I'm lost in Mahler/Brucker's music.

[71 dB]

you should worry, because you like Dittersdorf more than Mozart.

every time you bring up Dittersdorf, it just cracks me up, maybe you should also include Ferdinand Reis, and say his music is better than that Of Beethoven's.

Wrong. Mozart is number 4 for me, Dittersdorf isn't even in top 10! However, I enjoy his music a lot and keep bringing him up because he is a perfect example of an unjustly ignored composer.

Unfortunately I haven't heard Ries' music. Beethoven is my number 10 composer. I doubt Ries could enter my top 10.

[PerfectWagnerite]

I don't have the Karajan Mahler 1 so I can't comment.

Karajan recorded a Mahler 1st? I only know of 4,5, 6, Das Lied and 9(x2).

[mahlertitan]

Wrong. Mozart is number 4 for me, Dittersdorf isn't even in top 10! However, I enjoy his music a lot and keep bringing him up because he is a perfect example of an unjustly ignored composer.

Unfortunately I haven't heard Ries' music. Beethoven is my number 10 composer. I doubt Ries could enter my top 10.

what about haydn, how do you rank him?

[71 dB]

what about haydn, how do you rank him?

My top 10:

Elgar
Bach
Handel
Mozart
Buxtehude
Bruhns
Rameau
Haydn
Villa-Lobos
Beethoven

[Danny]

Mahler and Bruckner were both pretty tough for me at first, and I did get lost in all of the patches of their music (with the exception of Gustav's First and Bruckner's Ninth).  It seems that I also had to evolve my taste before I could really 'get' their music (although it didn't take very long, really--no where near as long as it did to come around to Schoenberg).

[Stonemason]

I have all of Bruckner's Symphonies, all of Chailly with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra or the Deutsches Symphonie-Orchester Berlin. I also have an extra version of the 4th with Barenboim and the Chicago SO. So far, I only love the 2nd mvmt of the 7th symphony, and I remember some mvmts from the 4th. The others I have not had the mental energy to explore yet. I just received these symphonies earlier this year though.

Mahler, on the other hand, I found the 4th mvmt of the 5th Symphony on one of my compilation albums, loved it, and order the 5th with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra with Daniele Gatti conducting, a 1998 recording. It took me probably about half a year to actually listen to the other movements without the 4th only and understand them. Let me tell you, learning Mahler's musical language was one of the top 5 experiences so far in classical music discovery. I got the 8th too, but it took me even longer to get it, now it is something I'm always in the mood for every month or so. I went on to get the 6th, which is my current favourite, I loved it from first listen, to me it was close to the 5th in language, I love the 2nd mvmt immensely. I've got 2 versions of the 4th, but still need to learn it better. The 1st I just got, and find it very different from my other Mahler, will need to explore more, but love the 3rd mvmt (the reason for purchase). I have a video of the 2nd and need to watch it somemore. I have a crappy college orchestra recording of the 9th, I'm not going to ruin that symphony, but will wait till I can afford a decent recording. I have the 10th Adagio and it is gorgeous. Next on my list is the 7th, haven't heard a single bar of it anywhere yet!

Hope this was meaningful...

[Al Moritz]

I'm lost..(in the bad way) in Mahler/Brucker's music.

I just don't get the point in their music, unlike Beethoven/Mozart/Chopin's music (which is what I mostly listen to), the theme development in their music is clear and every note, every passage, feels like it belongs in the piece and contributes to the subject as it evolves. Take Beethoven's 5th for example, I simply CANNOT find a single passage where I feel "What? why is this here? whats the point?" since everything sounds so melodic and smooth to the ear. An example would be when the tension builds up with the timpani doing the crescendo while the strings go up and down (5th symphony, 3rd movement).

However, in Brucker/Mahler's music, a lot of things don't seem to be "right" to me. It isn't anything primitive like Stravinsky or dissonant like Schoenberg. It's emotional (sometimes even overwhelming, especially in Mahler's finales), but I just don't get how he put his music together. It sounds like every passage is not connected to another one logically. It's....its....RANDOM! One moment you have the strings singing a beautiful chorale and the next thing you know the percussion just started roaring with the support of 12394809 heavy brass instruments (exaggeration, yes).

Interesting. Bruckner's Fourth Symphony was my first love in classical music at age 19. To me, Bruckner is incredibly coherent, "the theme development is clear", nothing is "random", and everything is "connected logically".

On the old board there was a thread "Motivic development", and to D Minor who asked:
"Is there any doubt that Beethoven and Brahms are the Gods of motivic development?  . . . . .",

I replied:

I very well can see your point, but add Bruckner to the list (and many other composers are up there as well). Actually, studying the motivic development might be a way for some to come to appreciate Bruckner's "technical" mastery (apart from studying the harmonic development in his symphonies; both of course are linked), instead of upholding that he is a second-rate composer.

Listen for example, what happens to the main theme of the first movement of the Eighth symphony (how he divides it into the smallest cells and works with them, rhythmically, harmonically, timbrally, dynamically etc.), or how the main theme of the adagio of the Ninth is developed. It boggles your mind – at least, it does mine.

Also, it is immensely fascinating how the first and third theme of the finale of the Seventh are related. Probably unrecognized by most listeners – at least initially –, the first, lightfooted theme in the strings, and the third, very heavy theme in full brass, are one and the same (even though played in different keys). The finale has often been described as the weakest movement of the symphony, but once you recognize that relationship, the movement may very well become a riveting experience.

Additionally, even though development is so extensive, in general thematic/motivic coherence within any given Bruckner movement is absolutely superb. Usually everything can be strongly interrelated down to the smallest detail. Don't be fooled by the fact that instead of two, Bruckner routinely uses three themes in his outer movements (mostly not related as in the finale of the Seventh), and at times four. Also, sometimes a theme becomes a "theme complex", as musicologists name it. For example, after the first part of the main theme in the adagio of the Ninth is heard, it is, impressively, divided into two motivic cells which, in counterpoint, form the element of a slow build-up to a climax; once it is reached, the second part of the main theme is announced by fortissimo brass – this concludes the first theme complex (that both parts belong together becomes clear not just from the logic of this initial build-up and climax, but also from the further thematic development).

***

By the way, in Beethoven the motivic development is always clear to me just like for you, but it is not always for me in Mozart.

[Cato]

As one tiny example of motivic unity, recall the odd chord opening the Scherzo of the Ninth Symphony: the only notes being plucked by the strings up and down the scale in that opening are the ones in that chord.

E-G#-Bb-C#

[DavidW]

By the way, in Beethoven the motivic development is always clear to me just like for you, but it is not always for me in Mozart.

Al, that was an interesting post.  I'm replying to this part, even though it's an aside, because it was on my mind.  I think that the difficulty in tracing the motivic development in Mozart's works is because I think that he commonly likes to deal with the entire theme as a whole.  I don't know though, it would be an interesting discussion, I think I'll start a thread.

[jochanaan]

I think Haydn is boring. All of his symphonies seem to follow the same pattern...and his music is so..balanced and carefully metered...

I have to take issue with this.  Have you really listened to Haydn's music?  Especially his later symphonies.  There's always some surprise, especially when we can be sure Haydn really wrote the music that bears his name.  (He was such a powerful figure in his own day that less-than-scrupulous publishing companies would publish pieces by other composers with his name on them so they'd sell more. )  The famous "Surprise" symphony (#94) is only the best-known example; I've heard very few Haydn pieces that didn't have some brilliant irregularity, most often a completely blank measure or two--a virtual Haydn trademark.

[jochanaan]

As one tiny example of motivic unity, recall the odd chord opening the Scherzo of the Ninth Symphony: the only notes being plucked by the strings up and down the scale in that opening are the ones in that chord.

E-G#-Bb-C#

Yes.  And what's even more amazing is that the following chords progress with deep inner logic yet build the tension almost to the breaking point, making the pounding rhythm on D all the stronger when it hits.  (Note that the chord just before these Ds is an inversion of the original four-note chord!)  Bruckner was a great master of primal harmonic motion.

Bonehelm, the inner logic is there in Bruckner and Mahler, as deep and profound as any in Beethoven.  And if you can follow the motivic development in Beethoven's Third and Ninth, you shouldn't have any real problem with the other two.  But none of these composers take well to being relegated to the background; they demand your full attention--not an edge-of-the-seat attention, rather the kind of attention that sits back and lets the music bathe you outside and in.

[Bonehelm]

Yes.  And what's even more amazing is that the following chords progress with deep inner logic yet build the tension almost to the breaking point, making the pounding rhythm on D all the stronger when it hits.  (Note that the chord just before these Ds is an inversion of the original four-note chord!)  Bruckner was a great master of primal harmonic motion.

Bonehelm, the inner logic is there in Bruckner and Mahler, as deep and profound as any in Beethoven.  And if you can follow the motivic development in Beethoven's Third and Ninth, you shouldn't have any real problem with the other two.  But none of these composers take well to being relegated to the background; they demand your full attention--not an edge-of-the-seat attention, rather the kind of attention that sits back and lets the music bathe you outside and in.

Thanks for your comment, I'm currently listening to Mahler's 2nd. Hope it'll all work out in my mind when it's over.

[abidoful]

It's funny how you descripe music!!

In my opinnion your description fits better to Mahler's music (he said once- to Sibelius-  that a symphony must be like the world; "es muss alles umfassen!") but not so much to Bruckner. Everything is NOT just "random" in Bruckner! In a way he was quite conservative in his structures (I read somewhere that he used to count the number of bars in advance- seems little restricted in a way)."Always" the same "pattern";
- first movement sonata form
- slow movement or scherzo in ternary or sonata form or rondo
- last movement sonata form
Like the 7th symphony; it doesn't go much further structurally than the Schubert "great".

And he didn't use various percussion instruments. That's Mahler!

Sometimes Bruckner seem's-I admit- to be difficult to follow, like in the String Quintet first movement where  things always come somehow unecpectedly.You never know what comes next but still I get little bored! Though the music is gorgeous... The scherzo is magical and there-in the trio-  is SO strange sounding passage! Like Gage- almost minimalistic

Anyways, maybe if you want to get to Bruckner think of Schubert and the great C-major symphony (btw they both were Austrian, and i think you can hear that in their music, thats one dimension there). And for the Bruckner Adagios, particularly the 9th, you could look the two last (op.62) nocturnes of Chopin and find similarities.
I know I find some;
The atmosphere. And the structure of the themes: the trio of the symphony/ or the theme in A flat- look Chopin Nocturne in B op.62/1 (the trio section). The themes share something!And then the first theme of the Brucner Adagio- the first theme of the E- major Chopin Nocturne. Again, two very far-reaching themes. There IS something similar...!

[False_Dmitry]

However, in Brucker/Mahler's music, a lot of things don't seem to be "right" to me. It isn't anything primitive like Stravinsky or dissonant like Schoenberg. It's emotional (sometimes even overwhelming, especially in Mahler's finales), but I just don't get how he put his music together.

You are far from alone in this! 

I know very few musicians who like everything.  Instead you find what you like, and then find more things you like, and before you know it there is a lifetime's great music ahead of you.  Exercising your taste and discrimination actively is a positive sign! 

Mahler will always be there for you to come back to later, if you want to?  You might find that your tastes eventually lead you back to him.  But there is no obligation to like Mahler more than any other composer!  He is not (despite what his slightly wild-eyed fans may claim) any kind of "pinnacle". 

Don't allow the fixed pompous opinions of a few very vocal fanatics make you feel "bad" about your own tastes!!   You like Schoenberg?  Great, because comparatively few people do!  How about Berg?  Have you heard much of his work - for example SIX EARLY SONGS, which are quite different to how he wrote later    How about music from the C15th, and the C14th?  How do you feel about Ockeghem, Dufay, Landini, Machaut, or Lionel Power?  (Hint - very few Bruckner fans have even heard their names  )   How are you on opera?  It's a huge repertoire of music which one lifetime isn't enough to know fully.  Have you tried Janacek?  Start with CUNNING LITTLE VIXEN - if you find Bruckner's slabs of sound hard to take, then maybe the delicacy, subtlety and utterly individual sound of Janacek's music will grab you?   I first heard Janacek nearly 32 years ago, and it blew me utterly away - it was what made me want to do what I do now.

I'm not going to write bad stuff about Mahler or Bruckner.  I hope one day I will come to enjoying them, and I confidently hope to.  But my teetering pile of "have to listen to this next!" disks gets ever-higher, and I haven't had time to return to ol' Anton just yet

PS and for chrisake avoid "Top Ten" lists.  They're the sign of a closed mind.

[jochanaan]

...How do you feel about Ockeghem, Dufay, Landini, Machaut, or Lionel Power?  (Hint - very few Bruckner fans have even heard their names  )...

The only one I don't know from that list is Lionel Power; the other I do know and love, and can see how greatly they influenced Bruckner--you only have to listen to his E minor Mass to realize that!

[Opus106]

PS and for chrisake avoid "Top Ten" lists.  They're the sign of a closed mind.

Either that or an active classical music forum on the web.