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
#75 ·
I can now firmly state that Bruckner is my 2nd favorite "symphony" composer, after Beethoven. That's cause I finally stopped questioning myself "Do I really like Bruckner that much?" After listening to Symphony No. 8 again tonight, the answer was emphatically "Yes!" There is just something in his symphonies that move me greatly. I cannot wait for the day my symphony orchestra puts on a Bruckner concert....it will have to wait until at least the 2008/2009 season. :(

Opus67, not to worry, Brahms and Mozart are still my # 2 and # 3 overall favorite composers :)
 
#76 ·
Bruckner is one of my top four favorite composers; Beethoven, Mahler and Sibelius being the other three. The ranking of these four varies from day to day. :p
 
#79 ·
A little question.

My recording of Bruckner's 7th does not have the (in)famous cymbals clash in the Adagio. It's the question of different versions again, is it not?
(parenthetical edit mine)

[At work, away from references/off the top of my head]- I believe that the cymbals are an example of one of those "Schalkisms" that came from one of those bastardized versions of Bruckner by Schalk or Lowe (or both). I have 3 recordings of 7, and none of them contain this interpolation.

The consensus musical view is that we can count their absence and/or lack of circulation as our good fortune.
 
#80 · (Edited)
There is not a doubt in my mind that Bruckner's music is an acquired taste. It took me almost 3 years to like Bruckner (from the hearing the 4th for the first time to finally "converted" by Jochum's 5th with RCO). Why do so many people find his music so difficult at the beginning? here are my thoughts:

1) Length His symphonies are on average very long. If you are not a patient listener (strongly correlated to how long you have been listening to classical music as a whole) you'll likely to find his music "boring", and probably stop listen to it after a few minutes into the work. But, what you are missing is his meticulous construction of his symphonies. Bruckner doesn't rely on famous melodies (not saying there aren't famous melodies in his works). He constructs his music base on motives. A strong theme + Lyrical theme + chorale theme. He repeats, and recycles these motivic material throughout his symphonies. So, if you are a poor listener, you probably will not hear the traces of these motives in the recapitulation.

2) He makes you wait for it! Beethoven's music, very fiery, and romantic. Almost instantaneously satisfies you. Dvorak's music, with its wonderful melodies, lush harmonies... there is no way for anyone to NOT whistle some melodies after hearing his music. Bruckner, on the other hand, make you wait. His cadences, his codas are probably the greatest in all of symphonic repertoire. He slowly builds his music, through dark and sinister territories and finally to light. This is exemplified in the final movement of his 9th symphony (reference to the SMCP completion, which were used by Wildner and Eichhorn), the entire last movement were full of these dark, sinister little motives. It is sometimes very unpleasant to listen to, for instance, the dissonances. But, after all that "suffering", in the coda, he rewards you with the "light" you've been seeking all along. This is in many ways, the most profound music making in the history of Western music.

3) Differences in Qualities of The Scores When you talk about Beethoven's 5th, there is only ONE. Regardless of which conductor/orchestra you listen to, regardless of their own artistic interpretations, they are still using the same exact notes that Beethoven wrote. But for Bruckner, most of his symphonies had several versions. Some was edited by himself, which improved the music overall(think about 4th and 8th); some however, weren't. The ignorant fools who "revised" his works should burn in hell for that! (yes, i am talking to you, Ferdinand Lowe) Herr. Lowe's crowning achievements in messing up Bruckner's music is demonstrated in Hans Knuppertbusch's recording of the 9th symphony. Where the brilliant mysterious/unconventional pizzicati in the scherzo was doubled up by woodwinds instead.... This is just ONE examples of such appalling acts of vandalism. So, naturally, conductors are given the task to not only playing the music, but to actually decide on which version they use. Sometimes, this can lead to great confusion, and difference in the quality of the performances.

4) A Lack of Interest You must all realize that, there hasn't always been a wealth of recordings available like today. Today, we are kind of experiencing a "Bruckner Revival", more and more people are beginning to explore his music. But, in the old days, his music was largely ignored. The reasons behind this is complex; a)it had something to do with the difficulties in performing Bruckner's works. Orchestras in the old times were not nearly as sophisticated as the orchestras we have today. And, Bruckner's music can be a pain to play. b) When the Nazis were gaining power in Germany, Hitler's propaganda man Goebbels introduced to Hitler Bruckner's music, and Hitler, with his perverted logic, included Bruckner's music in his mass propaganda. So, naturally, after WWII, there is this very bad "guilty by association" going on, people assumed fallaciously, that Bruckner's music is "Nazi" music.

5) Conductors and Orchestras No where is this more evident, in Bruckner's recordings. Because of the sheer complexities of his works, Better conductor/Orchestra= Better music. A symphony #3 by Joe Nobody can sound dull and boring. A symphony #3 by Georg Tintner can sound absolutely astounding.

6) Gaining Access This is never that BIG of a problem, since today's technologies really permitted us listeners to things that is totally unimaginable 20 years ago. Nevertheless, I should say that if someone is incapable of finding Bruckner's music, he/she should always pay a visit to his/her local library(how i got started). Or, go to Amazon, and simply typing up "Bruckner", and a wealth of recordings will appear... Even for people, who'd rather not spend any money on Bruckner's music, there are still many opportunities to hear his music. There are websites out there that can let you hear Bruckner's symphonies for FREE (legally), albeit for a limited quantity or time. Sites, such as Rhapsody.com or Naxosmusiclibrary.com have extensive Bruckner Collections, and it doesn't take more than a couple of minutes to access them, for no charge whatsoever.

There you go, my explanation and some suggestion to the struggling music listeners out there. I only have one thing to say now, the ability to listen and appreciate slow music, (in my experience) strongly correlate with my own levels of maturity. So, be patient, and you'll find Joy in Bruckner.
 
#84 ·
There is not a doubt in my mind that Bruckner's music is an acquired taste.

the ability to listen and appreciate slow music, (in my experience) strongly correlate with my own levels of maturity. So, be patient, and you'll find Joy in Bruckner.
Probably the same could be said with Mahler. The symphonies of his that I seem to like are the ones without vocals. Symphony No. 1 and 5 are my favorites.

Maybe I should start a "Mahler symphonies......What am I missing?" thread. :) Then, perhaps similarly to Keemun, I will eventually turn into a Mahler fan as Keemun did with Bruckner. :)
 
#88 ·
Hi,
May be I will tell you what is it with Bruckner's symphonies;
first the themes are very long making them uneasy to comprehend or memorize then the developments are extensive and one can easily get lost in understanding what is happening...so the final result if you want to listen to music that you will be able to remember and sing in your car or shower, those symphonies are not for this. However if you enjoy listening to music for its emotional impact then I can assure you these symphonies carry a lot of emotional punch. I think they need a bit of training to be able to listen to them....go for Brahms first. On the other hand someone was saying Mahler is easier to listen to, I do think yes he is...practically he is melodramatic and very melodic virtues that makes him ear catching and close to the heart, however his genius is better shown when he becomes more serious.
 
#89 ·
Bruckner was a radical in a very classical way. I think that's his problem. People couldn't understand his use of the massive orchestra but music based on very "classical" inspirations. Of course, he used new techniques, but it is not difficult for one to realize traits of Bach, and Schubert in his music.

This leads to an interesting question: Should Bruckner's style be classified as a "Late Romantic" or just an extension of early romanticism?
 
#91 ·
of the 30 or so different versions of 7th that i have heard. The most outstanding one has to be Karajan's last recording with WP. Another notable performance is from Schuricht's Hague recording. The most recent 7th i have heard is Knuppertsbusch's recording with WP, which is good, but nothing extraordinary.
 
#95 ·
Has someone ever classified this Bruckner's motif as something special, something important? I've noticed it bursts out several times in both 7th and 8th symphonies - at least there.

View attachment 156

(It's not accurate since I entered it in my composing programme with the help of my (non-existent) absolute pitch. But you'll recognise it...)
 
#96 ·
Hi there! New boy to the forum here!!!

I can sympathise with the Bruckner problem. It's age old. Infact look at the trouble he, himself had getting accepted by the public, and fellow musicians at the time. He just completely did his own thing. Adopted his own completely different style. Which, might I add was a very brave thing to do at the time. Being so many warring musical factions around at the time.
My idea of Bruckner is a kind of conversion experience for a certain few. Much, might I add, like a faith or religion. But I'm not saying that you have belong to this or that faith to appreciate Bruckner. But because he was so singular and individual, I think you have to abandon usual listening practices you would apply to most other composers. And adopt a completely different mindset with Bruckner. And this is what makes him so fascinating.
Bruckner knew exactly what he wanted. Infact he said "I can write in other ways but I mustn't". He felt that this was some kind of calling to compose in the way he did.
Don't be "entertained" by Bruckners music in the way that we understand entertainment. Because you will be disappointed.
They are a reflection of his own very deep Christian faith. They are very moving and, in essence very simple. They lack the intellectual and virtuoso excellence of say Beethoven, Tchaikovsky or Mahler.
If you want a less challenging Bruckner experience, try the church music first...

Regards,

David
 
#98 ·
I can't tell you at which point exactly it appears, since I don't have the score. But it's quite insisting and well audible at the very ends of the first and last mvts of the 7th symphony and in the slow movement of the 8th.
 
#101 ·
Ha ha! at last I can agree with "Kurkikohtaus" what more do we need? I am a great admirer of Bruckner, having started with the 4th, I listen more often to the 8th & the 9th.
One could say he's a classic in a great line of Romantic composers,the best passages are of noble fervour, approaching sublimity at times.
 
#102 ·
19th century master

The music that Bruckner wrote descended from the lineage of German composers (Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, and Brahms-I know they were conterporaries) and must have influenced Mahler whose music at least to some degree descended from Bruckner. Music lovers of symphonies could appreciate the chords, melodies, and harmonics of Bruckner. He was repeatative but I feel that he wrote great music. Right now I have Mahler 1st on my radio.
 
#104 ·
@ Dr. Sherm: as you can see, there are those who are not necessarily willing to acknowledge that a cease-fire has been declared on this battleground.;)

@ Gustav: I think the point was that both Brahms and Bruckner owe something to Bruckner's Austrian predecessor, Schubert, as well as Brahms's German predecessor, Beethoven.
 
#107 ·
@ Dr. Sherm: as you can see, there are those who
@ Gustav: I think the point was that both Brahms and Bruckner owe something to Bruckner's Austrian predecessor, Schubert, as well as Brahms's German predecessor, Beethoven.
You might be right, but it always shocks me whenever i see Bruckner and Brahms together, i have been somewhat traumatized after upon seeing this:

 
#105 ·
Bruckner

Two things to remember about Anton Bruckner: 1) he was an organist which, I believe, explains his rich orchestration and 2) he was very religious. Spirituality was as natural to Bruckner as it was to the German Romantic painter, David Caspar Friedrich.

One doesn't have to be particularly religious to enjoy Bruckner's music or Friederich's paintings. But devotion to the Almighty exists in all of their works.

Bruckner is difficult to listen to. But you don't have to go for an entire symphony. Choose a single movement from one of the symphonies, and listen to it alone for a while.

Kreutzer
 
#106 ·
i agree, you could listen to the Scherzo in most of this works, and find them quite interesting. But, isn't that a stupid/foolish/ignorant thing to do? Bruckner didn't intend to write just one movement, did he? And the people who are familiar with his music knows that his themes are closely related and often re-appears somewhere else in the symphony, much in the tradition of Beethoven.
So, take the 8th for instance, let's say you just want to listen to the scherzo, because it's the shortest part of the symphony (for people who have the attention span of a teenager, the other movements are usually not very "interesting", too long). It's a nice scherzo, but what does it mean? German Michael? still makes no sense, it really doesn't, especially with the not so impressive opening theme, and the constant repetition. Well, you would've understood this movement better, had you kept on listening to the adagio and Finale, where you notice that the opening theme in the scherzo is in fact the same exact thing in the next two movements, and it shows up at the glorious coda too, of course, you wouldn't know this little insight if you skipped tracks and just listen to the "easier" movement.
If you are one of those people with short attention spans, or just can't sit through a rather long symphony, then Bruckner is not for you, you should instead try some of Strauss II's charming polkas (assuming that the waltzes are too long and tedious).
 
#109 · (Edited)
Well...if this is the sort of thing I can expect here, you can have it.
Please... have a look around, and I think that you'll agree with me that this sort of disagreeable sarcasm is actually pretty uncommon around these parts.

Pace RicardoTheTexan, I think that the most common entreé into Wagner is through the bleeding chunks (i.e.: prominent opera excerpts and orchestral passages), followed by progressively greater exposures, until the point in time when one is willing to take on a complete opera. In the first half of the previous century, Mahler was ofttimes programmed by movement rather than by complete symphony. I'd never thought to approach Bruckner that way, but I wouldn't think to sneer at the idea.

Gustav... I know that you have it in you to avoid becoming to Bruckner what Rod Corkin is to Handel.:D Try to play nice.:)
 
#110 ·
And really, there truly is no "right" way to listen to music. Clearly Bruckner, Mahler, and Wagner intended their symphonies/operas to be heard as whole units, but I'm sure they also wanted people to enjoy listening to their music. So, if someone wants to listen to just Bruckner's Scherzos, and really loves them, then all the more power to them. Listen how you want to listen.
 
#113 ·
People people ... lets get back ON Topic here. However one chooses to listen to music is his/her own choice. If someone is trying to become acquainted with a particular composers music and feels that they can only do that one movement at a time, they need not be chastised for that ... at least they are giving it a try, which is far greater than not listening at all to a particular composer.

When replying to another's post, kindly state your positions or opinion on the matter - it is not polite to riducule another's opinion and only leads to bad feelings.
 
#115 ·
People people ... lets get back ON Topic here. However one chooses to listen to music is his/her own choice. If someone is trying to become acquainted with a particular composers music and feels that they can only do that one movement at a time, they need not be chastised for that.
Of course not, if someONE is doing that for him/herself, but if someone is trying to convince other "beginners" to do the same, then it's not okay. Because this is a terrible advice that doesn't work for Bruckner's music, and really doesn't work for classical music in general

People people ... lets get back ON Topic here. However one at least they are giving it a try, which is far greater than not listening at all to a particular composer.
well, it's good to try, isn't it? Sometimes you see some middle school students coming up to you say that they want to learn calculus, but, they don't even know anything about Functions and Algebra... Some beginners are like that too, they think that they can just "listen" to some music, but they don't realize they have to put up a lot of efforts and plus have a lot of listening experience in order to appreciate certain kinds of music. In other words, they are not ready. Why make a middle schooler take Calculus when he is not ready? why make a beginner listen to Bruckner? when he/she should be better acquainted with his predecessors: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc... The outcome will only be one, he/she doesn't understands it, and put the music aside, too much is going on, the little mind can't handle it, "what does this mean?" "why is that?" etc....
 
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