Classical Music Forum banner

Bruckner Symphonies...What am I missing?

57K views 191 replies 61 participants last post by  hoodjem 
#1 ·
I've tried listening to Bruckner's symphonies (4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th), but I get bored with them. I know that some find them deeply spiritual, moving, etc. Not me. They have some nice movements, but as a whole the symphonies that I've listened to didn't keep my interest all the way through.

I know I'm not the only person who feels this way, but I still wonder if I'm missing something since there are so many people who love Bruckner's symphonies. Should I consider my lack of interest in his symphonies a matter of personal taste, or keep trying and hope that I too will grow to love his symphonies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: haziz
#152 ·
After getting into the more accessible composers a year ago -e.g. WAM, LvB, Dvorak, Schubert and Mendelssohn - I thought I'd try out the 'heavier' stuff from the late Romantic era onwards, mainly Mahler, Shostakovich, R Strauss, Schoenberg, Sibelius and Bruckner. Out of that lot the only works that do it for me are Sibelius' tone poems, The Alpine Symphony and Bruckner's 4th (Wand). As for Bruckner's other 8, the scherzos are mostly fine. It's the remaining hour or so I have difficulty with. To my ears the slow movements are snoozeworthy. Same goes for Sibelius, Mahler and Shosta.
 
#153 ·
It's the remaining hour or so I have difficulty with. To my ears the slow movements are snoozeworthy. Same goes for Sibelius, Mahler and Shosta.
Yeah, it's a common difficulty; you have to learn how to listen, and the skill pretty much has to be self-taught. There's good stuff in there, but your mind kind of sloughs over it because it's busy, usually with nothing important.

I really do believe I remember that problem - but it was awhile back, so maybe not.

My difficulty with Bruckner isn't the slow parts, it's all those crescendos that don't conclude anything.

:cool:
 
#155 ·
Listening to 6 right now, such great stuff. Maybe i'm not knowledgeable enough to critique his compositional styles, but i've been playing and surrounded by music all my life and this is just amazing. He epitomizes everything I love about that era of composition...and I find it so ironic that he was such a timid and self-critical man, notoriously revising and rewriting his works many times. but he never really realized what he had was pure gold. I sorely sorely wish the 9th was finished :( I read an interesting article about lost pages slowly resurfacing over the years...maybe one day?
 
#157 · (Edited)
I've only listened to #1, #4, #7, #8 and #9 thus far, but it really was the #7 that sold Bruckner for me. All movements are amazing, but I especially adore the first movement, with its feeling of desperate, heroic struggle. Maybe it's the "Wagnerian" qualities of the #7, maybe it's just that its themes are a bit easier/simpler(?) and I'm a newbie, but it's my favourite Bruckner symphony by quite a wide margin.


Edit: I could also add a tiny comparison to Mahler. While I adore Mahler as a person (what a perfect intellectual romantic hero!) and find Bruckner creepy, Bruckner's symphonies seem easier to understand to me. They seem to be about taking things incredibly seriously, full of wonder, amazement and dedication. Mahler, on the other hand, remains annoyingly evasive and subtle with his musical sarcasms and ironies. But that's not Mahler's fault but mine, and I'm resolved to "get" him one day!

It's also funny that while Bruckner and Mahler symphonies share many of the same qualities, they couldn't be more apart when we compare Bruckner's massive seriousness to Mahler's subtle ironies.
 
#159 ·
I've only listened to #1, #4, #7, #8 and #9 thus far, but it really was the #7 that sold Bruckner for me. All movements are amazing, but I especially adore the first movement, with its feeling of desperate, heroic struggle. Maybe it's the "Wagnerian" qualities of the #7, maybe it's just that its themes are a bit easier/simpler(?) and I'm a newbie, but it's my favourite Bruckner symphony by quite a wide margin.
Yeh the 7th is the one to get into it. And that first movement has always been a favourite of mine since the early 90s, it's so melodic.
 
#160 ·
While I had listened off an on to Bruckner in my younger years, I took more immediately to Mahler. Still adore Mahler's symphonies.

It's only now, in my fifties, that I find I am "getting" Bruckner. Others may not take as long, or some may never. But that's how we are as individuals.

I won't try to expound upon why I enjoy the symphonies as much as I do now. The sonorities are definitely a factor; the Scherzo movements do seem to have a traceable lineage that was set in place by Schubert's time. The slow movements, if they are not always narrative in structure, spin themes of gorgeous splendor. All in all, though there is a sense of the "infinite" in the music that I find appealing.

Oh, and the conductor that really helped me to give Bruckner a chance (despite the Haitink and Karajan LPs residing in the older part of my collection) was Furtwangler. Nowadays I have many other conductors that I listen to, but my collection still seems centered on the Fifth, the Eighth, and the Ninth symphonies (of which there are famous Furtwangler recordings). Not sure why, but they are the works that I use to "calibrate" whether a conductor knows their Bruckner.
 
#161 ·
I would like to get to know Bruckner more. All I've listened to so far has been the 9th at a concert, and I'm still not sure what I think about it. Is there any complete cycle people would recommend? (better individual performances of individual symphonies will come later when I'm more familiar with the works, or something). Cheers!

I'm thinking about Karajan's presently.
 
#162 ·
I would like to get to know Bruckner more. All I've listened to so far has been the 9th at a concert, and I'm still not sure what I think about it. Is there any complete cycle people would recommend? (better individual performances of individual symphonies will come later when I'm more familiar with the works, or something). Cheers!
The one that hooked me into Bruckner was Tinter's cycle on Naxos. Many times he uses original versions of symphonies, and he performs them pretty much as they are written. I've branched out from there to more idiosyncratic performances, but Tintner has been a nice base to return to, at least for me.

Some people love Karajan's recordings, some don't. He doesn't do much for me, but if he speaks to you, got for it.
 
#163 ·
I interpret Bruckner's compositions as neogothic cathedral-building in soundscape. Basically he's not so much concerned with musical tunes or music as such as with: stress, thrust, tension. From this sound-architectural 'point of listening' Bruckner is sculpting pinnacles, arcs, high pointed windows, in short all what we see in cathedrals built with sandstone this time translated into cathedrals built with sound. So when someone is missing in Bruckner's slow movements the music & musical sense, someone else may feel there the stress & thrust building up, the growing tension to conclude a wide arc, the addition of another flying buttress to keep the thrust inward. Why the massive crescendos, leading seemingly nowhere? The question may be answered with a counterquestion: Why do gothic cathedrals have so many pinnacles, arcs, flying buttresses etc.?
When I listen to a conductor who is interpreting Bruckner, I follow how he builds up Bruckner's cathedral layer by layer. Jochum, Karajan, Tintner, Maazel (7 & 8) & yes: Mravinsky (9th) have the patience for slowly building up the stress, thrust & tension that is hidden in these symphonic compositions. Many conductors however let the build-up collapse somewhere, leaving me behind in rubble & ruin.
 
#167 ·
So when someone is missing in Bruckner's slow movements the music & musical sense, someone else may feel there the stress & thrust building up, the growing tension to conclude a wide arc, the addition of another flying buttress to keep the thrust inward. Why the massive crescendos, leading seemingly nowhere? The question may be answered with a counterquestion: Why do gothic cathedrals have so many pinnacles, arcs, flying buttresses etc.?
Because pinnacles, arcs, flying buttresses make cathedrals beautiful :D
That was very good description of Bruckner's music; I think that sometimes we need to remind ourselves of Debussy's quote: "You have only to listen. Pleasure is the law".
 
#164 ·
I've been getting into Bruckner #8 recently. Strangely enough, it reminds me a bit of Tchaikovsky #5. The structure is completely different, but the underlying emotions do not seem that dissimilar to me.
 
#165 ·
I haven't read through everything to see if anyone mentioned Bruckner's deficiency as an orchestrator. Regardless of the musical and structural content of his music, I feel that he had neither an original or personal sense of the orchestra itself.

From wikipedia:
Bruckner was a renowned organist in his day, impressing audiences in France in 1869, and England in 1871, giving six recitals on a new Henry Willis organ at Royal Albert Hall in London and five more at the Crystal Palace. Though he wrote no major works for the organ,[10] his improvisation sessions sometimes yielded ideas for the symphonies. Indeed, the orchestration in his symphonies often involves abrupt switches and call-and-response between multiple groups of instruments, much like switching manuals on an organ.

****

Essentially, a lot of his symphonic work is like organ music "transcribed" to symphony. Contrast this with, say, William Walton, who "played" the symphony like it was an instrument in itself, like it was his instrument, and that he played the orchestra the way another musician might play the violin or the piano.
 
#166 ·
Hello everyone.

I haven't read through everything to see if anyone mentioned Bruckner's deficiency as an orchestrator. Regardless of the musical and structural content of his music, I feel that he had neither an original or personal sense of the orchestra itself.

[wikipedia quote]

Essentially, a lot of his symphonic work is like organ music "transcribed" to symphony. Contrast this with, say, William Walton, who "played" the symphony like it was an instrument in itself, like it was his instrument, and that he played the orchestra the way another musician might play the violin or the piano.
If you really feel the need to reiterate those tired stereotypes please make sure your presentation is logically consistent and backed up by something a little more persuasive than a quick, unformatted wikipedia quote.

I'll disregard the folly of drawing a strict line between "musical and structural content" and "orchestration" for now, but the first time you specify what you consider his "deficiencies" as an orchestral composer you mention that his writing was "neither original nor personal" - I simply cannot fathom what would lead you to that abstruse conclusion, Bruckner's audaciously sharp-contoured treatment of orchestral color is a direct consequence of his equally original rhythmic and contrapuntal writing, neither of which would be feasible on an organ - they were clearly inspired by and invented for an orchestral setting.
 
#171 · (Edited)
I've tried listening to Bruckner's symphonies (4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th), but I get bored with them. I know that some find them deeply spiritual, moving, etc. Not me. They have some nice movements, but as a whole the symphonies that I've listened to didn't keep my interest all the way through.

I know I'm not the only person who feels this way, but I still wonder if I'm missing something since there are so many people who love Bruckner's symphonies. Should I consider my lack of interest in his symphonies a matter of personal taste, or keep trying and hope that I too will grow to love his symphonies?
You need to be in love in order to understand them. The 3rd movement of the 8th, the 2nd movement of the 7th: the apotheosis of romantic love.

You can throw sticks at me for making such a banal statement, but its 100% true.

P.S. I am aware of the fact that 2nd movement of the 7th was written for Wagner's funeral.. and was also played at a host of other people's funerals as well (including he-who-shall-not-be-named). It, however, does not detract from the rich romantic undertones inherent in these works.
 
#182 ·
I think the major problem with approaching Bruckner is that most people approach him from Mahler. It's ridiculous; they're nothing alike. Approach him from Sibelius instead, and then you'll get some real results. Sibelius and Bruckner are actually quite similar, and I'm surprised that this connection isn't made more often.

Edit: And contrasting Mahler with Bruckner doesn't tend to get anywhere, either. They're two very different symphonists. Approach them on their own terms.
 
#184 ·
I think the major problem with approaching Bruckner is that most people approach him from Mahler. It's ridiculous; they're nothing alike. [too true, mate. too true] Approach him from Sibelius instead, and then you'll get some real results. Sibelius and Bruckner are actually quite similar, and I'm surprised that this connection isn't made more often.

Edit: And contrasting Mahler with Bruckner doesn't tend to get anywhere, either. They're two very different symphonists. Approach them on their own terms.
Thank you. Very true - you cannot approach their music with the same mentality.
 
#185 ·
If I might be so bold, very little of what Walter says in his article about what joins the two is of consequence; any two roughly contemporaneous composers could be Austrian and have written nine symphonies in the space of about thirty years with special emphasis on the finale and with various changes from symphony to symphony. History just happened to frown on those two.

I find a lot more of substance in what Mr. Walter has to say about what divides them. Not only does he point out the wild differences in instrumentation within Mahler's opus as opposed to Bruckner's relative sameness across the board (never branching out into voices, hammers, guitars, mandolins, violins in scordatura, et al.), but also, at length, gets to the real difference: "If I wished to present the difference between the two masters in the shortest imaginable formula, I would say (conscious of the exaggeration of such a summary): at bottom Bruckner's spirit was repose, Mahler's unrest." This is the only thing that really matters to a listener, not instrumentation, not how many movements a symphony has, but what the composer has to say about himself and the world around him, and in that sense these two composers could be no more different.
 
#186 ·
Yes I pretty much agree on the many differences between Mahler and Bruckner...The length of their symphonies and a bit of that flair for the dramatic I hear in both, but aside from that they are quite different. I am able to extract more direction and specific ideas out of Mahler's music. Bruckner builds vast architectural landscapes, but I don't sense the same refined state of expression. With Bruckner I am at times blown away by the awesome layers of sound, but I don't get those eureka moments as often as I do with Mahler. Its almost as if Bruckner's music is like the background to something else happening, where Mahler tries to create specific ideas and then unfold them in a methodical way all with just the music...
 
#188 ·
Their only commonality is their nationality and writing 60+ minutes symphonies, surely? Bruckner was Brahms' comtemporary, not Mahler's. Mahler as a student attended Bruckner's lectures, for goodness sake. Bruckner wrote 11 symphonies, Mahler ten and-a-bit.
Even for length, Bruckner only journeys beyond 70 minutes in 5 and 8 (marginally in 7) - Celibidache excepted!, whereas Mahler does so in all but 1 and 4.
And as others have pointed out, the music is nothing alike.
GG
 
#190 ·
Random thoughts and responses after scanning this entire thread after joining this forum yesterday:

1. I first heard Bruckner in a late-night radio broadcast in the 1950s while I was in college, and immediately became fascinated. It was the 3rd Symphony (I believe the Knappertsbusch recording on London), which is still my favorite. But to say any Bruckner symphony is "favorite" for me is hardly accurate; Bruckner is Bruckner, wherever you find him, and each symphony has its distinctive "feel." I now have recordings of all 11 Bruckner symphonies, some in multiple versions. Personally, I find the 2nd and the 6th less Brucknerian than the others, but enjoy them along with the rest.

2. I think it is rather silly to play off one composer against another, because each has his (or her) "specialties." I am also a fan of Haydn (wrote a paper on his symphonies while in college) and enjoy his clever humor. The academic intricacy of Brahms fascinates me -- and I see no Beethoven copy-catting in his music. Mahler is nothing like Bruckner; I find a lot of his symphonic music kind of sappy, or painfully slow, but I will not just write him off because he lacks Bruckner's sense of striving toward a goal. I could go on, but my point is that each composer is "doing his own thing" and just because it's not your thing is no reason to flame him, or his fans.

3. No, Bruckner was not a creative orchestrator like Mahler, Elgar, Berlioz. But neither was Schumann, because orchestration is not the point in their symphonies and fussing with the orchestration would do little to change the impact (the brass being, perhaps, the exception to this statement). Bruckner's music is "baroque" in that, as in Bach, different instruments can play the same part; it is not the timbre that matters but the structure.

4. Bruckner has a lot of memorable tunes. I often whistle Bruckner while driving, working in the yard, walking through Walmart, etc. The opening of his 3rd Symphony would make a great cell phone ring tone.

5. Bruckner himself sanctioned most of the revisions to his symphonies. Perhaps he was cowed by conductors into making cuts or changes, but having heard both the "original" and the "revised" versions in a few cases I often prefer the later versions. For example, I was so disappointed to come to the very end of Tintner's recording of the 1st Symphony and find only a timpani roll and not that wonderful trumpet fanfare that rounds it off in the (I believe) Linz version. The "original" 3rd does not seem to have the taught drama of the version usually performed. I am glad that we have access to the several versions, because each listener can decided for himself (herself) which is preferable.

6. John Berky has a lot of Bruckner downloads on his site, www.abruckner.com. If you don't want to spend a lot of money for Bruckner recordings you can download a lot of music there, and create your own CDs from them if you like (I have made more than a dozen CDs this way.) If you donate to Mr. Berky (as you should, in appreciation) you will get occasional emails from him about items of special interest to Bruckner lovers.
 
#191 · (Edited)
I've tried listening to Bruckner's symphonies (4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th), but I get bored with them. I know that some find them deeply spiritual, moving, etc. Not me. They have some nice movements, but as a whole the symphonies that I've listened to didn't keep my interest all the way through.

I know I'm not the only person who feels this way, but I still wonder if I'm missing something since there are so many people who love Bruckner's symphonies. Should I consider my lack of interest in his symphonies a matter of personal taste, or keep trying and hope that I too will grow to love his symphonies?
Tough one. They are slow-moving and repetitive, but (for me) that just adds to the grandeur and majesty.

One analogy that might help is one I once heard a commentator say this: an entire Bruckner symphony is like one single movement of a Beethoven symphony broken into four parts and played back really slowly. Bruckner makes his point very, very simply and very, very gradually.

When listening, I very often imagine a climb or hike to the summit of a mountain--you don't want to go too fast or you'll miss a lot of the sublime beauty. Bruckner helps you take your time and enjoy the various vistas on the way up.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top