Anyone for Bruckner?

[David Ayers]

Although - re. sex, Bruckner is somewhat influenced by Wagner so we'd have to say that Wagnerian eroticism is somehow sublimated in there.

The over-use of brass gets in the way for me, or at least what comes across as over-use as played by modern orchestras - especially the plushest and noisiest ones.

[Chuck Nessa]

I think your mention of "modern orchestras" could be the problem.

[alocispepraluger102]

Composer Robert Simpson's book about Bruckner:

http://www.amazon.com/Essence-Bruckner-Robert-Wilfred-Simpson/dp/0575011890

is among the best such books ever and should explain everything about how his music works, if you're among those who are in a place to get the message.

Simpson's book about Carl Nielsen is no less superb.

http://www.amazon.com/Carl-Nielsen-Symphonist-Robert-Simpson/dp/0900707968

I would add that unless you're among the lucky ones who get Bruckner right off, there may be no arguably great composer whose music is harder to grasp. For one thing, he requires that one have a very long-term memory for thematic echoes/returns and resemblances, longer than even most sensitive listeners tend to possess. But there are, Brucknerians feel, immense long-term rewards for learning to tune in on the attention span that Bruckner calls for.

brilliant!!!

i thoroughly enjoyed a leisurely nature walk alone yesterday with #7 performed by gennady rozdestvensky and the moscow state symphony. glorious.

Edited August 22, 2013 by alocispepraluger102

[J.A.W.]

If you are looking for a "way in" get the DG cd of Bruckner 4 conducted by Jochum. If that doesn't convince you, smoke some weed and play it again. :-)

I can't deny that Jochum was unique in Bruckner, but what bothers me about his Bruckner is his "stop and go" treatment, his excessive rubato. Some (many?) people seem to like it, but I find it annoying. As to the 4th, my favourite version is Karl Böhm's interpretation with the Vienna Philharmonic (Decca).

Edited August 22, 2013 by J.A.W.

[Teasing the Korean]

Is there really any one Bruckner symphony that is considerably better liked than all or most of the others?

Some who have studied Bruckner's symphonies claim that he did not write 9 symphonies, but rather wrote 1 symphony 9 times.

I have no opinion either way.

[alocispepraluger102]

Is there really any one Bruckner symphony that is considerably better liked than all or most of the others?

Some who have studied Bruckner's symphonies claim that he did not write 9 symphonies, but rather wrote 1 symphony 9 times.

I have no opinion either way.

some could say that..........

[Chuck Nessa]

If you are looking for a "way in" get the DG cd of Bruckner 4 conducted by Jochum. If that doesn't convince you, smoke some weed and play it again. :-)

I can't deny that Jochum was unique in Bruckner, but what bothers me about his Bruckner is his "stop and go" treatment, his excessive rubato. Some (many?) people seem to like it, but I find it annoying. As to the 4th, my favourite version is Karl Böhm's interpretation with the Vienna Philharmonic (Decca).

And the Bohm seems square and lifeless to me. I bought the 2 lp version when it was first issued and felt the same then.

[J.A.W.]

If you are looking for a "way in" get the DG cd of Bruckner 4 conducted by Jochum. If that doesn't convince you, smoke some weed and play it again. :-)

I can't deny that Jochum was unique in Bruckner, but what bothers me about his Bruckner is his "stop and go" treatment, his excessive rubato. Some (many?) people seem to like it, but I find it annoying. As to the 4th, my favourite version is Karl Böhm's interpretation with the Vienna Philharmonic (Decca).

And the Bohm seems square and lifeless to me. I bought the 2 lp version when it was first issued and felt the same then.

Well, it's clear that you (and Larry) on the one hand and I on the other are worlds apart where appreciation of classical music interpretations is concerned. Interesting.

Otto Klemperer's interpretation of the 4th with the Philharmonia Orchestra is another version I like, especially the way he emphasizes the architecture/structure of the symphony.

Edited August 22, 2013 by J.A.W.

[A Lark Ascending]

Unfortunately for Bev, historical conductors provide the best entry points.

An assertion masquerading as fact. As so often.

[David Ayers]

If you never sampled Norrington's Bruckner, it is interesting. Playlist on spotters:

Norrington Bruckner

[alocispepraluger102]

Composer Robert Simpson's book about Bruckner:

http://www.amazon.com/Essence-Bruckner-Robert-Wilfred-Simpson/dp/0575011890

is among the best such books ever and should explain everything about how his music works, if you're among those who are in a place to get the message.

Simpson's book about Carl Nielsen is no less superb.

http://www.amazon.com/Carl-Nielsen-Symphonist-Robert-Simpson/dp/0900707968

I would add that unless you're among the lucky ones who get Bruckner right off, there may be no arguably great composer whose music is harder to grasp. For one thing, he requires that one have a very long-term memory for thematic echoes/returns and resemblances, longer than even most sensitive listeners tend to possess. But there are, Brucknerians feel, immense long-term rewards for learning to tune in on the attention span that Bruckner calls for.

brilliant!!!

i thoroughly enjoyed a leisurely nature walk alone yesterday with #7 performed by gennady rozdestvensky and the moscow state symphony. glorious.

the same walk with #8 by the same composer, orchestra, and conductor was very ordinary.

Edited August 22, 2013 by alocispepraluger102

[Blue Train]

Any thoughts on the Stanislaw Skrowaczewski set?

?

[David Ayers]

Just a few reflections on this thread as I have been thinking about it.

The question 'which symphony is best' is in a way revealing, since the answer appeared to be certainly 4,7,8,9, probably 5 and (perhaps only just) possibly 3. I am reminded that whichever Bruckner symphony I decide to listen to I find myself thinking about the others and wondering, well maybe really one of those is the best. The reason I think that is that something in the one I am listening to does not do it for me, and I wonder now if this decentered effect of the Bruckner canon arises because in truth not one of these works is quite right - as if Bruckner never really quite gets there.

Thinking about the (I'm afraid) pedantic Robert Simpson, I do also query just how difficult these works really are. The main things get repeated a lot and that often invoked notion of 'attention span' is (IMO) a fogeyish myth. Most movies are longer than a Bruckner symphony, and we know that 'attention span' which is what classical music buffs with conservative tastes always bang on about (you learnt it off records you dufi!) gets you nowhere with musics that require a little more - say with '...explosante-fixe... '. Though I suppose indirectly related to this consideration, I have been wondering whether the issue with Bruckner is not the musical sophistication - a great long-term planner of course as we know - but in the end the gaucheness; not the supposed Christian zeal but the peculiar misreading of Wagner's paganism which makes these such strange works. Though referred to as 'cathedrals in sound' this is more a question of architecture than of faith, it seems to me, and of course in contrast to Mahler there is no explicit Christian reference at all. Oh except to church bells, in a tediously mimetic fashion. Not devotional, not erotic, not narrative or descriptive. What are these works really *about*?

Edited August 26, 2013 by David Ayers

[David Ayers]

PS just been looking at the new and very current Cambridge Companion to Bruckner (2013). Excellent and, should I ever get time to read more than the sample, a way to press (far) on from the old school.

[A Lark Ascending]

What are these works really *about*?

Do they have to be 'about' anything?

Some composers are quite explicit about what their music is 'about' - through titles, words if sung, comments made. But an awful lot of the 'about' is projected onto the music by commentators (the lack of sex comment earlier being a classic example of reading onto the music; I don't hear much sex in Bach's music but he seems to have had a bit!).

I don't know enough about Bruckner to argue with any firmness of evidence; but what I've constantly read was that he was a devout Catholic. I can accept that he was expressing that devotion in some way.

As a non-believer I don't hear the omniscience of God when I listen. I do hear glorious abstract music that does make me think of the inside of cathedrals at times (that might be simply because that is how the music has been packaged since I first listened) but I also hear what sounds like pastoral, nature music in places (again, my brain is doing that, rather than it being explicit in the music, probably because it sounds like other music that does have an explicit nature programme (e,g Beethoven 6)). It also makes me think of Friedrich paintings (again a result of the way it's often been packaged).

I can see where you are going with the idea of none of them being totally satisfying (not a feeling I share in 5, 7, 8 and 9) as if he wasn't totally sure what he wanted to do; but you could say the same about a lot of canons of free improvisation - you don't get a sense of everything tied up and finished, more of something continually evolving until the musician just stops.

Edited August 26, 2013 by A Lark Ascending

[Larry Kart]

From poet Jonathan Williams' book "Mahler Grooves," section VI from his poem inspired by Mahler's Sym. No. 3:

Anton Bruckner counts the 877th leaf

on a linden tree in the countryside near Wren

and prays:

Dear God, Sweet Jesus

Save Us, Save Us . . .

the Light in the Grass,

the Wind on the Hill,

are in my head,

the world cannot be heard

Leaves obliterate

my heart,

we touch each other

far apart . . .

Let us count

into

the Darkness

P.S. (me quoting from an article about AB): "He suffered from extreme mood swings, and at his most depressed or anxious would resort to obsessive counting rituals -- there’s an account by a friend of him being found in a field, just before his 1866 mental breakdown, trying to count the leaves on a tree."

[David Ayers]

Well he was certainly into counting, that's a fact.

[Larry Kart]

Just a few reflections on this thread as I have been thinking about it.

The question 'which symphony is best' is in a way revealing, since the answer appeared to be certainly 4,7,8,9, probably 5 and (perhaps only just) possibly 3. I am reminded that whichever Bruckner symphony I decide to listen to I find myself thinking about the others and wondering, well maybe really one of those is the best. The reason I think that is that something in the one I am listening to does not do it for me, and I wonder now if this decentered effect of the Bruckner canon arises because in truth not one of these works is quite right - as if Bruckner never really quite gets there.

Thinking about the (I'm afraid) pedantic Robert Simpson, I do also query just how difficult these works really are. The main things get repeated a lot and that often invoked notion of 'attention span' is (IMO) a fogeyish myth. Most movies are longer than a Bruckner symphony, and we know that 'attention span' which is what classical music buffs with conservative tastes always bang on about (you learnt it off records you dufi!) gets you nowhere with musics that require a little more - say with '...explosante-fixe... '. Though I suppose indirectly related to this consideration, I have been wondering whether the issue with Bruckner is not the musical sophistication - a great long-term planner of course as we know - but in the end the gaucheness; not the supposed Christian zeal but the peculiar misreading of Wagner's paganism which makes these such strange works. Though referred to as 'cathedrals in sound' this is more a question of architecture than of faith, it seems to me, and of course in contrast to Mahler there is no explicit Christian reference at all. Oh except to church bells, in a tediously mimetic fashion. Not devotional, not erotic, not narrative or descriptive. What are these works really *about*?

Bemused that you find Simpson on Bruckner to be pedantic. Can think of few if any verbal accounts of how and why particular pieces of music work that are more insightful and (which I suppose goes with saying) not redundant in the face of the actual realized-in-performance music.

About Bruckner versus "musics that require a little more - say with '...explosante-fixe..." -- I'd say that were talking about very different musics in terms of style and language. I respond positively to both kinds, and many other kinds as well. Also, I don't think that Bruckner's alleged conservatism has anything to do with his music's ultimate value, though it may have something to with its appeal to some listeners.

[Mark Stryker]

Intereting reading here for me. I defer to others on the topic of Bruckner since although I respect this music, I have never warmed to it enough to love it (or even like it). This is despite having heard lots of performances led by all kinds of conductors in my professional capacities. But I will keep trying. My preferred approach to Bruckner is generally to hang out at the bar and then catch up with everyone else at the scherzo.

Coda: I had two important American history classes at the University of Illinois with Professor Robert McColley, who for years was the resident Bruckner guy at Fanfare magazine.

[Blue Train]

Back to another thing. It's interesting how Bruckner and Mahler are so linked but so different.

Any thoughts on the Stanislaw Skrowaczewski set?

?

Third time is the charm?

[StarThrower]

It took me forever to get into Mahler, but I became a Bruckner convert in one day. I picked up three recordings.

No. 4 by Rogner

No. 6 by Nagano

No. 9 by Wand

Will be trying out Chailly's 7 soon, and Karajan's 8.

[Spontooneous]

Back to another thing. It's interesting how Bruckner and Mahler are so linked but so different.

Any thoughts on the Stanislaw Skrowaczewski set?

?

Third time is the charm?

Just became aware of this thread.

The Skrowaczewski set is rarely less than wonderful. He's at the top of the pile in Symphonies 6 and 9, and has plenty of illuminations in the others.