sounds like something that belongs to heavy metal!
Does Mozart have "heart of darkness."?
Quote from: 71 dB on October 29, 2007, 08:17:58 AM
[Elgar's] music is structurally very complex. I just listened to Bruckner 8. So simple compared to Elgar's symphonies! Bruckner and Mahler show the same kind of complexity level as Elgar does in his lighter orchestral works.
Bruckner 8 is anything but "simple" ........ Elgar is pure horseshit compared to Bruckner 8 ........
Quote from: 71 dB on October 29, 2007, 09:03:43 AM
What the hell is "heart of darkness."? Sounds like something that belongs to heavy metal!
Does Mozart have "heart of darkness."?
dare I say this? well, you asked for it anyway. Heart of darkness=quality?
When I first discovered Mahler, I found his symphonies to be incredible and wonderful. A little while later I noticed that people seemed to rave a lot about Bruckner's symphonies, so I gave Bruckner a try. I just didn't "get" Bruckner's symphonies, they seemed boring and repetitious. But I wasn't ready to give up, so I kept trying. I finally had my Bruckner revelation when I listened to Karajan's last recording of Bruckner 7. Since my Bruckner revelation, my interest in Mahler's symphonies has declined (I never really liked his non-symphony output). I still listen to Mahler 2 and Mahler 9 quite a bit. But I find myself listening to Bruckner (especially his late symphonies) more often than I listen to Mahler. I wouldn't describe Mahler's symphonies as boring, they're hardly that. I just find Bruckner's symphonies more satisfying. I don't find comparing the two composer's music to be all that useful. That said, there is an interesting article written by Bruno Walter comparing and contrasting the two composers HERE (http://www.uv.es/~calaforr/walter.html).
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on October 29, 2007, 09:07:25 AM
Bruckner 8 is anything but "simple" ........ Elgar is pure horseshit compared to Bruckner 8 ........
Bruckner 8 is simple compared to Elgar. That does not mean it's simple.
Quote from: Keemun on October 29, 2007, 09:11:01 AM
That said, there is an interesting article written by Bruno Walter comparing and contrasting the two composers HERE (http://www.uv.es/~calaforr/walter.html).
That is interesting, and well written .......
I think it's quite obvious to prefer Bruckner, and I share this preference so far. My first impression (I know only the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 7th) is that Bruckner is someway less problematic, more country/rustic flavoured. Mahler on the other hand is more enigmatic, disturbing and more modern surtout.
I've heard only two of Bruckner's symphonies, and I adored them. And I've heard only three by Mahler, and I found them dreadful. Yes, Bruckner good, Mahler bad.
Quote from: Scriptavolant on October 29, 2007, 10:01:37 AM
I think it's quite obvious to prefer Bruckner, and I share this preference so far. My first impression (I know only the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 7th) is that Bruckner is someway less problematic, more country/rustic flavoured. Mahler on the other hand is more enigmatic, disturbing and more modern surtout.
so that's the explanation about how someone can not like Mahler, right?
i've always wondered what it is one could not like..... add to that the overall heaviness and length in many of his symphonies, i guess.
as for this:
QuoteBruckner good, Mahler boring?
using the adjective "boring"
ok...... wtf?!!
i need an explanation for that. You mean boring boring or confusing boring? That latter would make more sense
Jeeeeez.
First, comparing Mahler and Bruckner is a ludricous idea - they are totally different composers.
I like both, but it quite clear to me who of the two was the most talented composer and wrote the most versatile and most multi-faceted music - intellectually as well as emotionally.
But this is no pissing contest - both are unique in character.
Q
Quote from: Que on October 29, 2007, 10:39:59 AM
but it quite clear to me who of the two was the most talented composer and wrote the most versatile and most multi-faceted music - intellectually as well as emotionally.
OK ......... which one was "the most talented composer and wrote the most versatile and most multi-faceted music - intellectually as well as emotionally" ........ ? ???
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on October 29, 2007, 10:42:16 AM
OK ......... which one was "the most talented composer and wrote the most versatile and most multi-faceted music - intellectually as well as emotionally" ........ ? ???
Mahler, obviously. Bruckner was known to struggle with orchestration, reworked his music even more probably, and took until his 4th symphony to write something that's considered a masterpiece. His earlier ones I haven't heard that they were all that great (though i haven't heard them anyways). His music is not nearly as versatile, meaning it doesn't have extremely different personalities from one symphony to the next. Compare Mahler 1 to 10 or even 3 to 4! This isn't say it's bad that Bruckner isn't as varied, cuz his music is still kewl, just a little bit more strict stylistically. 8)
correction by PC cop $:)
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on October 29, 2007, 09:07:25 AM
Elgar is pure horseshit flying poopy compared to Bruckner 8 ........
Quote from: Que on October 29, 2007, 10:39:59 AM
Jeeeeez.
First, comparing Mahler and Bruckner is a ludricous idea - they are totally different composers.
I like both, but it quite clear to me who of the two was the most talented composer and wrote the most versatile and most multi-faceted music - intellectually as well as emotionally.
But this is no pissing contest - both are unique in character.
Q
So true! but that won't prevent idiotic comparisons from going into 30 pages.
If only composers were as easy to compare as basketball players, then we could just look at how many championships each won. I guess composers don't win championships. This question reminds me of this: whose better, Jordan or Bird?
hmmmmmmm Jordan, obviously?
how many championships did each win again?
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on October 29, 2007, 10:42:16 AM
OK ......... which one was "the most talented composer and wrote the most versatile and most multi-faceted music - intellectually as well as emotionally" ........ ? ???
I had my reasons for not mentioning ;D:
1) no pissing contest;
2) it's my own perception and not a fact;
3) I'm sure you can decide for yourself :)
If you're still interested in my
personal preference after that: it's Mahler.
And I don't think he was "violent" as he is perceived by some here - that is all to blame on modern interpreters. Mahler was on the contrary a
hyper-sensitive (and intelligent) man, and his music reflects that.
Q
I'm not going to re-enter this topic (which will inevitably devolve into what is otherwise known as a "flame-fest"), but I would like to make an important clarification:
Someone mentioned Anton Bruckner's personality as being less problematic than Gustav Mahler's. Now, might I mention that, although Mahler was intensely troubled by many things, and profoundly "existentialist" in his concerns (as I mentioned above), it was Bruckner who was recorded as cradling Beethoven's newly-exhumed skull in his arms?
That it was Bruckner who kept making marriage proposals to various teenaged girls, out of the blue?
Don't get me wrong: I do not consider Bruckner's personality detrimental to my enjoyment of his music. But of the pair mentioned, he clearly surpassed Mahler in displaying overtly psychopathological traits, which I do repeat I do not denounce in any way. So the personalities of neither among the two were what you might call "normal".
Quote from: Renfield on October 29, 2007, 11:03:18 AM
That it was Bruckner who kept making marriage proposals to various teenaged girls, out of the blue?
wow, really? At what age, 60?
i heard he was so poor he could only afford food by the money from teaching composition lessons.
Goddamn it people, there is no "bad" or "good" composer; it depends on how much each of us like the composers. If you like Bruckner, he's good, if you don't, he's bad (for you). Same goes with Mahler.
But for Elgar, he's bad no matter who listens to him, at any given time. Especially bad when compared to Bruckner.
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 29, 2007, 11:13:01 AM
Goddamn it people, there is no "bad" or "good" composer; it depends on how much each of us like the composers. If you like Bruckner, he's good, if you don't, he's bad (for you). Same goes with Mahler.
But for Elgar, he's bad no matter who listens to him, at any given time. Especially bad when compared to Bruckner.
I am reporting you to the Elgar Society.
Quote from: Renfield on October 29, 2007, 11:03:18 AM
I'm not going to re-enter this topic (which will inevitably devolve into what is otherwise known as a "flame-fest"), but I would like to make an important clarification:
Someone mentioned Anton Bruckner's personality as being less problematic than Gustav Mahler's. Now, might I mention that, although Mahler was intensely troubled by many things, and profoundly "existentialist" in his concerns (as I mentioned above), it was Bruckner who was recorded as cradling Beethoven's newly-exhumed skull in his arms?
That it was Bruckner who kept making marriage proposals to various teenaged girls, out of the blue?
Don't get me wrong: I do not consider Bruckner's personality detrimental to my enjoyment of his music. But of the pair mentioned, he clearly surpassed Mahler in displaying overtly psychopathological traits, which I do repeat I do not denounce in any way. So the personalities of neither among the two were what you might call "normal".
Bruckner was an odd ball. he counts and counts and counts... apparently for no reason, he proposed marriages to girls who would reject him anyways.... and he worshiped Beethoven, well, maybe a little too much.
I never heard anyone call Bruckner displaying "overtly psychopathological traits", that's new information to me. Neither were "normal" in the normal sense, but who didn't suffer from problems in those days? Compare them to Hugo Wolf, they are quite "sane". Mahler's music reflect more of his "state of mind" than Bruckner's. Consider the worst stage of Bruckner's life, when he moved to Vienna, and hated it, can't find a well paying job, etc.... he wrote his fifth symphony, in B-flat major! Of course, there were hints of his psychological state in that symphony, but i think much of the symphony had little to do with his own life at the time.
The Elgar Society's Enforcement Patrol:
(http://lashawnbarber.com/images/keystone.jpg)
Quote from: johnQpublic on October 29, 2007, 11:37:27 AM
The Elgar Society's Enforcement Patrol:
(http://lashawnbarber.com/images/keystone.jpg)
wow, there's more than one person! :o
finally someone agrees with me Mahler's 9th is the best symphony ever:
http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/classicalmusic101/tp/symphonylist.htm
1st place in "Top 10 Symphonies you should own"
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 29, 2007, 11:13:01 AM
But for Elgar, he's bad no matter who listens to him, at any given time. Especially bad when compared to Bruckner.
Seriously, what's wrong with you people? How can you see Elgar so bad? IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. I am blown away by his music! You people are CRAZY!
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 29, 2007, 11:43:56 AM
finally someone agrees with me Mahler's 9th is the best symphony ever:
http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/classicalmusic101/tp/symphonylist.htm
1st place in "Top 10 Symphonies you should own"
As far as my personal taste is concerned, Mahler's 9th symphony is likely the best thing anyone ever composed. :)
So no, you're likely neither alone, nor alone with the guy who made that list. :P
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 29, 2007, 10:46:43 AM
Mahler, obviously. Bruckner was known to struggle with orchestration, reworked his music even more probably, and took until his 4th symphony to write something that's considered a masterpiece. His earlier ones I haven't heard that they were all that great (though i haven't heard them anyways). His music is not nearly as versatile, meaning it doesn't have extremely different personalities from one symphony to the next. Compare Mahler 1 to 10 or even 3 to 4! This isn't say it's bad that Bruckner isn't as varied, cuz his music is still kewl, just a little bit more strict stylistically. 8)
Bruckner's style developed throughout his symphonic output. The 3rd was the actual turning point (not the 4th!). The finale of the 5th is another turning point.
I agree that Bruckner probably "recycled" some stuff in his music, but to me, that's neither good or bad.
Quote from: Que on October 29, 2007, 10:57:51 AM
If you're still interested in my personal preference after that: it's Mahler.
Yeah, me too ...... but for me,
Mahler's edge over
Bruckner is very, very slight .......
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 29, 2007, 11:13:01 AMIf you like Bruckner, he's good, if you don't, he's bad (for you). Same goes with Mahler.
But for Elgar, he's bad no matter who listens to him, at any given time. Especially bad when compared to Bruckner.
Uh...Bonehelm? That's
exactly what "good" and "bad" mean: "I like" and "I don't like." (Not in the dictionary, of course, but in the way people actually use the terms. Natural language.)
I disagree about Elgar. The VCC is very good (= I like very much), the VC good (= I like), and so are
Sospiri and a few other works. Don't let the mediocrity of much of his music dissuade you from enjoying the few treasures.
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 29, 2007, 10:46:43 AM
...Bruckner was known to struggle with orchestration, reworked his music even more probably...
Uh, so did Mahler. And so did Beethoven and many other composers. In fact, among noted composers, Mozart is noted for not changing any of his notes once they were noted. ;)
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 29, 2007, 11:43:56 AM
finally someone agrees with me Mahler's 9th is the best symphony ever:
http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/classicalmusic101/tp/symphonylist.htm
1st place in "Top 10 Symphonies you should own"
1. Mahler Symphony No. 9 in D Major
2. Haydn Symphony No. 34 in d minor
3. Beethoven Symphony No. 5 in c minor
4. Mozart Symphony No. 25 in g minor
5. Barber Symphony No. 1 in G Major
6. Haydn Symphony No. 94 in G Major
7. Dvorak Symphony No. 9 in e minor
8. Ives Symphony No. 1 in d minor
9. Brahms Symphony No. 2 in D Major
10. Beethoven Symphony No. 9 in d minor
Reading the rest of the article, it looks like the Guy only has 10cds in his entire collection ;D
Quote from: longears on October 29, 2007, 03:59:14 PM
Uh...Bonehelm? That's exactly what "good" and "bad" mean: "I like" and "I don't like." (Not in the dictionary, of course, but in the way people actually use the terms. Natural language.)
I disagree about Elgar. The VCC is very good (= I like very much), the VC good (= I like), and so are Sospiri and a few other works. Don't let the mediocrity of much of his music dissuade you from enjoying the few treasures.
I don't care. Elgar is so simple compared to a 3 year old, or a chipmunk.
Didn't your mother ever tell you it's not nice to tease the handicapped kids?
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 29, 2007, 04:11:23 PM
I don't care. Elgar is so simple compared to a 3 year old, or a chipmunk.
Then truly I am honoured to possibly rank
below the great chipmunk in my ability to comprehend music! 8)
Yes, I like Elgar too. Burn me if you can. >:D
And consider the depth of emotion in his Cello Concerto, or the sensitivity of the Enigma Variations;
then unleash generalising comments of this sort on an unsuspecting public. ;)
I'm surprised a thread like this hasn't turned up before -- it was bound to happen...
It's a shame that many are freely denigrating Elgar, a great composer IMO and generally held to be at least a very competent one, just because of one user's fanaticism.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on October 29, 2007, 12:49:10 PM
Bruckner's style developed throughout his symphonic output. The 3rd was the actual turning point (not the 4th!). The finale of the 5th is another turning point.
I'm not really sure what you mean by the finale of the fifth being a turning point. Can you explain?
Quote
I agree that Bruckner probably "recycled" some stuff in his music
Like what?
Threads like this are meant for flame wars anyway ::) I'm not surprised people are attacking each other and defending their own composers.
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 29, 2007, 05:10:50 PM
Threads like this are meant for flame wars anyway ::) I'm not surprised people are attacking each other and defending their own composers.
Like you never,
ever said anything ill-considered about an otherwise-noted (and in my opinion notable) composer here. :D
"Their own composers"... Yep, I'll trade you two Mozarts for a Wagner, and an Elgar, a Mozart and a Bruckner for all the Mahlers you've got!
Bruckner good, Mahler good, Elgar so-so, Dittersdorf no good.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 29, 2007, 05:24:02 PM
Elgar so-so
Yes, if you consider a
tiny handful of "good" works sufficient to elevate a composer to "so-so" status ...... who would otherwise be mired in mediocrity ........
Quote from: Renfield on October 29, 2007, 05:20:28 PM
Like you never, ever said anything ill-considered about an otherwise-noted (and in my opinion notable) composer here. :D
"Their own composers"... Yep, I'll trade you two Mozarts for a Wagner, and an Elgar, a Mozart and a Bruckner for all the Mahlers you've got!
Mozartmon digivolves toooo.....MOZART-RAGAMON!!
Level 14 Mozart-Ragamon defeats Level 2 Elgar-Magamon flawlessly.
Mozart-Ragamon fans receive free CPO cds care of JPC!
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 29, 2007, 05:24:02 PM
Bruckner good, Mahler good, Elgar so-so, Dittersdorf no good.
We got a winner here.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 29, 2007, 05:24:02 PM
Bruckner good, Mahler good, Elgar so-so, Dittersdorf no good.
I'm not used to liking what's no good!
Quote from: CS on October 29, 2007, 04:54:24 PM
I'm not really sure what you mean by the finale of the fifth being a turning point. Can you explain?
Well, if you look at Bruckner's early symphonies, 3rd, 4th. Both symphonies were master works, but both suffers from some deficiencies In the 3rd, Bruckner had all sorts of great ideas and it seemed to me that he didn't expressed his ideas in a coherent way. His earlier drafts of the 4th (which had 3 different finales), shows his struggle with writing a coherent final movement. But, Bruckner is improving vastly already, one can see that by listening all 3 versions of the finale of the 4th, where he comes closest with the last version. His fifth, the reason i call it a turning point, is that it seemed to me, from that point on, he concludes his symphonies in ways that is much more convincing than his earlier attempts with the 4th. it also shows the full might of his contrapuntal maturity, writing counterpoint on a scale that is unprecedented in western music.
Quote from: CS on October 29, 2007, 04:54:24 PM
Like what?
I was listening to Bruckner the other day. And, I was particularly interested in his earlier symphonies. More specifically, the "0". It is an often neglected work, but upon closer examination, I saw many interesting things. For instance, the andante reminds me of the slow movement in the 8nd symphony. I also see a strange parallel between the finale of the "0" and the Finale of the Fifth. Both features some great counterpoint. But, in "0", it seems that Bruckner didn't go quite as far (in terms of contrapuntal ambtions) as he has done in the finale of his 5th. But, one can sense where Bruckner got his ideas for the finale of his fifth.
In a way, Bruckner "recycles", be it thematic materials, or earlier symphonies. It is also interesting to note that they way he quoted Wagner's "Siegfried Idyll" in both his
Te Deum and
7th symphony.
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 29, 2007, 04:11:23 PM
I don't care. Elgar is so simple compared to a 3 year old, or a chipmunk.
Come on man! The 4th mov. of Elgar's 2nd symphony, simple? Hell no! Themes overlapped, counterpoint, harmony, melodies,... ...everything constructed together geniously into multidimensional perfection. You're mentally 3 years old, or a bonehead.
Damn it's frustrating to promote Elgar... :P
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 29, 2007, 05:24:02 PM
Bruckner good, Mahler good, Elgar so-so, Dittersdorf no good.
What is it you have heard from Dittersdorf? I guess all people in the 18th century where stupid since they admired Dittersdorf. How many times I have to say the history is twisted and neglects many great composers.
Elgar rules!
Quote from: Renfield on October 29, 2007, 12:33:39 PM
As far as my personal taste is concerned, Mahler's 9th symphony is likely the best thing anyone ever composed. :)
So no, you're likely neither alone, nor alone with the guy who made that list. :P
:D
best thing ever, YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH 8)
i'm high-fiving your avatar, you've totally earned my respect 8)
Quote from: 12tone. on October 29, 2007, 05:50:26 PM
Mozartmon digivolves toooo.....MOZART-RAGAMON!!
Level 14 Mozart-Ragamon defeats Level 2 Elgar-Magamon flawlessly.
Mozart-Ragamon fans receive free CPO cds care of JPC!
hmmmmm well Mozart-Ragamon just died of lung cancer.
now Mahlermon is fighting Brucknermon for control of the Musical World, and perhaps the real world too, if they could only get resurrected somehow.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2007, 02:56:06 AM
Damn it's frustrating to promote Elgar... :P
I feel your pain, dude, and I agree with you. Elgar was a damn fine composer who wrote as many, if not more, masterworks than Bruckner. Let's count: the two symphonies, Falstaff, Enigma, the Cello Concerto, the Violin Concerto, the Piano Quintet, the String Quartet, the Violin Sonata, Gerontius, the Apostles, Sea Pictures, In the South, Cockaigne, the Serenade for Strings, Introduction and Allegro.
My Trinity is Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner...but Elgar is definitely in my top ten.
Sarge
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 30, 2007, 05:38:04 AM
:D
best thing ever, YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH 8)
i'm high-fiving your avatar, you've totally earned my respect 8)
Well, my avatar does consist of multiple instances of Mahler, so it's quite fitting to high-five it, in this case! 8)
Quote from: Renfield on October 30, 2007, 06:03:56 AM
Well, my avatar does consist of multiple instances of Mahler, so it's quite fitting to high-five it, in this case! 8)
i didn't even notice that, lol
your avatar looked to me like an orange sheet with black blotches on it, never really looked closely.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 30, 2007, 05:44:39 AM
I feel your pain, dude, and I agree with you. Elgar was a damn fine composer who wrote as many, if not more, masterworks than Bruckner. Let's count: the two symphonies, Falstaff, Enigma, the Cello Concerto, the Violin Concerto, the Piano Quintet, the String Quartet, the Violin Sonata, Gerontius, the Apostles, Sea Pictures, In the South, Cockaigne, the Serenade for Strings, Introduction and Allegro.
Damn right Sarge!
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 30, 2007, 05:44:39 AMMy Trinity is Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner
Mine is Elgar - Bach - Händel. :P
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 30, 2007, 05:44:39 AM...but Elgar is definitely in my top ten.
0:)
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2007, 02:56:06 AM
Come on man! The 4th mov. of Elgar's 2nd symphony, simple? Hell no! Themes overlapped, counterpoint, harmony, melodies,... ...everything constructed together geniously into multidimensional perfection. You're mentally 3 years old, or a bonehead.
Damn it's frustrating to promote Elgar... :P
What is it you have heard from Dittersdorf? I guess all people in the 18th century where stupid since they admired Dittersdorf. How many times I have to say the history is twisted and neglects many great composers.
Elgar rules!
Keep lying to yourself, Elgar's nothing compared to Bruckner or Mahler in terms of complexity. That's what 99% of the world's music scholars will tell you. At least I trust Karl (who got a doctoral degree in music) on this. If he thinks Elgar is simple, no one should argue with him.
Btw you don't even have a music education. At least I do.
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 30, 2007, 07:38:41 AM
Keep lying to yourself, Elgar's nothing compared to Bruckner or Mahler in terms of complexity. That's what 99% of the world's music scholars will tell you. At least I trust Karl (who got a doctoral degree in music) on this. If he thinks Elgar is simple, no one should argue with him.
Btw you don't even have a music education. At least I do.
i would say that, too.
(although i haven't heard that much, i can tell, reading through an Elgar score isn't as hard as Bruckner and defintely not as hard as Mahler)
he doesn't use as large of an orchestra.... but i wouldn't call his music 'simple' all the time
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 30, 2007, 07:42:37 AM
i would say that, too.
(although i haven't heard that much, i can tell, reading through an Elgar score isn't as hard as Bruckner and defintely not as hard as Mahler)
he doesn't use as large of an orchestra.... but i wouldn't call his music 'simple' all the time
His music is not simple all the time. But it's simple ALL THE TIME when compared to Bruckner or Mahler or Wagner.
With all due respect to Mr Henning (whose musical knowledge and/or academic credentials cited above I have no reason to doubt), in my world, it takes a lot more than citing the greater authority of one academically-certified professional's opinion (note: perhaps even "professional opinion") to make a point.
If you can argue clearly and concisely regarding why Elgar, Mahler, Bruckner, Mozart, Boris Tchaikovsky or Greg's music is or is not complicated in comparison to an again clearly defined musical "reference form", please, by all means do so.
But I am already clenching my proverbial jaw in remaining cordial before this poor excuse for an argument, on principle: "because I say so", does not cut it. And that applies regardless of the age, experience, or curriculum vitae of the person citing such "evidence".
Otherwise, I might assert the world to be banana-shaped, and myself its king: because "I say so", and because "I know it's true".
Quote from: MahlerTitan on October 29, 2007, 09:12:46 PM
Well, if you look at Bruckner's early symphonies, 3rd, 4th. Both symphonies were master works, but both suffers from some deficiencies In the 3rd, Bruckner had all sorts of great ideas and it seemed to me that he didn't expressed his ideas in a coherent way. His earlier drafts of the 4th (which had 3 different finales), shows his struggle with writing a coherent final movement. But, Bruckner is improving vastly already, one can see that by listening all 3 versions of the finale of the 4th, where he comes closest with the last version. His fifth, the reason i call it a turning point, is that it seemed to me, from that point on, he concludes his symphonies in ways that is much more convincing than his earlier attempts with the 4th. it also shows the full might of his contrapuntal maturity, writing counterpoint on a scale that is unprecedented in western music.
The finale of the 5th is indeed marvelous. But a turning point? The 5th's finale is quite unique, and when one looks at (for example) the finales of the 6th and 7th symphonies, there isn't really a vast progression of improvement or stylistic change. In fact, I don't think it's a far-fetched claim to say that the finales of the 6th and 7th have more in common with the finale of the 3rd than the 5th. That the finale of the 5th was centered around a fugue really sets it apart from the rest.
And about "writing counterpoint on a scale that is unprecedented in western music" -- don't forget Bach and Beethoven (& co.). 8)
Quote
In a way, Bruckner "recycles", be it thematic materials, or earlier symphonies. It is also interesting to note that they way he quoted Wagner's "Siegfried Idyll" in both his Te Deum and 7th symphony.
I took the phrase "recycled material" to mean a little more than Bruckner quoting himself in passages. Not sure how much he recycles thematic material. I find every one of his symphonies quite unique, each producing its own sound world and going its own way.
Sure, he wrote in much the same form (sonata-allegro form, adagio then scherzo or vice versa, then a finale) and utilized many of the same mechanisms (ie., the "Bruckner rhythm" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruckner_rhythm) and forms of broad sequencing). But like any other major composer, he was developing (or had developed) his own voice, and there are bound to be a number of similarities given any two of his works. The consistent style with which he worked and improved over time is one of his admirable traits to some (like me, and you may agree).
It's all a "matter of degree", I s'pose. (And opinion.)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 30, 2007, 05:44:39 AM
I feel your pain, dude, and I agree with you. Elgar was a damn fine composer who wrote as many, if not more, masterworks than Bruckner. Let's count: the two symphonies, Falstaff, Enigma, the Cello Concerto, the Violin Concerto, the Piano Quintet, the String Quartet, the Violin Sonata, Gerontius, the Apostles, Sea Pictures, In the South, Cockaigne, the Serenade for Strings, Introduction and Allegro.
My Trinity is Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner...but Elgar is definitely in my top ten.
Sarge
Elgar is definitely not in my TOP10, but those who denigrate him and Dittersdorf are just ignorant about their works.
Same with those who've written scornful posts about Vivaldi, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Haydn, Paganini, Scarlatti, Schubert and many more
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 30, 2007, 07:38:41 AM
Keep lying to yourself, Elgar's nothing compared to Bruckner or Mahler in terms of complexity. That's what 99% of the world's music scholars will tell you. At least I trust Karl (who got a doctoral degree in music) on this. If he thinks Elgar is simple, no one should argue with him.
Btw you don't even have a music education. At least I do.
First, I don't think Karl seriously thinks Elgar is "simple", but I'll let him clarify.
Second, Karl is not the only one in the world with a degree in music. There have been many world famous musicians who have admired Elgar and never felt it necessary to lower him in the face of, say, Bruckner or Mahler, including Giuseppe Sinopoli, Sir Georg Solti, Adrian Boult, Hans Richter, Fritz Kreisler, Malcolm Sargent, Yehudi Menuhin, Sir John Barbirolli and more, all with
pretty good music credentials.
So if we want to appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority), your argument doesn't exactly go through.
And the "99% of the world's music scholars" part is total crap.
In short: your arguments are no better than 71dB's.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on October 29, 2007, 09:08:27 AM
dare I say this? well, you asked for it anyway. Heart of darkness=quality?
I've been thinking about this for a couple of days now, and I feel that's too simplistic. Elgar's music has quality, no question about it, and complexity, despite Bonehelm's evaluation. But what I miss in most of Elgar, except for the Cello Concerto, is the total honesty of a Bruckner or a Mahler, an honesty that reaches to both the darkest and the brightest emotions, the depths and heights of human passions. And as I said before, I could be wrong; I missed it for a while in Haydn. :-\
Quote from: jochanaan on October 30, 2007, 09:58:29 AM
I've been thinking about this for a couple of days now, and I feel that's too simplistic. Elgar's music has quality, no question about it, and complexity, despite Bonehelm's evaluation. But what I miss in most of Elgar, except for the Cello Concerto, is the total honesty of a Bruckner or a Mahler, an honesty that reaches to both the darkest and the brightest emotions, the depths and heights of human passions. And as I said before, I could be wrong; I missed it for a while in Haydn. :-\
Try Elgar's string quartet, coincidentally (or not) also in E minor.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 30, 2007, 05:44:39 AM
but Elgar is definitely in my top ten.
To the extent a "top 10" list comprises 300 entries, then Elgar is a top 10 composer for me as well .......
Quote from: CS on October 30, 2007, 08:50:08 AM
The finale of the 5th is indeed marvelous. But a turning point? The 5th's finale is quite unique, and when one looks at (for example) the finales of the 6th and 7th symphonies, there isn't really a vast progression of improvement or stylistic change. In fact, I don't think it's a far-fetched claim to say that the finales of the 6th and 7th have more in common with the finale of the 3rd than the 5th. That the finale of the 5th was centered around a fugue really sets it apart from the rest.
I was probably more than just impressed by the fugue to make that statement. But, i will agree with you that the finales of 6,7th have a little in common with the the finale of 5th. But, look at the fifth, and think about Bruckner's symphonies after that. He no longer revise his later works. The fifth version has 2 versions (the latter probably wasn't approved by Bruckner), so does the 6th. The 8th was revised only when Levi said it needed work, not because some nobody told Bruckner to do so, and it worked to his advantage (unlike the 3rd, which only made matters worse). And the 9th, of course was the only version he has written.
I guess the turning point is really Bruckner's increase in self-confidence. I think, after the monumental fifth, Bruckner was convinced of his own abilities, but it took until the premiere of the 7th to make him realize how great a composer he really is.
Quote from: quintett op.57 on October 30, 2007, 08:54:11 AM
Elgar is definitely not in my TOP 10,
This has tremendous potential as a bumper sticker ........
Quote from: quintett op.57 on October 30, 2007, 08:54:11 AM
Those who denigrate Elgar and Dittersdorf are just ignorant about their works.
You were on a roll with the first half of your statement ....... :D
Quote from: CS on October 30, 2007, 09:09:01 AM
First, I don't think Karl seriously thinks Elgar is "simple", but I'll let him clarify.
Second, Karl is not the only one in the world with a degree in music. There have been many world famous musicians who have admired Elgar and never felt it necessary to lower him in the face of, say, Bruckner or Mahler, including Giuseppe Sinopoli, Sir Georg Solti, Adrian Boult, Hans Richter, Fritz Kreisler, Malcolm Sargent, Yehudi Menuhin, Sir John Barbirolli and more, all with pretty good music credentials.
So if we want to appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority), your argument doesn't exactly go through.
And the "99% of the world's music scholars" part is total crap.
In short: your arguments are no better than 71dB's.
what was the argument? Bonehelm made up a number, 99% of world scholars. Then labeled Karl as the only authority in music, completely ignoring the fact that Karl's taste is purely subjective, and is only valid for himself.
Without sounding like the proverbial hippy (man), can't we all just beg to differ and get along? I don't really 'dig' Elgar much, but certainly respect him as a composer and don't own one single Bruckner recording (quite an achievement!).
I couldn't give a flying **** what your tastes are, just pleased we're different. Continuous flaming of people for their taste in music seems so pointless. This thread is starting to remind me of a playground...
(http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/smiley-faces-71.gif)
yeah, what's wrong with the people who are throwing their poop on each other?
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 30, 2007, 10:40:46 AM
yeah, what's wrong with the people who are throwing their poop on each other?
Nothing; it's the poopular thing to do these days.
Quote from: johnQpublic on October 30, 2007, 10:42:25 AM
Nothing; it's the poopular thing to do these days.
HAHAHAHAHA :D
Quote from: MahlerTitan on October 30, 2007, 10:19:20 AM
I was probably more than just impressed by the fugue to make that statement. But, i will agree with you that the finales of 6,7th have a little in common with the the finale of 5th. But, look at the fifth, and think about Bruckner's symphonies after that. He no longer revise his later works. The fifth version has 2 versions (the latter probably wasn't approved by Bruckner), so does the 6th. The 8th was revised only when Levi said it needed work, not because some nobody told Bruckner to do so, and it worked to his advantage (unlike the 3rd, which only made matters worse). And the 9th, of course was the only version he has written.
I guess the turning point is really Bruckner's increase in self-confidence. I think, after the monumental fifth, Bruckner was convinced of his own abilities, but it took until the premiere of the 7th to make him realize how great a composer he really is.
An interesting analysis. The only problem is that it doesn't jive with the known fact that most of the Bruckner "versions" most commonly played were completed in the last decade of his life, AFTER the Eighth's rejection by Hermann Levi. It was this rejection that evoked the most profound crisis of confidence in Bruckner's life, and indirectly resulted in the Ninth's incomplete state--one of three great musical tragedies/question marks. (The other two are Bach's Art of the Fugue and Mahler's Tenth.)
Quote from: jochanaan on October 30, 2007, 09:58:29 AM
I've been thinking about this for a couple of days now, and I feel that's too simplistic. Elgar's music has quality, no question about it, and complexity, despite Bonehelm's evaluation. But what I miss in most of Elgar, except for the Cello Concerto, is the total honesty of a Bruckner or a Mahler, an honesty that reaches to both the darkest and the brightest emotions, the depths and heights of human passions.
And that's what I hear in much of Elgar's music. It's what grabbed me the first time I heard Enigma.
Quote from: jochanaan on October 30, 2007, 09:58:29 AM
And as I said before, I could be wrong; I missed it for a while in Haydn. :-\
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 30, 2007, 10:05:17 AM
Try Elgar's string quartet, coincidentally (or not) also in E minor.
Or try the Second Symphony, especially when conducted the way Sinopoli does it...with the emphasis on the darkness even in the opening pages.
Sarge
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on October 30, 2007, 10:10:23 AM
To the extent a "top 10" list comprises 300 entries, then Elgar is a top 10 composer for me as well .......
Yes, my Top 300 are equal in my mind...but some are more equal than others ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 30, 2007, 07:38:41 AM
Keep lying to yourself, Elgar's nothing compared to Bruckner or Mahler in terms of complexity. That's what 99% of the world's music scholars will tell you. At least I trust Karl (who got a doctoral degree in music) on this. If he thinks Elgar is simple, no one should argue with him.
Btw you don't even have a music education. At least I do.
I think people with musical education can't think "out of the box". I can because I am self-educated in music. As I have said my ears have been educated by complex electronic music. There are scholars who say Elgar is sophisticated.
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 30, 2007, 07:42:37 AM
i would say that, too.
(although i haven't heard that much, i can tell, reading through an Elgar score isn't as hard as Bruckner and defintely not as hard as Mahler)
he doesn't use as large of an orchestra.... but i wouldn't call his music 'simple' all the time
What have you read? Elgar's miniatures like Minuet, Op 21? Yeah, that's maybe not as complex as Mahler's or Bruckners symphonies. ;D
Have you read the score of The Apostles? I suppose nobody finds that small or simple.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2007, 11:36:44 AM
I think people with musical education can't think "out of the box". I can because I am self-educated in music.
Besides:
71 dB is GMG's resident FREE THINKER
They just don't make boxes as small as Poju's anymore.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2007, 11:41:35 AM
Have you read the score of The Apostles? I suppose nobody finds that small or simple.
More like
bloated & whiny.
To get back to topic, I will listen to any Bruckner or Mahler symphony, anytime, and twice, rather than listen to The Apostles again.
That is my pledge!
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2007, 11:36:44 AM
There are scholars who say Elgar is sophisticated.
Would you post those links again, please? I could use a really good belly laugh ........
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2007, 11:36:44 AM
I am self-educated in music. As I have said my ears have been educated by complex electronic music.
(a freethinking background very well suited for tapping into multidimensional vibrational fields)
Quoteself-educated in music
I couldn't possibly comment.
No, no, I couldn't.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 30, 2007, 12:13:12 PM
I couldn't possibly comment.
No, no, I couldn't.
Karl, our musical education clearly hampers our respective abilities to think outside the box ....... If only we were as uneducated as Poju ......... to thereby live as freethinkers ..........
Ah, if only . . . .
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2007, 11:36:44 AM
I think people with musical education can't think "out of the box". I can because I am self-educated in music. As I have said my ears have been educated by complex electronic music. There are scholars who say Elgar is sophisticated.
If people with musical education can't think out of the box, how can there be scholars who say Elgar is sophisticated? Truly, your post defeats itself in contraidictions.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 30, 2007, 12:29:44 PM
If people with musical education can't think out of the box, how can there be scholars who say Elgar is sophisticated?
Poju is referring to scholars who are selfeducated ........
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on October 30, 2007, 12:02:45 PM
Would you post those links again, please? I could use a really good belly laugh ........
QUOTES:
For example
Vaughan Williams said: "Elgar's works are imperishable monuments."
Sir Henry Wood said: "Elgar was a mighty figure. His is among the finest music ever written."
Hans Richter said of the 1st symphony: "Gentlemen, let us now rehearse the greatest symphony of modern times, written by the greatest modern composer - and not only this country."
August Jaeger said of the slow movement of the 1st symphony: "It's not only one of the very greatest slow movements since Beethoven, but I consider it worthy of that master."
Eric Blom said: "Elgar's music possesses a very personal style, which is permeated by a very wide range of European influences: "His melody is reminiscent of Tchaikovsky, his spirituality of Franck; he possesses Beethoven's greatness and Brahms' distance...his masterly craft is reminiscent of Berlioz."
Dr. Percy Young in his book
Elgar O.M.: "Elgar wrote great works. He also wrote works which, though outside the range of accepted greatness, have compelled the attention and affection of a nation. It must not be overlooked that it requires rather more than talent to achieve what Chesterton described as tremendous trifles."
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 30, 2007, 12:29:44 PM
If people with musical education can't think out of the box, how can there be scholars who say Elgar is sophisticated? Truly, your post defeats itself in contraidictions.
There are open-minded people who are free-thinkers and aren't brainwashed during the education.
I just finished reading the last three pages of this thread, and it strikes me that Elgar has been dumped on extensively for at least the past month. That's not reasonable. One last thing - I'm very confident that Elgar would not utter the stupid comments coming from 71 dB.
Concerning Dittersdorf, I don't think his music is "no good"; it's just not very good.
My box is very comfy with a lounge chair and a plasma TV, making me very much at ease when I need to think.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2007, 12:47:50 PM
There are open-minded people who are free-thinkers and aren't brainwashed during the education.
Could you describe this brainwashing process, please? How does one know one has been brainwashed, or has escaped brainwashing?
Quote from: Don on October 30, 2007, 12:52:02 PM
I just finished reading the last three pages of this thread, and it strikes me that Elgar has been dumped on extensively for at least the past month. That's not reasonable. One last thing - I'm very confident that Elgar would not utter the stupid comments coming from 71 dB.
Concerning Dittersdorf, I don't think his music is "no good"; it's just not very good.
It's
very good! It's just not great.
Regarding Elgar...even though he would never put himself on the level of the giants that 71db puts him on the really stupid comments come from people who make him out as being 2 notches left of worthless.
Elgar works speak for themselves, not that I like them all, they still remain the output of a considerable genius. The Germans realized it before the English did which makes me wonder what the opinion of Elgar would be if he would have been a German composer and not an English one who were prolific in producing great writers but NOT great composers!
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 30, 2007, 04:19:40 PM
Could you describe this brainwashing process, please? How does one know one has been brainwashed, or has escaped brainwashing?
Oh God! I wish you wouldn't have asked!
But, break my heart, for I must hold my tongue!
Quote from: max on October 30, 2007, 04:50:16 PM
Oh God! I wish you wouldn't have asked!
But, break my heart, for I must hold my tongue!
Oh God yerself, Hamlet. Go for it.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 30, 2007, 05:44:39 AM
I feel your pain, dude, and I agree with you. Elgar was a damn fine composer who wrote as many, if not more, masterworks than Bruckner. Let's count: the two symphonies, Falstaff, Enigma, the Cello Concerto, the Violin Concerto, the Piano Quintet, the String Quartet, the Violin Sonata, Gerontius, the Apostles, Sea Pictures, In the South, Cockaigne, the Serenade for Strings, Introduction and Allegro.
I'm glad someone had the guts to say that, the sad croneyism of the "internet badasses" was making me feel ill.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 30, 2007, 04:53:26 PM
Oh God yerself, Hamlet. Go for it.
...isn't it already clear! ;D
Quote from: max on October 30, 2007, 05:09:54 PM
...isn't it already clear! ;D
Too easy, Max. Speak your mind, or forever hold your peace.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 30, 2007, 05:11:55 PM
Too easy, Max. Speak your mind, or forever hold your peace.
Ok! I believe in peace, with the odd
frictions interspersed as the
Be all and end all of Human Destiny!
I think the one who got brainwashed is 71dB himself, thinking such a minor and unimportant composer as a giant like Bruckner or Mahler.
Whatever though, you can keep listening to that Elgar junk all you want, you don't know what you're missing.
And don't throw that back at me, I have listened and learned to appreciate Elgar too. It was only a failure.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2007, 02:56:06 AM
Damn it's frustrating to promote Elgar... :P
Perhaps your frustration is a result of this ridiculous idea of yours, that a thread comparing
Bruckner and
Mahler, is somehow yet another forum for you to shout to the world what a great composer you think
Elgar is?
You'd be due more sympathy, Poju, perhaps, if your gibberish did not make for your own frustration.
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 30, 2007, 05:38:06 PM
I think the one who got brainwashed is 71dB himself
It may well be true, since it doesn't matter what the actual
topic is, his brain just splorches Elgarmania.
Quote from: max on October 30, 2007, 05:22:50 PM
Ok! I believe in peace, with the odd frictions interspersed as the Be all and end all of Human Destiny!
I'm so glad we cleared that up, and so candidly.
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 30, 2007, 05:38:06 PM
I think the one who got brainwashed is 71dB himself, thinking such a minor and unimportant composer as a giant like Bruckner or Mahler.
Whatever though, you can keep listening to that Elgar junk all you want, you don't know what you're missing.
And don't throw that back at me, I have listened and learned to appreciate Elgar too. It was only a failure.
You're still giving 71db a true challenge in the field of solid argumentation, I really must say.
But anyhow, I shouldn't talk: I'm the chipmunk-simple person who finds Elgar's music touching, and not at all bland. I also love Mahler, and Bruckner fascinates me to no end!
What a happy life I lead... :D
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2007, 11:36:44 AM
I think people with musical education can't think "out of the box". I can because I am self-educated in music...
On the contrary, it's almost necessary to be educated about the box before one can think outside of it. But then, I'm not self-educated--yet I like to think that I think for myself. :)
Education, at its best, does not teach you
what to think, but
how.
Quote from: jochanaan on October 30, 2007, 06:46:04 PM
On the contrary, it's almost necessary to be educated about the box before one can think outside of it. But then, I'm not self-educated--yet I like to think that I think for myself. :)
Education, at its best, does not teach you what to think, but how.
As so often, Jochanaan hits the nail on the head. You do need to understand the musical tradition before you can (if you are so impelled) break away from it. Someone who is "self-educated" never knows more than he/she knows already. Genuine education challenges you to think outside your solipsistic boundaries.
Quote from: jochanaan on October 30, 2007, 06:46:04 PM
Education, at its best, does not teach you what to think, but how.
Yet the underlined part of the quote, to return to a more serious topic (and manner) of discussion, is quite a crucial one.
Formal education has its pitfalls, for all its advantages. And though I don't agree with 71db's general assertion of it
necessarily leading to "boxed thinking", it often - perhaps
more than often - does; or rather, it "
doesn't not", as I agree with Jochanaan it
should. ;)
Quote from: jochanaan on October 30, 2007, 06:46:04 PM
Education, at its best, does not teach you what to think, but how.
...you are so right! That's what education
should be but seldom is. It usually defaults to it's lowest common denominator called the 'status quo' because it's professors seldom know much more themselves and it's institutions don't expect more. Quite the contrary!
Education, not to be denigrated, is also and has been throughout history it's own limitation. Those who break the rules are the one's most acutely aware of those limitations.
When i was back in high school, I was enrolled in a special program, that was suppose to teach us "how to think". My history teachers were Che following commies, who would force feminism and far-left thinking into our minds. :P My epistemology teacher was somone quite special. It was him who really "taught" us "how to think" in a more philosophical context. He employed the Socratic method, basically, the day before every class, he assigns anywhere from 10 to 100 pages of reading material (per day) dealing with problems of knowledge in various areas of academic discipline. Next day, he begins the class with writing a big "?" on the white board, and what does he do afterwards? he sits back, and listens to our discussions. He almost never contributes anything other than asking us additional questions, "guiding" our discussion to the desired destinations. That was really something i had never seen before, because you are constantly put on the spot, you had to think, and think fast. At the end, it's amazing how far i have come, needless to say I benefited immensely from that class.
On another interesting note, this teacher of mine is a CE0 of a muti-million dollar investment group. He once sold a website of his for 60 million dollars during one of our passing periods(on the cellphone)! He teaches not for the money, but because he promised a boy who had AIDS to pursue his own dreams. The boy died at the end, and he quit acting to pursue a degree in education. And became a high school teacher. quite a story, huh?
And this, so pertinent to the
res, deserves a repeat:
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 30, 2007, 06:53:50 PM
. . . Someone who is "self-educated" never knows more than he/she knows already. Genuine education challenges you to think outside your solipsistic boundaries.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2007, 03:33:54 AM
And this, so pertinent to the res, deserves a repeat:
Consider
Charles Ives, the ultimate American pioneer and maverick for "thinking outside the box."
To quote Thurston Howell III: "Good heavens, he must be a Yale man!"
Indeed!
Ives studied Music at Yale!
Even
Schoenberg sought out teachers, like
Alexander Zemlinsky, and did not rely totally on his own inner autodidactic powers.
Bruckner constantly sought out approbation from private teachers (e.g. Simon Sechter).
The danger for the autodidact is the self-pollination of arrogance. The autodidact can be admired for his struggle to attain an education alone and against whatever prevents him from attaining normal schooling.
But the master who never learned from a master...? It is hard to find such a tale!
In all of this, I am constantly reminded of...
SAUL! :o
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 30, 2007, 05:38:06 PM
I think the one who got brainwashed is 71dB himself, thinking such a minor and unimportant composer as a giant like Bruckner or Mahler.
Whatever though, you can keep listening to that Elgar junk all you want, you don't know what you're missing.
Brainwashing is a everyday threat and I try my best to fight against it. I hope I am not badly brainwashed. People who think
Elgar is unimportant are irrational and brainwashed.
Elgar put England back to the musical map. Unimportant?
We all are missing a lot of great stuff because life it too short. What I am not missing is
Mahler and
Bruckner. I listen to them too and that's the reason I
can say
Elgar was better than these two composers (and Bruckner is better than Mahler). All three composers were masterful and their music is not boring.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 04:01:02 AM
Brainwashing is a everyday threat
You should really get out more, fella.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 04:01:02 AM
Brainwashing is a everyday threat and I try my best to fight against it. I hope I am not badly brainwashed. People who think Elgar is unimportant are irrational and brainwashed. Elgar put England back to the musical map. Unimportant?
We all are missing a lot of great stuff because life it too short. What I am not missing is Mahler and Bruckner. I listen to them too and that's the reason I can say Elgar was better than these two composers (and Bruckner is better than Mahler). All three composers were masterful and their music is not boring.
Elgar is certainly not junk; he is an important composer who has written some extraordinary works. Mr. Bonehelm exaggerates considerably. But once again Jochanaan, if you return to his post on the subject, has put his finger on the root cause on Elgar's
relatively lower stature compared to Mahler and Bruckner.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 04:01:02 AM
People who think Elgar is unimportant are irrational and brainwashed. Elgar put England back to the musical map. Unimportant?
You're drinking out of the toilet on this one, buddy. No one here denies
Elgar's importance in English music.
So who has brainwashed
you into this state of paranoiac concern about these imaginary beings who think that
Elgar is junk, hmmm?
Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2007, 04:21:56 AM
So who has brainwashed you into this state of paranoiac concern about these imaginary beings who think that Elgar is junk, hmmm?
Bonehelm wrote Elgar is an unimportant composer. Isn't that the same as being junk?
I am paranoiac about this, I don't deny that. My message is that Elgar is above Mahler and Bruckner. For reasons I don't fully understand people keep saying the opposite. Somehow I get significantly greater kicks out of Elgar's music.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 04:47:36 AM
Bonehelm wrote Elgar is an unimportant composer. Isn't that the same as being junk?
I am paranoiac about this, I don't deny that. My message is that Elgar is above Mahler and Bruckner. For reasons I don't fully understand people keep saying the opposite. Somehow I get significantly greater kicks out of Elgar's music.
Accept, therefore, that yours is a minority view, breathe deeply, and watch the sun rise!
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 04:47:36 AM
My message is that Elgar is above Mahler and Bruckner.
False and your insistence on this absolute ranking of value is boneheaded.
QuoteFor reasons I don't fully understand people keep saying the opposite.
True. You don't understand. If you're capable of rational thought, then seek help learning so that you will understand.
QuoteSomehow I get significantly greater kicks out of Elgar's music.
Apparently true. No one would argue with this. It's when you claim that your subjective experience determines absolute Truth that you appear to be nuts.
Who says Pink Harp no longer haunts the Forum?
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 04:47:36 AM
Bonehelm wrote Elgar is an unimportant composer. Isn't that the same as being junk?
Some junk is more important than other junk.
Quote from: Cato on October 31, 2007, 05:01:46 AM
Accept, therefore, that yours is a minority view, breathe deeply, and watch the sun rise!
Minorities are often right. It just takes time before the truth becomes accepted among the majority.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 05:29:41 AM
Minorities are often right. It just takes time before the truth becomes accepted among the majority.
Majorities are often right too. The reason the music of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, and others has been widely adopted is that a majority of musically aware people recognized its superior quality.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 05:29:41 AM
Minorities are often right.
Not you, though. You're just orbiting Pluto.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 05:29:41 AM
Minorities are often right. It just takes time before the truth becomes accepted among the majority.
I never said minorities were often wrong: Ibsen's character claims in
An Enemy of the People that the majority is always wrong, but all that is overstated.
Minorities are occasionally right.
Beware the infection of creeping Pink-Harpism!
Quote from: Renfield on October 30, 2007, 06:32:43 PM
But anyhow, I shouldn't talk: I'm the chipmunk-simple person who finds Elgar's music touching, and not at all bland. I also love Mahler, and Bruckner fascinates me to no end!
Same here. I'm another simpleton, I guess.
Quote from: Renfield on October 30, 2007, 06:32:43 PM
What a happy life I lead... :D
Indeed...the sun is shining brightly today; I'm listening to great music....life is teletubbian :D
Sarge
What I find incredible about this thread is the fact that 71 db managed to hijack it into an Elgar discussion with this:
Quote from: 71 dB on October 29, 2007, 05:42:10 AM
Mahler good
Bruckner better
Elgar best
;D
This, however, seems to be the root of the problem:
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2007, 02:56:06 AM
Damn it's frustrating to promote Elgar... :P
If 71 db wasn't on a crusade to promote Elgar's perceived greatness in threads where it does not belong, we'd still be having a nice discussion about Bruckner and Mahler. :(
Quote from: MahlerTitan on October 30, 2007, 09:45:03 PM
When i was back in high school, I was enrolled in a special program, that was suppose to teach us "how to think". My history teachers were Che following commies, who would force feminism and far-left thinking into our minds. :P My epistemology teacher was somone quite special. It was him who really "taught" us "how to think" in a more philosophical context. He employed the Socratic method, basically, the day before every class, he assigns anywhere from 10 to 100 pages of reading material (per day) dealing with problems of knowledge in various areas of academic discipline. Next day, he begins the class with writing a big "?" on the white board, and what does he do afterwards? he sits back, and listens to our discussions. He almost never contributes anything other than asking us additional questions, "guiding" our discussion to the desired destinations. That was really something i had never seen before, because you are constantly put on the spot, you had to think, and think fast. At the end, it's amazing how far i have come, needless to say I benefited immensely from that class.
On another interesting note, this teacher of mine is a CE0 of a muti-million dollar investment group. He once sold a website of his for 60 million dollars during one of our passing periods(on the cellphone)! He teaches not for the money, but because he promised a boy who had AIDS to pursue his own dreams. The boy died at the end, and he quit acting to pursue a degree in education. And became a high school teacher. quite a story, huh?
Sounds like a cool guy! You're lucky to have a had a teacher like that, as you could probably already tell, most teachers either don't care or care but have a hard time keeping anyone interested. Sounds like a fun class (except for the days with 100 pages of reading) :P
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2007, 11:41:35 AM
What have you read? Elgar's miniatures like Minuet, Op 21? Yeah, that's maybe not as complex as Mahler's or Bruckners symphonies. ;D
Have you read the score of The Apostles? I suppose nobody finds that small or simple.
ok, everyone...... compare these two scores.
Here I have the Elgar Cello Concerto (this is the only score i can say I've really studied/followed through) and Mahler's 6th.
look, compare........ what does everyone think? Which is more complex?
This is not a very important issue, btw, but it's fun to compare anyways.... i'm not saying either score is better than the other.
I haven't read The Apostles so hey, i wouldn't know what to expect! :D
The Cello Concerto, i'm assuming can represent the overall complexity of the majority of Elgar scores... if i'm wrong, then correct me.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=dcb128f2935e136891b20cc0d07ba4d275b77228dfe2e270
Quote from: CS on October 30, 2007, 09:09:01 AM
First, I don't think Karl seriously thinks Elgar is "simple", but I'll let him clarify.
I don't; but if I did, I don't see why no one should be permitted to argue the point 8)
At least, where
Elgar's music is simple, that is simply part of the music's character, and not any intrinsic positive or negative pull.
With all respect to
Sarge's unalloyed enjoyment of the
Elgar catalogue, I think he overstates a bit in considering his entire list "masterpieces" (at the very least, the
Sospiro, charming and lightweight, is a minor work). I'll join him in praising the greater part of that list; the symphonies, though, and the piano quintet fall short of masterpiece status in my view.
Admittedly a subjective yardstick, but notwithstanding the fact that I've found most of the
Mahler and
Bruckner symphonies which I have heard so far a little mixed, they have all 'convinced' me to a greater degree than the
Elgar First or
Second (much though I find to like in these, too).
I need to revisit Mahler's Resurrection Symphony, which I liked much better in an initial listen to the live Klemperer recording . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2007, 06:28:25 AM
I need to revisit Mahler's Resurrection Symphony, which I liked much better in an initial listen to the live Klemperer recording . . . .
which recording was the "initial listen?"
Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2007, 06:25:59 AMter, and not any intrinsic positive or negative pull.
With all respect to Sarge's unalloyed enjoyment of the Elgar catalogue, I think he overstates a bit in considering his entire list "masterpieces" (at the very least, the Sospiro, charming and lightweight, is a minor work).
Review my list again, Karl. You'll not find Sospiro listed because I do not consider it a masterpiece. The works I did list fully deserve the title, I believe. Obviously Elgar composed quite a few light-weight works (as did Mozart and Schubert). No argument from me. But that fact does not mean his great works are somehow lesser for that...but then I know you agree with that.
Sarge
Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2007, 06:28:25 AM
I need to revisit Mahler's Resurrection Symphony, which I liked much better in an initial listen to the live Klemperer recording . . . .
Try this one, if you haven't already heard it:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41EB10MGE7L._AA240_.jpg)
Sorry I mistook you,
Sarge! I tied to go find your source-post, but I gave up wading through the train-wreck that Poju created, and which he regularly enjoys creating.
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 31, 2007, 06:34:48 AM
which recording was the "initial listen?"
Well, I'm not sure about the very first time I heard the piece, which didn't sell me; it was a radio broadcast.
And whenever I remember the Bruckner Sixth, I hope Cato hasn't found the horsewhip 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2007, 06:45:27 AM
Well, I'm not sure about the very first time I heard the piece, which didn't sell me; it was a radio broadcast.
The first time i listened to Mahler's 2nd, it had the same exact effect on me! It was also a radio broadcast and i just didn't get it. For me, enjoying Mahler takes just as much patience as enjoying Schoenberg- sometimes it's automatic, but usually you don't get it during the first time but have to listen several times and then WOW! :o
The recoring i own of that one is Jaarvi's, i hate the Bernstein (though many seem to like it)- this recording is ridiculously slow, as to be expected.... Boulez is pretty good, though i probably haven't even listened to it all yet.... i think Tilson Thomas was pretty decent.... Mehta i've never heard and Klemperer i probably haven't heard either
Quote from: Cato on October 31, 2007, 03:45:46 AM
But the master who never learned from a master...? It is hard to find such a tale!
I'd offer Socrates, with a degree of uncertainty. And Ludwig Wittgenstein, to a significant extent. But that is likely besides the point of discussion, whether it be Elgar, or "Bruckner vs. Mahler - The Showdown!" ;)
Quote from: Cato on October 31, 2007, 03:45:46 AM
But the master who never learned from a master...? It is hard to find such a tale!
Haydn. Liszt. Wagner.
Quote from: Florestan on October 31, 2007, 07:11:49 AM
Haydn. Liszt. Wagner.
well.... indirectly... even if they were self-taught, they had scores to study.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 31, 2007, 05:19:54 AM
Some junk is more important than other junk.
Very true.
For example,
Elgar's 2d Symphony is more important than his
First Symphony .........
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 31, 2007, 07:18:40 AM
they were self-taught
That's my point. Studying scores looks like self-education to me.
Quote from: Keemun on October 31, 2007, 06:11:27 AM
What I find incredible about this thread is the fact that 71 db managed to hijack it into an Elgar discussion with this:
This, however, seems to be the root of the problem:
If 71 db wasn't on a crusade to promote Elgar's perceived greatness in threads where it does not belong, we'd still be having a nice discussion about Bruckner and Mahler. :(
71 dB is driven to
compare Elgar to everyone ......... it's an unstoppable, insuppressible force ......... even after he's institutionalized under heavy sedation, he will continue to
compare Elgar .........
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on October 31, 2007, 07:29:03 AM
71 dB is driven to compare Elgar to everyone ......... it's an unstoppable, insuppressible force ......... even after he's institutionalized under heavy sedation, he will continue to compare Elgar .........
let's all just say Elgar is the greatest and we won't have to worry about a thing! :)
Quote from: Florestan on October 31, 2007, 07:11:49 AM
Haydn. Liszt. Wagner.
Not quite: Wagner had a teacher in either Dresden or Leipzig, who, according to one source, did not want any payment, but was honored to have such a talented student!
Haydn received some musical instruction as a child, although, again according to my little sourcebook, it was not the best.
And wasn't
Carl Czerny Liszt's teacher during childhood?
To be sure, Haydn comes closest to autodidacticism, but even he was picking things up by playing and singing in choirs and amateur groups.
Hey
Karl! Spare the whip, spoil the composer?
Quote from: Cato on October 31, 2007, 08:00:33 AM
Wagner had a teacher in either Dresden or Leipzig
Haydn received some musical instruction as a child
And wasn't Carl Czerny Liszt's teacher during childhood?
Do Wagner's and Haydn's teacher, or even Czerny, qualify as
masters, as your question required?
Quote from: Cato on October 31, 2007, 08:00:33 AM
To be sure, Haydn comes closest to autodidacticism, but even he was picking things up by playing and singing in choirs and amateur groups.
"Picking things up" is the essence of self-education, methinks.
So, IMO, they were
masters who never learned
directly from another
master.
Quote from: Florestan on October 31, 2007, 08:08:53 AM
Do Wagner's and Haydn's teacher, or even Czerny, qualify as masters, as your question required?
"Picking things up" is the essence of self-education, methinks.
So, IMO, they were masters who never learned directly from another master.
Yes.
By no means, in the context mentioned.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2007, 06:45:27 AM
I tied to go find your source-post, but I gave up wading through the train-wreck that Poju created, and which he regularly enjoys creating.
Everybody else involved has equal responsibility IMO - the people arguing with him contribute the bulk of the junk posts :-X :-\
Quote from: Lethe on October 31, 2007, 09:47:08 AM
Everybody else involved has equal responsibility IMO - the people arguing with him contribute the bulk of the junk posts :-X :-\
The term "arguing" implies a
rational discourse ........ in 71 dB's case, it's more a matter of identifying internal inconsistencies and flaws in reasoning ........ and not so much "arguing"
per se ........
In theory, over the longterm, 71 dB will benefit from this scrutiny and criticism .....
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on October 31, 2007, 09:56:08 AM
In theory, over the longterm, 71 dB will benefit from this scrutiny and criticism .....
In much the same way that a tree benefits from the Yard Sale notices stapled to its trunk.
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on October 31, 2007, 09:56:08 AM
The term "arguing" implies a rational discourse ........ in 71 dB's case, it's more a matter of identifying internal inconsistencies and flaws in reasoning ........ and not so much "arguing" per se ........
In theory, over the longterm, 71 dB will benefit from this scrutiny and criticism .....
Sieg Heil!
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 31, 2007, 06:20:49 AM
ok, everyone...... compare these two scores.
Here I have the Elgar Cello Concerto (this is the only score i can say I've really studied/followed through) and Mahler's 6th.
look, compare........ what does everyone think? Which is more complex?
This is not a very important issue, btw, but it's fun to compare anyways.... i'm not saying either score is better than the other.
I haven't read The Apostles so hey, i wouldn't know what to expect! :D
The Cello Concerto, i'm assuming can represent the overall complexity of the majority of Elgar scores... if i'm wrong, then correct me.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=dcb128f2935e136891b20cc0d07ba4d275b77228dfe2e270
Actually
The Cello Concerto is relatively simple
Elgar. I think that's the reason why many like that work so much. They can understand the music.
The Violin Concerto is more complex and the
Symphonies more complex than the concerti. So,
Mahler 6th is more complex than
Elgar's
Cello Concerto but less complex than the symphonies. We should compare similar works. Unfortunately
Mahler did not wrote a Cello Concerto. Maybe he was not as versatile as
Elgar?
Quote from: Peregrine on October 31, 2007, 10:12:04 AM
Sieg Heil!
This is not a good idea.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 10:28:20 AM
Actually The Cello Concerto is relatively simple Elgar. I think that's the reason why many like that work so much. They can understand the music. The Violin Concerto is more complex and the Symphonies more complex than the concerti. So, Mahler 6th is more complex than Elgar's Cello Concerto but less complex than the symphonies. We should compare similar works. Unfortunately Mahler did not wrote a Cello Concerto. Maybe he was not as versatile as Elgar?
I have to it to hand you: you are able to get other posters - against my expectations (and hopes) - to engage in these endless and useless exchanges time after time, and over and over and over again, on each and every thread.
Chapeau! 8)
Q
Quote from: Lethe on October 31, 2007, 09:47:08 AM
Everybody else involved has equal responsibility IMO - the people arguing with him contribute the bulk of the junk posts :-X :-\
What you conveniently leave out is that the name "Elgar" did not surface on this thread at all until Mr. 71 dB chose to bring him in. That said, and following an admirably rational post by Mr. Jochanaan, matters progressed rapidly and inevitability to the usual litany of comments on brainwashing, complexity, etc., etc. Of course no one was required to have risen to 71 dB's bait. But neither was he required to have diverted the discussion. And after his having done so, why, let the fun begin again.
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 31, 2007, 07:18:40 AM
well.... indirectly... even if they were self-taught, they had scores to study.
Elgar's father had a music store where young
Elgar spend time and studied scores.
Elgar is not only self-taugh, he is well-self-taugh.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2007, 09:59:24 AM
In much the same way that a tree benefits from the Yard Sale notices stapled to its trunk.
........ In much the same way that a urinal deodorizer block benefits from a direct hit ........
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 10:28:20 AM
Actually The Cello Concerto is relatively simple Elgar. I think that's the reason why many like that work so much. They can understand the music. The Violin Concerto is more complex and the Symphonies more complex than the concerti. So, Mahler 6th is more complex than Elgar's Cello Concerto but less complex than the symphonies. We should compare similar works. Unfortunately Mahler did not wrote a Cello Concerto. Maybe he was not as versatile as Elgar?
yeah, i've heard the Violin Concerto, too, and i did notice it was pretty complex. Unfortunately, only the short score was posted on the internet :-\
does anyone have the score to the 2nd symphony? I'd also like to hear it, too, never have heard it..... if this is more complex than Mahler 6, that's really something. Now if it's more complex than Mahler 9 AND a Strauss score than i'll admit Elgar is one insane complex score-writing machine! :o
(pretty please, Elgar 2nd.......)
oh, btw, Mahler had way less time to compose..... even though he was known to be a good pianist, he only wrote i think 2 surviving pieces which include piano, the early Piano Quartet totally kicks butt. I don't know why he didn't write any concertos, i think he just preferred writing symphonies and orchestral works which often involve singing. He was a conductor, so i guess it's only natural.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 10:41:52 AM
Elgar's father had a music store where young Elgar spend time and studied scores. Elgar is not only self-taugh, he is well-self-taught.
And remind us all what this has to do with
Bruckner or
Mahler, Poju?
Hey! I've got an idea! What don't you make irrelevant comments about
Elgar on
all the threads, Poju! That way, you can maximize the potential for turning the most people off from
Elgar, whom consensus is not inclined, at any event, to consider a first-rank composer.
Go for it, Poju!
Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2007, 11:07:43 AM
And remind us all what this has to do with Bruckner or Mahler, Poju?
Hey! I've got an idea! What don't you make irrelevant comments about Elgar on all the threads, Poju! That way, you can maximize the potential for turning the most people off from Elgar, whom consensus is not inclined, at any event, to consider a first-rank composer.
Go for it, Poju!
I don't want to hijack all the threads, only those that
makes sense to hijack. ;D
Anyway, talking about
Bruckner and
Mahler I prefer
Bruckner.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 11:15:51 AM
Anyway, talking about Bruckner and Mahler I prefer Bruckner.
finally! thank you! Why couldn't you say this in the first place without having to bring up Elgar?
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 11:15:51 AM
I don't want to hijack all the threads, only those that makes sense to hijack. ;D
71 dB, that's excellent use of logic and rational reasoning, namely: hijack "only those [threads] that
makes sense to hijack."
anyone with the score/sound files of Elgar 2nd?
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 31, 2007, 11:24:42 AM
anyone with the score/sound files of Elgar 2nd?
I once had the score to the
Elgar symphonies. Then came Poju's gibberish, and I realized I could sell
that score to a second-hand shop 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2007, 11:49:09 AM
I once had the score to the Elgar symphonies. Then came Poju's gibberish, and I realized I could sell that score to a second-hand shop 8)
oh, like Goodwill?..... if i went to Goodwill and found an Elgar score there, i'd have a heart attack! :o
Oh what the hell, I'll try making a post about Bruckner and Mahler. Can't hurt.
As far as my own listening experience with the two of them goes, if you'd asked me 5 years ago I'd have said that Mahler was THE MAN; but in recent years I have shifted very definitely towards Bruckner. I still love them both, but Bruckner speaks to me in a way that Mahler simply doesn't. I know it's cliche to speak of a Bruckner symphony being like a cathedral, but for me the analogy works -- at his best he attains a spirituality that's hard to describe, and a key component of it is the massive structures he uses, those repeating themes, particularly in the brass, conjuring images of arches and columns repeating into the hazy distance.
Mahler is fundamentally more esoteric than Bruckner; he's constantly bringing new and strange elements into the orchestral mix, and while he sometimes achieves great power (think of the closing movement of the 3rd, or the opening march of the 6th), it is a more earth-bound, material kind of power, more physical. They really speak different languages, I think; it's a difference in kind, something similar to Vivaldi and Bach to me -- Vivaldi makes me want to jump up and dance, whereas the best of Bach makes me feel like some higher power is levitating me right out of my seat.
Which one I choose depends largely on my mood. Whether my recent decisive preference for Bruckner is purely personal taste, or if it says something about where I am in my life at this point, I have no idea. I'll be curious to see if it still holds 5 years from now, though... :)
Quote from: jwinter on October 31, 2007, 12:32:59 PM
Oh what the hell, I'll try making a post about Bruckner and Mahler. Can't hurt.
[...] I still love them both, but Bruckner speaks to me in a way that Mahler simply doesn't.
Each composer has his own character, and his own tale to tell. No composer speaks to us in the way that another speaks to us.
I pretty much like each of these two composer's voices. In both cases, though, I've been to live performances of this or that symphony, where I was enjoying everything fairly well, and then in the fourth movement, I was overcome with a feeling that I wish they'd get on with it, and reach the end.
Setting aside the fact that, for whatever reason, I am finding some of the symphonies some kind of problematic, both Bruckner and Mahler wrote pieces for which I have unalloyed admiration and affection.
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 31, 2007, 11:24:42 AM
anyone with the score/sound files of Elgar 2nd?
I have the score, Poop. It's also in a cheap Dover, I think.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2007, 04:01:02 AM
...What I am not missing is Mahler and Bruckner. I listen to them too and that's the reason I can say Elgar was better than these two composers (and Bruckner is better than Mahler)...
Because YOU like him more? But what if, say, Karl, or Greg, or I come to a different conclusion? Which of us is right? ???
Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2007, 12:35:23 PM
Each composer has his own character, and his own tale to tell. No composer speaks to us in the way that another speaks to us.
Quite right, well said. Allow me to put it thus: Of late, I find that I draw more personal meaning and spiritual sustenance from Bruckner's music than I do from Mahler. Which isn't saying much at all about the composers, I suppose, but about me as a listener...
Compare the sonic world of Bruckner in the Eighth and Ninth Symphonies, which date from the 1890's, to what his former student Mahler is doing at the same time. The expansion of the musical idiom, motivically, harmonically, and even structurally, in these two Bruckner works, is something which one will also hear later in Mahler's Ninth and Tenth Symphonies.
So both are pushing their limits, but in different ways, at different times.
I've been listening to Mahler with suspicion because of this topic. I'm feeling that Mahler is lacking something Bruckner has (I've always like Bruckner more than Mahler, though). Much of my listening is guided by the people on this board, since none of my friends, family, or anyone else I know listen to the music discussed here. So, if someone here I like writes a statement of appreciation, I may listen with more joy. If the statement is a critique, I listen sceptically. This topic has ruined Mahler a bit for me. However, it's my own fault Mahler doesn't sound as good, and my own power that Bruckner sounds better than ever (Magler was "ruined" a bit while I was thinking about writing this as I was listening to Barenboim's Mahler 7, which was my favorite cd for about a year. Maybe I listened to this recording one time too many, or maybe I shouldnt have been thinking of GMG while listening). To bring up the topic about self-education, I both am limited and unlimited in my listening abilities. My music teachers (GMG members), both bless and harm me with their guidance.
I respect 71dB's persistent love for Elgar in the face of persecution. However, he does that which he admits he hates to see others do: he criticizes their favorite composers. My advice, 71dB, is magnanimity. Praise Elgar, and if someone criticizes him, don't retaliate. It would be funny if we went to Heaven and God said, "Elgar is better than both Bruckner and Mahler." It would also be funny if we died and found out that there is only a devil, no God, and He said, "I lied about God." Well, maybe not that funny.
Anyways, I don't know the effect of popular opinion on my taste, but one thing is clear to me that I haven't heard so far: Bruckner's music is many times more serious than Mahler's. Bruckner is always very serious, even in his scherzos. Only the Study Symphony is not that serious.
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on November 01, 2007, 08:47:54 AM
I've been listening to Mahler with suspicion because of this topic. I'm feeling that Mahler is lacking something Bruckner has (I've always like Bruckner more than Mahler, though).
One word:
Kindertotenlieder.
QuoteI respect 71dB's persistent love for Elgar in the face of persecution.
No, there's nothing to admire there. (a) He still loves
Elgar, so what? My knowledge, admiration and affection for the music of
Stravinsky goes back many years, and no negative comment from anyone either in person or on an Internet forum is going to alter that. (b) He persists in making a self-important ass of himself; that isn't anything to respect, either.
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on October 31, 2007, 11:24:42 AM
anyone with the score/sound files of Elgar 2nd?
Greg, I have a score of
Elgar's First Symphony. I will ship it to you, along with the accompanying birdcage. No charge to you. One minor warning, however: some of the pages are soiled.
Oh, and here I almost though accompanying Birdcage
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51AJN9TDTWL._AA240_.jpg)
EmpNapoleon: on your comments about finding Bruckner more "serious" than Mahler.
Possibly, but not very much. Certainly Mahler's use of grotesque juxtapositions might make specific works seem less serious: the use of the dance band off-stage in Das Klagende Lied during the exposure of a fratricide in fact only heightens the monstrousness of the crime.
But certainly both composers have serious works under their belts, and one can only quibble about the degree.
Compare e.g. their Sixth Symphonies: while Bruckner's has one of his most elegiac slow movements, complete with funeral march, the other movements sound quite enigmatic at times. Seriousness is interspersed with some fun now and then. Mahler's Sixth is one of the most emotionally brutal works one can experience, next to e.g. Hartmann's efforts. The "seriousness" is unrelenting, even in the Scherzo.
Mahler's Seventh seems like refreshing fun in contrast to his Sixth, and to be sure, Bruno Walter refused to conduct it, considering it "weak." But even it has some "serious" things to offer.
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on November 01, 2007, 09:01:20 AM
Greg, I have a score of Elgar's First Symphony. I will ship it to you, along with the accompanying birdcage. No charge to you. One minor warning, however: some of the pages are soiled.
no thanks i already have enough poop in my house ;D
Quote from: Cato on November 01, 2007, 09:44:07 AM
Mahler's Seventh seems like refreshing fun in contrast to his Sixth, and to be sure, Bruno Walter refused to conduct it, considering it "weak." But even it has some "serious" things to offer.
just like his shortest symphony, the 4th, is a refreshment after the 3rd.
hard to imagine one could listen to the first movement of the 7th and call it "weak" (unless conducted horribly)
Quote from: 71 dB on November 01, 2007, 10:16:21 AM
Bruckner, Mahler, Shostakovich, Beethoven and Sibelius fanatism is ok, accepted. Why? Yes, historical distortion and "social feedback brainwashing mechanism."
well, simply put, more people are likely to find Elgar boring in comparison. Why you don't, is unique. Not a bad thing.... composers need their fans to keep their memory and music alive.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 01, 2007, 10:16:21 AM
I am 100 % sure Bruckner and Mahler are more valued among people because liking them is more accepted socially. This is manifested on this forum. I am the crazy guy here with my Elgar fanatism. Bruckner, Mahler, Shostakovich, Beethoven and Sibelius fanatism is ok, accepted. Why? Yes, historical distortion and "social feedback brainwashing mechanism."
Here we go again .........
Liking Bruckner or Mahler is "more accepted socially" than liking Elgar? Poju, you must have drained that toilet dry about now . . . .
and socially...... he must mean here.... cause in real life no one listens to Bruckner, Mahler, or Elgar.
>:D
Ben Zander will conduct the Boston Philharmonic in the Bruckner Fifth this month. (http://www.bostonphil.org/cgi/BPO.cgi?action=concerts&season=2007-2008&concert=2)
Quote from: 71 dB on November 01, 2007, 11:49:03 AM
The law of sub-minorities. Of ALL people only a minority likes classical music. Of ALL fans of classical music only a minority admires Elgar. Of ALL Elgar fans only a minority thinks the 2nd symphony is better than the 1st...
Where do I put my signature? Apparently, I'm in that niche of yours, as defined above. :P
Quote from: karlhenning on November 01, 2007, 11:56:24 AM
Ben Zander will conduct the Boston Philharmonic in the Bruckner Fifth this month. (http://www.bostonphil.org/cgi/BPO.cgi?action=concerts&season=2007-2008&concert=2)
Now that could be a very interesting concert! I've never heard Zander live, although I've read reports of his Mahler. Are you going? Please report back, if so. The end of the Fifth, with its blazing brass chorale, can be pretty sublime in the right hands.
--Bruce
I'd like to go to that one, too, Bruce; but that Saturday is the night I'm going to the Carter Horn Concerto; and I am scheduled to work at the shop that Thursday evening and Sunday afternoon.
(Also on the BSO program that weekend is the Mahler First, of course.)
Quote from: karlhenning on November 01, 2007, 12:06:49 PM
I'd like to go to that one, too, Bruce; but that Saturday is the night I'm going to the Carter Horn Concerto; and I am scheduled to work at the shop that Thursday evening and Sunday afternoon.
(Also on the BSO program that weekend is the Mahler First, of course.)
Alas, I don't think I'm going to be able to make the Carter/Mahler program (which would be worth attending more than once). Have to rely on vicarious reports from you, Joe and others who go. :'(
--Bruce
It was Glenn Gould who asked about Bruckner something like: Is it possible that behind a foursquare music lurks a foursquare mind?
Bruckner's spirituality doesn't move me. Mahler's Ninth, though, that's moving >:D
Since I didn't weigh in on the original post...
Interesting that Bruckner seems to be identified more with serenity, cathedrals, and slow-moving changes, whereas Mahler is a world of angst, surprises, and passages that clash violently against each other. (I'm speaking in very general terms of course, since Bruckner has plenty of torridness, and Mahler, some of the gentlest music anywhere.)
It always perplexes me why they are spoken of in the same breath, however, since they could not be more different. Sometimes I can almost fall into a trance listening to Bruckner, but never with Mahler, who is much more about chaos, unbridled emotion, abrupt movement, and unusual combinations of instruments.
Both of these composers are very intense, and I can easily see someone "burning out" on either one and needing to set them aside for awhile. But no harm there: just listen to something else and return to them later.
--Bruce
Quote from: zauberflote on November 01, 2007, 12:31:59 PM
It was Glenn Gould who asked about Bruckner something like: Is it possible that behind a foursquare music lurks a foursquare mind?
Bruckner's spirituality doesn't move me. Mahler's Ninth, though, that's moving >:D
I'm glad I got the best of BOTH worlds.
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on November 01, 2007, 08:47:54 AM
I've been listening to Mahler with suspicion because of this topic. I'm feeling that Mahler is lacking something Bruckner has
Of course, but the reverse is true as well (incurable fan of Bruckner speaking).
Which great composer does not lack sthing others have? (I'm expecting some reaction, we'll see)
even if Walter claims that Mahler's 7th is "weak", it's weak only relative to the rest of Mahler's symphonic output. The 7th in itself, is a masterpiece, no matter how you put it. It might suffer from "incoherence" proclaimed by some people.... but, the music itself is utterly unforgettable. My favorite single movement of Mahler is the first night music. It is difficult to find anything comparable to it, the only thing that come closest to that is Bruckner's 4th symphony 2nd movement.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on November 01, 2007, 01:52:16 PM
even if Walter claims that Mahler's 7th is "weak", it's weak only relative to the rest of Mahler's symphonic output. The 7th in itself, is a masterpiece, no matter how you put it. It might suffer from "incoherence" proclaimed by some people.... but, the music itself is utterly unforgettable. My favorite single movement of Mahler is the first night music. It is difficult to find anything comparable to it, the only thing that come closest to that is Bruckner's 4th symphony 2nd movement.
My idea of the "weak"
Mahler symphony is #4: the last movement just does not make it as a conclusion for me. And I don't need a blazing finale: the fading away of the
Ninth is marvelous. As such, I just do not buy the concluding movement as adequate for the conception. Mahler apparently did, however, so...! Patience! 0:)
A "weak"
Bruckner symphony! Which one might that be...if any? :o
Quote from: karlhenning on November 01, 2007, 11:56:24 AM
Ben Zander will conduct the Boston Philharmonic in the Bruckner Fifth this month. (http://www.bostonphil.org/cgi/BPO.cgi?action=concerts&season=2007-2008&concert=2)
mmm.... yummy.... after Schubert 8th, nice 8)
Quote from: Cato on November 01, 2007, 02:56:37 PM
A "weak" Bruckner symphony! Which one might that be...if any? :o
stop thinking about it, there is no such thing.
That's the spirit! 8)
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on November 01, 2007, 03:03:38 PM
mmm.... yummy.... after Schubert 8th, nice 8)
Yeah, Schubert 8 ........ I listen to that only about 6,400 times per year ........ I wish someone would record that symphony at some point ........
Quote from: MahlerTitan on November 01, 2007, 05:05:40 PM
that's 17 times a day... about 7 hours. You spend 7 hours a day just listen to Schubert's 8th? wow, how do you find time to listen to other music?
And how do you find a balance between eating, sleeping, listening to Schubert's 8th, other music, and taking a shit?
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 01, 2007, 08:34:17 PM
And how do you find a balance between eating, sleeping, listening to Schubert's 8th, other music, and taking a dung-a-lung?
Just one big Shuby 8 loop going on his house 24 hours a day. You can sleep, eat, dung-a-lung or whatever while it's going.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 01, 2007, 11:49:03 AM
The law of sub-minorities. Of ALL people only a minority likes classical music. Of ALL fans of classical music only a minority admires Elgar. Of ALL Elgar fans only a minority thinks the 2nd symphony is better than the 1st...
I could, and have, said the same things about
Edgard Varèse. :)
Quote from: MahlerTitan on November 01, 2007, 03:45:46 PM
stop thinking about it, there is no such thing.
Aye, "weak" and "Bruckner" just do not fit in the same breath! 8)
Quote from: jochanaan on November 01, 2007, 09:52:04 PM
I could, and have, said the same things about Edgard Varèse. :)
And
Varèse is
much greater than
Elgar! ;D
Quote from: bhodges on November 01, 2007, 12:33:27 PMInteresting that Bruckner seems to be identified more with serenity, cathedrals, and slow-moving changes, whereas Mahler is a world of angst, surprises, and passages that clash violently against each other. (I'm speaking in very general terms of course, since Bruckner has plenty of torridness, and Mahler, some of the gentlest music anywhere.)
It always perplexes me why they are spoken of in the same breath, however, since they could not be more different. Sometimes I can almost fall into a trance listening to Bruckner, but never with Mahler, who is much more about chaos, unbridled emotion, abrupt movement, and unusual combinations of instruments.
For me, Bruce, though their music is so different I would not likely mistake that of one for the other, they are similar in their Wagner-infected Germanic late-Romantic excesses that rub my decidedly 20th Century aesthetic sense the wrong way.
Karl, is there a yappy little Chihuahua in your neighborhood that you love to taunt?
(http://revjim.net/archives/2005/08/republican-chihuahua.jpg)
Quote from: longears on November 02, 2007, 05:01:34 AM
Karl, is there a yappy little Chihuahua in your neighborhood that you love to taunt?
Our landlord's dog is a Chihuahua-&-something mix, and we are on excellent terms.
Why do you ask? 0:) ;D
And BTW, that Chihuahua-&-something mix has better ears than Some Certain Neighbors here . . . .
I'm not sure the ears are at fault; something seems awry in the processing equipment.
I did enjoy seeing earlier on this thread some comments from you favorable towards both Bruckner and Mahler's music. You're one of the few who doesn't attack me as some kind of Philistine when I express the opinion regarding either that they wrote some very fine music--however, according to my aesthetic sense, their artistry falls short of the highest level because neither cared to say in twenty measures what they could say in 100.
In saying this I'm not saying that others are idiots who disagree, nor that I alone am equipped to discern the Absolute Truth about their merit. I recognize that they were very much products of a cultural milieu that celebrated excess at the height (or nadir!) of Hapsburg decadence. And that I am very much a product of post-War America with an entirely different set of values largely shaped by modernism in all the arts.
ok, last night i listened to a MIDI of Elgar's 2nd (i could only find a MIDI).
besides a few really nice sections and an interesting scherzo, the symphony is very incoherent and sounds like it needs to take a breath and seperate one section from the next way more than it does (not saying it ever does). The first movement was somewhat enjoyable, the 2nd not so much, the 3rd was nice and the 4th was hideous. It is complex, though i wouldn't say more complex than something like the 3rd movement of Mahler 9, which also relies heavily on counterpoint.
and don't blame it on the MIDI! i've heard stuff that since i liked it so much on MIDI that i decided to get the real recording (Webern op.1, Schoenberg Transfigured Night, for example)
so i have an even better idea of what Herzog was talking about
Quote from: longears on November 02, 2007, 05:22:36 AM
I'm not sure the ears are at fault; something seems awry in the processing equipment.
I did enjoy seeing earlier on this thread some comments from you favorable towards both Bruckner and Mahler's music. You're one of the few who doesn't attack me as some kind of Philistine when I express the opinion regarding either that they wrote some very fine music--however, according to my aesthetic sense, their artistry falls short of the highest level because neither cared to say in twenty measures what they could say in 100.
In saying this I'm not saying that others are idiots who disagree, nor that I alone am equipped to discern the Absolute Truth about their merit. I recognize that they were very much products of a cultural milieu that celebrated excess at the height (or nadir!) of Hapsburg decadence. And that I am very much a product of post-War America with an entirely different set of values largely shaped by modernism in all the arts.
"neither cared to say in twenty measures what they could say in 100" - the problem, though, is that even if one accepts this, what could be cut? Great length is part of both composers' aesthetic. If you try to trim their works down, you're left with something thin and incoherent.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 02, 2007, 06:03:00 AM
"neither cared to say in twenty measures what they could say in 100" - the problem, though, is that even if one accepts this, what could be cut? Great length is part of both composers' aesthetic. If you try to trim their works down, you're left with something thin and incoherent.
I certainly agree with the italicized statement above--that was my point in comparing differing aesthetics. Never having tried to trim either's work, I couldn't say whether the last statement is true, but I suspect not--there's a lot of meat on those bones, but I think more fat than required for flavor.
Although I have a little training in music, I've far more training in literature and the plastic arts. I come to this issue largely from a literary perspective. What I see as the excesses of B & M are similar to the verbosity of 19th Century literature--not that they were being paid by the note as Dickens was by the word! I'm not saying Dickens was a bad writer, just that by 20th Century standards shaped by Anderson and Hemingway and Williams and so on, his story-telling would benefit from liberal use of the blue pencil.
Think about this and you will understand why I regard Sibelius as a quintessentially modern composer and shake my head in wonderment at those who consider him a romantic. ;)
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on November 02, 2007, 05:55:12 AM
ok, last night i listened to a MIDI of Elgar's 2nd (i could only find a MIDI).
besides a few really nice sections and an interesting scherzo, the symphony is very incoherent and sounds like it needs to take a breath and seperate one section from the next way more than it does (not saying it ever does). The first movement was somewhat enjoyable, the 2nd not so much, the 3rd was nice and the 4th was hideous. It is complex, though i wouldn't say more complex than something like the 3rd movement of Mahler 9, which also relies heavily on counterpoint.
and don't blame it on the MIDI! i've heard stuff that since i liked it so much on MIDI that i decided to get the real recording (Webern op.1, Schoenberg Transfigured Night, for example)
so i have an even better idea of what Herzog was talking about
As with the first symphony, I most dislike the outer movements of the second and much prefer the scherzo and slow movement.
It is interesting that the Elgar symphonies are almost never performed in the US these days. I found a site giving performance statistics for a recent year (but can't find it again), and while the two string concertos and Enigma are fairly common, virtually nothing else of his is played on these shores. Either conductors don't care for the music, or they don't think they can sell it to Ameican listeners.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 02, 2007, 06:54:50 AM
It is interesting that the Elgar symphonies are almost never performed in the US these days.
Imagine that! .........
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 02, 2007, 06:54:50 AM
As with the first symphony, I most dislike the outer movements of the second and much prefer the scherzo and slow movement.
It is interesting that the Elgar symphonies are almost never performed in the US these days. I found a site giving performance statistics for a recent year (but can't find it again), and while the two string concertos and Enigma are fairly common, virtually nothing else of his is played on these shores. Either conductors don't care for the music, or they don't think they can sell it to Ameican listeners.
hehehehe probably both reasons >:D
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 02, 2007, 06:54:50 AM
As with the first symphony, I most dislike the outer movements of the second and much prefer the scherzo and slow movement.
I don't detest the inner movements either. But if the composer can't sell the first movement, then the entire symphony should be trashed, and no amount of greatness in the inner movements will cure the symphony's overall defeciencies if the first movement sucks.
So much depends on the first movement ........
If others enjoy the inner movements in isolation, so be it .........
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on November 02, 2007, 07:09:55 AM
If others enjoy the inner movements in isolation, so be it .........
why don't we set up a petition to have the outer movements officially deleted so the symphonies are left as two-movement works with just the inner movements?
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 02, 2007, 06:03:00 AM
"neither cared to say in twenty measures what they could say in 100" - the problem, though, is that even if one accepts this, what could be cut? Great length is part of both composers' aesthetic. If you try to trim their works down, you're left with something thin and incoherent.
I think this is right, but doesn't answer the objection that such prolixity is unattractive anyway.
By the way, I don't think Mahler studied with Bruckner. He admired Bruckners artistic integrity, and attended his concerts (including the famous one where the audience walked out, leaving Mahler and a few others to console the composer/conductor). However, when Mahler conducted Bruckner in the '90s, he cut the symphonies, just like others did.
Quote from: jochanaan on October 29, 2007, 07:42:39 AM
As for Elgar, 71dB, I feel he's too tainted by Victorian positivism and sentimentality to be a truly great composer. He's more than competent, and the Cello Concerto shows what he could do when he opened up his heart--but he doesn't maintain that level consistenly, at least from what I've seen. But I may be wrong. :)
Elgars problem, as I see it, is that he belongs to the group of artists (and some athletes) who display enormous ability without much sense of what to do with it. Elgar is very uneven. Some people believe that consistency is a hallmark of the greatest artists, and I think I understand this point of view, but I can't quite share it. For me consistency is beside the point when I'm moved by a great work. In the Olympic Composer Diving Contest, I only save the high marks.
:) Consistency plays a background rather than a foreground role in my preferences. I can't imagine disliking a work because of displeasure at something else the composer produced. But that may be a failure of imagination on my part.
QuoteBut I may be wrong. :)
I once attended a concert and obtained the completely wrong impression that I enjoyed it. Later someone patiently explained to me that I only seemed to enjoy it, but in fact didn't, and now I understand how I could be so wrong.
;)Seriously
jochanaan, I think you're right. I love Elgar for his great works, and parts of others, with no demerits for the rest (I think).
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 02, 2007, 06:54:50 AM
It is interesting that the Elgar symphonies are almost never performed in the US these days. I found a site giving performance statistics for a recent year (but can't find it again), and while the two string concertos and Enigma are fairly common, virtually nothing else of his is played on these shores. Either conductors don't care for the music, or they don't think they can sell it to Ameican listeners.
I think the concept of "old fashioned" is exemplified by Elgars music, and has been for a long time now. Even I react that way, and I'm aware that the old-fashionedness, like the supposed "Britishness" is something of an illusion. That too is a matter of definition, since we decide how British something sounds in part by whether it sounds like Elgar.
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on November 02, 2007, 07:13:25 AM
why don't we set up a petition to have the outer movements officially deleted so the symphonies are left as two-movement works with just the inner movements?
YES!And let's go through the ENTIRE Elgar catalogue, and delete everything that's utter crap! We'll end up with the
Enigma Variations, the
Cello Concerto, some marches (I suppose), and a few scattered movements here and there .......... :D :D
Quote from: longears on November 02, 2007, 06:31:33 AM
Think about this and you will understand why I regard Sibelius as a quintessentially modern composer and shake my head in wonderment at those who consider him a romantic. ;)
Well, because it's more like a graduated scale, and not an either/or matter 8)
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 02, 2007, 06:54:50 AM
Elgar symphonies are almost never performed in the US these days .... [Indeed], virtually nothing ... of [Elgar's] is played on these shores. Either conductors don't care for the music, or they don't think they can sell it to Ameican listeners.
God Bless America! ! !
In contrast, the Sahara of the Bozart still offers a good number of orchestras performing Bruckner and Mahler symphonies this year!
Two symphonies by an English composer...anyone? Edward...anyone?...anyone? Sir Edward...anyone? anyone?...Elgar?
Quote from: 71 dB on November 02, 2007, 04:28:44 AM
Really? I haven't heard Varèse's music. Or maybe I have. I don't remember...
You'd remember. :o ;D
Quote from: longears on November 02, 2007, 06:31:33 AM
...Although I have a little training in music, I've far more training in literature and the plastic arts. I come to this issue largely from a literary perspective. What I see as the excesses of B & M are similar to the verbosity of 19th Century literature--not that they were being paid by the note as Dickens was by the word! I'm not saying Dickens was a bad writer, just that by 20th Century standards shaped by Anderson and Hemingway and Williams and so on, his story-telling would benefit from liberal use of the blue pencil.
A legitimate criticism, but the parallel is inexact. Music, even more so than literature, happens
in time; and part of Bruckner's and Mahler's greatness is that no moment of the music seems wasted--not even the pregnant pauses...
Quote from: jochanaan on November 02, 2007, 10:47:50 AM
legitimate criticism, but the parallel is inexact. Music, even more so than literature, happens in time; and part of Bruckner's and Mahler's greatness is that no moment of the music seems wasted--not even the pregnant pauses...
word
Quote from: jochanaan on November 02, 2007, 10:47:50 AM
***legitimate criticism, but the parallel is inexact. Music, even more so than literature, happens in time; and part of Bruckner's and Mahler's greatness is that no moment of the music seems wasted--not even the pregnant pauses...
........ beautifully stated .........
Quote from: The Poopy Flying Monkey on November 02, 2007, 07:13:25 AM
why don't we set up a petition to have the outer movements officially deleted so the symphonies are left as two-movement works with just the inner movements?
Only if you set a restriction to your petition. Otherwise, only symphonies with an odd number of movements will survive... as single movement works.
If you cut the outer movements of a four pieced Bruckner symphony, the remaining two parts are inner and external limits to the work at the same time. Sequentially, you will dismantle each and every
even movemented symphony out there.
Eventually, Mahler's fifth will be no more than a single Scherzo. And the only Bruckner left will be the Scherzo of the 9th.
:P
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on November 02, 2007, 07:17:00 AM
YES!
And let's go through the ENTIRE Elgar catalogue, and delete everything that's utter crap! We'll end up with the Enigma Variations, the Cello Concerto, some marches (I suppose), and a few scattered movements here and there .......... :D :D
Let's silence all stupid people like you. Just don't listen to Elgar if it's too sophisticated for you empty head. Let other people enjoy Elgar's wonderful musical legacy. Let's go through all your posts and delete everything that's utter crap! We'll end up with just a few posts. :P
Quote from: MahlerTitan on November 02, 2007, 10:46:11 AM
You can "think" all you want, but Mahler was a pupil of Bruckner.
He was? You must be very certain, to be so adamant about it, especially considering your track record. Can you cite your source, please?
Quote from: 71 dB on November 03, 2007, 06:19:23 AM
Let's silence all ... Elgar if it's too ... empty. Let other people enjoy Elgar's ... utter crap!
The joys of creative editing . . .
Quote from: longears on November 03, 2007, 06:25:39 AM
He was? You must be very certain, to be so adamant about it, especially considering your track record. Can you cite your source, please?
It is an historical fact:
Mahler, along with others (e.g.
Hans Rott), had
Bruckner as a teacher in Vienna.
See the memoirs of Mahler's wife Alma for various stories about Bruckner and Mahler.
Quote from: Cato on November 03, 2007, 07:26:52 AM
It is an historical fact: Mahler, along with others (e.g. Hans Rott), had Bruckner as a teacher in Vienna.
See the memoirs of Mahler's wife Alma for various stories about Bruckner and Mahler.
I've heard about Rott as a student of Bruckner and a fellow student with Mahler at the Vienna Conservatory, but I thought the relationship between Mahler and Bruckner was more ambiguous and not a formal teacher-student one. Not that it matters much to me, but the claim caught my attention because I had never heard that Mahler was a student of Bruckner's before now.
Quote from: longears on November 03, 2007, 06:25:39 AM
He was? You must be very certain, to be so adamant about it, especially considering your track record. Can you cite your source, please?
you want my source? fine, from the book "Mahler and his world" i quote from page 240
"Mahler studied composition under the celebrated Anton Bruckner..."
Also indirectly, we can deduce that Mahler studied with Bruckner because in Paul Banks "An Early Symphonic Prelude by Mahler" he writes:
"In 1876 this circle was not large, and its
most talented members were Krzyzanowski,
Hans Rott (1858-84), and Mahler.
Hugo Wolf
may be excluded from consideration for, although
a Bruckner supporter and a musician of
genius, he was never a Bruckner pupil, never
showed the influence of Bruckner, and in 1876
was composing in a style, based on early
ninteenth-century models, far removed from
that of the Symphonic Prelude."
Paul Banks
19th-Century Music, Vol. 3, No. 2. (Nov., 1979), pp. 141-149.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on November 03, 2007, 09:03:41 AM
you want my source? fine, from the book "Mahler and his world" i quote from page 240
"Mahler studied composition under the celebrated Anton Bruckner..."
Also indirectly, we can deduce that Mahler studied with Bruckner because in Paul Banks "An Early Symphonic Prelude by Mahler" he writes:
"In 1876 this circle was not large, and its
most talented members were Krzyzanowski,
Hans Rott (1858-84), and Mahler. Hugo Wolf
may be excluded from consideration for, although
a Bruckner supporter and a musician of
genius, he was never a Bruckner pupil, never
showed the influence of Bruckner, and in 1876
was composing in a style, based on early
ninteenth-century models, far removed from
that of the Symphonic Prelude."
Paul Banks
19th-Century Music, Vol. 3, No. 2. (Nov., 1979), pp. 141-149.
Adding to the above, I can quote Bruno Walter explicitly referring to Mahler as Bruckner's student in a radio interview. (As part of the Bruno Walter Original Jacket Collection, currently on Sony, if you're interested.) And as Walter was Mahler's own student, I'd think he would know. ;)
How interesting! And yet Bruno Walter in Chord and Dischord writing about the relationship between Mahler and Bruckner never mentions this student teacher relationship. See this (http://www.uv.es/~calaforr/walter.html).
Dika Newlin, in Bruckner-Mahler-Schoenberg, 2007, quotes a letter of Mahler's in which he characterized Bruckner as "mediocre" and then says, "these opinions contrast strangely with the picture we had formed of Mahler as a sincere admirer and disciple (if not pupil) of Bruckner...." p.107.
Herta Blaukopf in Mahler Studies says the relationship between Bruckner and Mahler is unclear, and cites University of Vienna records showing Mahler having entered Bruckner's class twice in enrollment records but with it having been scratched out both times. pp 15-18
And in one of Mahler's letters quoted by Gabriel Engel in Gustav Mahler – Song Symphonist, 1932, Mahler wrote:
"I was never a pupil of Bruckner. The world thinks I studied with him because in my student days in Vienna I was so often in his company and was reckoned among his first disciples. In fact, I believe, that at one time my friend Krzyzanowski and I were his sole followers. In spite of the great difference in age between us, Bruckner's happy disposition and his childlike, trusting nature rendered our relationship one of open friendship. Naturally the realization and understanding of his ideals which I then arrived at cannot have been without influence upon my course as artist and man. Hence I believe I am perhaps more justified than most others in calling myself his pupil and I shall always do so with deep gratitude."
see bottom of web page here (http://homepage.mac.com/jgreshes/mahler/bio/chapter_2.html).
OK, I found this from a biography of Mahler by Jonathan Carr, reviewed in the NYTimes here (http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/08/reviews/980308.08rockwet.html):
Mahler said flatly in a letter written in 1902 that `I was never a pupil of Bruckner's; this rumour must have arisen from the fact that I was continually seen about with him in my earlier days in Vienna, and that I was certainly one of his most enthusiastic admirers and publicists. Indeed, I believe at that time I was the only one there was, apart from my friend [Rudolf] Krzyzanowski.' Here Mahler's recollection is partly at fault. Bruckner had many keen followers, at least among the students. For them he was both an eminent master and, although he was already in his fifties, a naive but agreeable companion. On the one hand he was instructor in harmony and counterpoint at both the conservatory and Vienna university, as well as a genius in improvising at the organ. On the other he liked little better than to stump off in his baggy old trousers for a chat over a few beers, or to stand at concerts with young people rather than sit with his prim and proper peers.
It appears Mahler was so often in the company of Bruckner at various events that it was assumed that their relationship was that of student and teacher. In a formal sense, it wasn't, as Mahler says. There is some question of whether Mahler attended some lectures by Bruckner, so there's some ambiguity on that point.
Quote from: drogulus on November 02, 2007, 07:14:14 AM
Elgars problem, as I see it, is that he belongs to the group of artists (and some athletes) who display enormous ability without much sense of what to do with it. Elgar is very uneven. Some people believe that consistency is a hallmark of the greatest artists, and I think I understand this point of view, but I can't quite share it. For me consistency is beside the point when I'm moved by a great work. In the Olympic Composer Diving Contest, I only save the high marks. :) Consistency plays a background rather than a foreground role in my preferences. I can't imagine disliking a work because of displeasure at something else the composer produced. But that may be a failure of imagination on my part.
I don't agree. In my opinion Elgar was able to develop an amazing style out of the many influences of earlier masters. Elgar is versatile having composed all kind of works from rather simple salon works all way up to very sophisticated and complex symphonies and other orchestal/choral works. That's not uneven artistry but versatility and that takes talent. Bruckner and Mahler are significantly less versatile making them also less interesting artists. Elgar's problem is his art takes an open and intellectual mind to fully understand.
Quote from: drogulus on November 02, 2007, 07:14:14 AM
I think the concept of "old fashioned" is exemplified by Elgars music, and has been for a long time now. Even I react that way, and I'm aware that the old-fashionedness, like the supposed "Britishness" is something of an illusion. That too is a matter of definition, since we decide how British something sounds in part by whether it sounds like Elgar.
Everything turns "old fashioned" in time.
mm, looks like we have conflicting informations here, some of the sources might be erroneous, but which? I am confused, which ones should i trust? ???
and if Mahler indeed "attend some lectures", does that count as "studying from" Bruckner? and what happened to the enrollment records?
Quote from: 71 dB on November 03, 2007, 10:04:09 AM
I don't agree. In my opinion Elgar was able to develop an amazing style out of the many influences of earlier masters. Elgar is versatile having composed all kind of works from rather simple salon works all way up to very sophisticated and complex symphonies and other orchestal/choral works. That's not uneven artistry but versatility and that takes talent. Bruckner and Mahler are significantly less versatile making them also less interesting artists. Elgar's problem is his art takes an open and intellectual mind to fully understand.
Everything turns "old fashioned" in time.
You are comparing oranges to apples again. Different composers have different goals; that is to say, not every composer wants to write small scale works and large scale works in their entire output. Some like the intimacy of chamber music, and for whatever reason finds it easier to communicate the ideas they wanted to, while others rely on massive structures and instrumentation to show the full glory of their compositions, like Mahler and Bruckner. You can't say a composer is more "versatile" than the other just because the other composer is mainly a symphonist while another wrote some leisure entertainment, and some serious works.
By the way, what makes you think Bruckner and Mahler are not capable of writing small scale works? Do you even realize that both composers have written chamber music like piano quintets or even solo piano music? Those are like a gnome compared to their titanic symphonies counterpart.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 03, 2007, 10:04:09 AM
I don't agree. In my opinion Elgar was able to develop an amazing style out of the many influences of earlier masters. Elgar is versatile having composed all kind of works from rather simple salon works all way up to very sophisticated and complex symphonies and other orchestal/choral works. That's not uneven artistry but versatility and that takes talent.
So far so good.
QuoteBruckner and Mahler are significantly less versatile making them also less interesting artists.
Whoops. Confusing your value judgments with absolute truths. Bound to ruffle some feathers.
QuoteElgar's problem is his art takes an open and intellectual mind to fully understand.
Darn! There you go again, sabotaging yourself by making an unnecessary and idiotic attack on those who don't share your opinion, claiming that their minds are closed and they lack the intelligence to grasp his music. This is a direct assault and bound to invite retribution.
Furthermore, hundreds of your posts amply demonstrate that if anyone's mind is closed and lacks intellectual acumen it's
yours--therefore you are not likely to find any ears sympathetic to your point of view.
Please give it a rest--or take your issue to the Wagner lovers' threads. You and they should get along famously!
I think 71db is an Elgar loving robot ;D somone needs to reprogram him to stop attacking other composers.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on November 03, 2007, 10:16:34 AM
mm, looks like we have conflicting informations here, some of the sources might be erroneous, but which? I am confused, which ones should i trust? ???
and if Mahler indeed "attend some lectures", does that count as "studying from" Bruckner? and what happened to the enrollment records?
1) I would trust Mahler himself.
2) There's no conclusive evidence that Mahler attended Bruckner's lectures.
3) As I said above, he entered Bruckner's class on the form -- just like you might one day enter "Logic 1" on your class enrollment form--but then either he or someone else scratched it out.
Quote from: longears on November 03, 2007, 10:21:55 AM
So far so good.
Whoops. Confusing your value judgments with absolute truths. Bound to ruffle some feathers.
Darn! There you go again, sabotaging yourself by making an unnecessary and idiotic attack on those who don't share your opinion, claiming that their minds are closed and they lack the intelligence to grasp his music. This is a direct assault and bound to invite retribution.
Furthermore, hundreds of your posts amply demonstrate that if anyone's mind is closed and lacks intellectual acumen it's yours--therefore you are not likely to find any ears sympathetic to your point of view.
Please give it a rest--or take your issue to the Wagner lovers' threads. You and they should get along famously!
I 100% agree with this post. If anyone is ''close-minded", or "brainwashed'' by education, it's you, Poju.
You know what? This is not just longear's and my opinion, it's also the majority of GMG's. So we are not the only ones picking on you here. I don't understand, when the whole world is pointing out your mistakes, why can't you realize the fault and all this ridiculousness is yours? Do you believe you are the most intelligent being here or something?
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 03, 2007, 10:27:38 AM
Do you believe you are the most intelligent being here or something?
I believe he's made that clear dozens of times. And seems too benighted to recognize just how delusional this is.
BTW, I'm not picking on him at all, but trying to help him to see the folly of his ways--but it's difficult. I've rarely encountered such a slow learner, which is one reason I suspect an organic malfunction.
Quote from: longears on November 03, 2007, 10:26:09 AM
1) I would trust Mahler himself.
2) There's no conclusive evidence that Mahler attended Bruckner's lectures.
3) As I said above, he entered Bruckner's class on the form -- just like you might one day enter "Logic 1" on your class enrollment form--but then either he or someone else scratched it out.
then it is settled, Mahler didn't study with Bruckner formally, therefore not a pupil of his. It is interesting though, among all the evidences you and i gathered, the deciding one is from an internet article.
There's truly extraordinary music in much of what
Elgar wrote. I don't pretend to know why it doesn't finally cohere in, say,
Caractacus, the way it does in
The Dream Of Gerontius.
Caractacus reminds me of
Sullivan at points, but they are usually good points.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on November 03, 2007, 10:43:44 AM
then it is settled, Mahler didn't study with Bruckner formally, therefore not a pupil of his. It is interesting though, among all the evidences you and i gathered, the deciding one is from an internet article.
A book review quoting a
Mahler biography quoting a
Mahler letter.
:)
Quote from: drogulus on November 03, 2007, 10:48:53 AM
A book review quoting a Mahler biography quoting a Mahler letter.
:)
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 03, 2007, 10:21:44 AM
You are comparing oranges to apples again. Different composers have different goals; that is to say, not every composer wants to write small scale works and large scale works in their entire output. Some like the intimacy of chamber music, and for whatever reason finds it easier to communicate the ideas they wanted to, while others rely on massive structures and instrumentation to show the full glory of their compositions, like Mahler and Bruckner. You can't say a composer is more "versatile" than the other just because the other composer is mainly a symphonist while another wrote some leisure entertainment, and some serious works.
Well, what is the problem then? Why can't people just like Elgar? Everytime an argument is against Elgar it is "valid" and everytime I try to give an argument to support Elgar it is "not valid". So unfair!
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 03, 2007, 10:21:44 AMBy the way, what makes you think Bruckner and Mahler are not capable of writing small scale works? Do you even realize that both composers have written chamber music like piano quintets or even solo piano music? Those are like a gnome compared to their titanic symphonies counterpart.
I know. Still, Elgar's output is superior in versatility. If Piano Quintets and solo piano music are credits to other composers they are credits to Elgar too plus Elgar wrote oratorios, concertos, cantatas, incidental music, marches, etc.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 03, 2007, 10:56:11 AM
Well, what is the problem then? Why can't people just like Elgar? Everytime an argument is against Elgar it is "valid" and everytime I try to give an argument to support Elgar it is "not valid". So unfair!
Fairness to Elgar is not my principle goal. I just want to listen to the music that pleases me the most. It also serves my purpose to give composers a second chance, so that I might learn something new on occasion. After that I consider my obligation to be fair-minded fully discharged and I'm free to hate these pathetic untalented scribblers from now 'til Doomsday. What could be fairer than that?
"I was never a pupil of Bruckner. The world thinks I studied with him because in my student days in Vienna I was so often in his company and was reckoned among his first disciples. In fact, I believe, that at one time my friend Krzyzanowski and I were his sole followers. In spite of the great difference in age between us, Bruckner's happy disposition and his childlike, trusting nature rendered our relationship one of open friendship. Naturally the realization and understanding of his ideals which I then arrived at cannot have been without influence upon my course as artist and man. Hence I believe I am perhaps more justified than most others in calling myself his pupil and I shall always do so with deep gratitude."*
*Bruckner Blaetter--III. Jahrgang 1931, Nummer 2-3.
the full quotation, in case anyone is interested.
Quote from: longears on November 03, 2007, 10:21:55 AM
Whoops. Confusing your value judgments with absolute truths. Bound to ruffle some feathers.
I have always found Mahler's and Bruckner's music less interesting than Elgar's music. That's why I praise Elgar in the first place! I am entitled to that, am I not?
Quote from: longears on November 03, 2007, 10:21:55 AMDarn! There you go again, sabotaging yourself by making an unnecessary and idiotic attack on those who don't share your opinion, claiming that their minds are closed and they lack the intelligence to grasp his music. This is a direct assault and bound to invite retribution.
Furthermore, hundreds of your posts amply demonstrate that if anyone's mind is closed and lacks intellectual acumen it's yours--therefore you are not likely to find any ears sympathetic to your point of view.
Please give it a rest--or take your issue to the Wagner lovers' threads. You and they should get along famously!
You asked me to remove my "F*ck you Elgar haters!" avatar and then you write me a "F*ck you Elgar lovers" post. Thanks!
Read the posts on this forum and see yourself that most of the negative posts about Elgar are expressions of bad attitude, arrogance against a great composer whose legacy they don't want to admit and fully understand. The outer movements of Elgar's symphonies are brilliant music and all it takes to see that is to take the music seriously and listening to it carefully many times. People are not doing that so they ARE narrow-minded, lingering on the "safe" side of social acceptance praising Mahler and Bruckner.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 03, 2007, 11:15:40 AM
I have always found Mahler's and Bruckner's music less interesting than Elgar's music. That's why I praise Elgar in the first place! I am entitled to that, am I not?
You are. But we're also entitled to express differing opinions.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 03, 2007, 11:15:40 AM
Read the posts on this forum and see yourself that most of the negative posts about Elgar are expressions of bad attitude, arrogance against a great composer whose legacy they don't want to admit and fully understand. The outer movements of Elgar's symphonies are brilliant music and all it takes to see that is to take the music seriously and listening to it carefully many times. People are not doing that so they ARE narrow-minded, lingering on the "safe" side of social acceptance praising Mahler and Bruckner.
LOL Now THAT's funny! ;D Not too long ago Mahler was anything but a "safe" composer, and there are still many, a few of them here on GMG, who find Mahler insufferable and Bruckner insufferably tedious. If anything, Sir Edward's a lot "safer" than Anton and Gustav. ;D
And I'm not a total Germanophile either. Among English composers I dearly love Holst and Britten and have great respect for several others including Michael Tippett. An Englishman, Richard Rodney Bennett, wrote my currently favorite 20th-century oboe sonata. Americans, Bohemians, Frenchmen (and Frenchwomen), Hungarians, Italians, Russians and denizens of many other nations are also among my favorite composers.
So you can hardly accuse ME of being narrow-minded.
Quote from: jochanaan on November 03, 2007, 08:53:42 PM
You are. But we're also entitled to express differing opinions.LOL Now THAT's funny! ;D Not too long ago Mahler was anything but a "safe" composer, and there are still many, a few of them here on GMG, who find Mahler insufferable and Bruckner insufferably tedious. If anything, Sir Edward's a lot "safer" than Anton and Gustav. ;D
And I'm not a total Germanophile either. Among English composers I dearly love Holst and Britten and have great respect for several others including Michael Tippett. An Englishman, Richard Rodney Bennett, wrote my currently favorite 20th-century oboe sonata. Americans, Bohemians, Frenchmen (and Frenchwomen), Hungarians, Italians, Russians and denizens of many other nations are also among my favorite composers.
So you can hardly accuse ME of being narrow-minded.
jochanaan, this is largely off-topic, but just out of curiousity, is that DP you? It looks like a Hollywood director or something...
Quote from: jochanaan on November 03, 2007, 08:53:42 PM
You are. But we're also entitled to express differing opinions.
And you have done that.
Quote from: jochanaan on November 03, 2007, 08:53:42 PMLOL Now THAT's funny! ;D Not too long ago Mahler was anything but a "safe" composer, and there are still many, a few of them here on GMG, who find Mahler insufferable and Bruckner insufferably tedious. If anything, Sir Edward's a lot "safer" than Anton and Gustav. ;D
And I'm not a total Germanophile either. Among English composers I dearly love Holst and Britten and have great respect for several others including Michael Tippett. An Englishman, Richard Rodney Bennett, wrote my currently favorite 20th-century oboe sonata. Americans, Bohemians, Frenchmen (and Frenchwomen), Hungarians, Italians, Russians and denizens of many other nations are also among my favorite composers.
So you can hardly accuse ME of being narrow-minded.
Mahler and Bruckner unsafe composers? Hard to imagine that It's like if you dig these two composers you are inside the club of "good people".
Quote from: 71 dB on November 04, 2007, 01:15:51 AM
Mahler and Bruckner unsafe composers? Hard to imagine that It's like if you dig these two composers you are inside the club of "good people".
I am sure there was a time where Elgar's music was much more frequently performed than Bruckner and Mahler.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on November 04, 2007, 07:42:02 AM
I am sure there was a time where Elgar's music was much more frequently performed than Bruckner and Mahler.
yeah, right now, in hell
*facepalm*
isn't that a very good reason to accept Jesus? :)
yay!
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 03, 2007, 09:57:01 PM
jochanaan, this is largely off-topic, but just out of curiousity, is that DP you? It looks like a Hollywood director or something...
You mean my avatar? Yes, it's me. A friend took it while I was playing on the Sixteenth Street Mall in Denver. 8)
Quote from: jochanaan on November 04, 2007, 12:47:22 PM
You mean my avatar? Yes, it's me. A friend took it while I was playing on the Sixteenth Street Mall in Denver. 8)
What kind of music/instruments do you play? it's hard to tell from that tiny picture.
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 04, 2007, 12:49:06 PM
What kind of music/instruments do you play? it's hard to tell from that tiny picture.
I'll take a wild guess and say it's a flute.
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 04, 2007, 12:49:06 PM
What kind of music/instruments do you play? it's hard to tell from that tiny picture.
ocarina
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on November 04, 2007, 01:04:31 PM
ocarina
it's the Ocarina of Time. He got it when he went into the land of Zelda.
Since then, he checks his e-mail to find 60 original ocarina concerts each day from hopeful composers..... but it's so holy that he has to wait until the right one comes along, so only his Ocarina can play one Ocarina concerto for the rest of its life. Waiting sucks, but it'll be worth it.
i know my Ocarina hasn't seen any Ocarina concertos that I fancy lately..... :-\
Quote from: GREG GREG GREG GREG GREG GREG GREG GREG GREG GREG on November 04, 2007, 03:10:46 PM
i know my Ocarina hasn't seen any Ocarina concertos that I fancy lately..... :-\
You need to compose
your own ocarina concerto. You must learn to free yourself from dependence on others.
Quote from: Herzog Wildfang on November 04, 2007, 03:13:32 PM
You need to compose your own ocarina concerto. You must learn to free yourself from dependence on others.
Aye. Become a freethinker.
Quote from: Bonehelm on November 04, 2007, 12:49:06 PM
What kind of music/instruments do you play? it's hard to tell from that tiny picture.
It is a flute. I also play oboe (my primary instrument), English horn, and sometimes piano.
Quote from: Elgarrhoid
I don't agree. In my opinion Elgar was blah blah blah blah some more blah
Poju, once again, this thread is not about Elgar.
And, going back to the original topic, as an orchestral oboist I have played both Bruckner (Symphony #4) and Mahler (Symphonies #1, #4). Both composers are very gratifying for wind players, although Mahler perhaps is even more so. When playing Mahler I have to be ready for ANYTHING! :o But Bruckner, although he gives the winds fewer "solo moments," is both demanding and rewarding; you feel like you're part of a chorus (not a usual feeling for a principal oboist! ;D).
Quote from: jochanaan on November 04, 2007, 03:59:23 PM
And, going back to the original topic,
You've entered the NO-ELGAR ZONE .........
Quote from: karlhenning on November 04, 2007, 03:52:48 PM
Poju, once again, this thread is not about Elgar.
Says Poju: (http://extension.unh.edu/Family/graphics/manners.jpg)
Poju, you were right, and I was mistaken. Elgar really is the best composer of all time. Every note of his is a great, sophisticated note, with a perfectly attuned vibrational field. I am going to spend all the rest of this week listening to Elgar, and to no other composer.
Quote from: karlhenning on November 05, 2007, 09:37:25 AM
Poju, you were right, and I was mistaken. Elgar really is the best composer of all time. Every note of his is a great, sophisticated note, with a perfectly attuned vibrational field. I am going to spend all the rest of this week listening to Elgar, and to no other composer.
Karl, did you really want that to be your "5,000th" post?
Of course not!
It was my 4,999th post.
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on November 04, 2007, 11:15:03 AM
isn't that a very good reason to accept Jesus? :)
Can't think of any reason sufficient to do that.
Quote from: Don on November 05, 2007, 02:44:56 PM
Can't think of any reason sufficient to do that.
Mahler for eternity or Elgar for eternity, how is that a hard decision? ???
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on November 05, 2007, 02:50:07 PM
Mahler for eternity or Elgar for eternity, how is that a hard decision? ???
Don't understand. What does the music of Mahler or Elgar have to do with Christ?
Quote from: Don on November 05, 2007, 02:55:36 PM
Don't understand. What does the music of Mahler or Elgar have to do with Christ?
he has good musical taste, therefore only good music can be allowed in heaven. 0:)
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on November 05, 2007, 03:01:27 PM
he has good musical taste, therefore only good music can be allowed in heaven. 0:)
Is that Mahler or Elgar who has good musical taste?
Quote from: Don on November 05, 2007, 03:05:41 PM
Is that Mahler or Elgar who has good musical taste?
Jesus has good musical taste and therefore he allows Mahler in heaven and leaves Elgar in hell!
man....... please don't tell me you didn't get the "joke" until now ::)
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on November 05, 2007, 03:08:46 PM
Jesus has good musical taste and therefore he allows Mahler in heaven and leaves Elgar in hell!
man....... please don't tell me you didn't get the "joke" until now ::)
I never joke about Christ (or Mahler for that matter). By the way, why did Christ come into your mind?
Quote from: Don on November 05, 2007, 03:35:14 PM
I never joke about Christ (or Mahler for that matter). By the way, why did Christ come into your mind?
didn't you read through the thread... it's just a succession of thoughts.
you're confusing me, why is this important ??? ??? ???
For some reason, Greg, the name of Jesus confuses a lot of people; they think you can't joke about Heaven or Hell or Jesus or God at all. But I figure that God gave us laughter too. ;D
But you have a sense of humor, Jo.
This thread has gone beyond intended grounds. Joking has exceeded that beyond what is proper.
This thread gets teh locted!