Bruckner good, Mahler boring?

[karlhenning]

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.

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.

[karlhenning]

And whenever I remember the Bruckner Sixth, I hope Cato hasn't found the horsewhip 

[greg]

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! 

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

[Renfield]

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!"

[Florestan]

But the master who never learned from a master...?  It is hard to find such a tale!

Haydn. Liszt. Wagner.

[greg]

Haydn. Liszt. Wagner.

well.... indirectly... even if they were self-taught, they had scores to study.

[BachQ]

Some junk is more important than other junk.

Very true.

For example, Elgar's 2d Symphony is more important than his First Symphony .........

[Florestan]

they were self-taught

That's my point. Studying scores looks like self-education to me.

[BachQ]

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 .........

[greg]

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! 

[Cato]

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?

[Florestan]

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?

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.

[Cato]

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.

[Lethevich]

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

[BachQ]

Everybody else involved has equal responsibility IMO - the people arguing with him contribute the bulk of the junk posts

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 .....

[karlhenning]

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.

[Peregrine]

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!

[71 dB]

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! 
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?

[Que]

Sieg Heil!

This is not a good idea.

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! 

Q

[Larry Rinkel]

Everybody else involved has equal responsibility IMO - the people arguing with him contribute the bulk of the junk posts

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.