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
#2 ·
Hours and hours of music and not much interest if you ask me, although I did like bruckner 4 a few years ago. Haven't heard it for a while though.

Good luck getting into them though - I'm sure there are people who can appreciate them, but I just haven't got there yet! Maybe you're right, maybe it is just personal taste.
 
#3 ·
Bruckner is a little like a religion... to the newcomer, it can be unbelieveable, huge, frightening, awe-inspiring, confusing, contradictory, exhalting and all-encompassing all at the same time.

There usually comes a breaking point. Once people have heard the symphonies that you list, they are either won-over to this faith, or they are absolutely sure that it's just not for them. I don't think there's anything wrong for not liking Bruckner, because 80 minute symphonies are simply not for everybody. But people who like Bruckner usually love him in a fanatic way, and take the bad with the good as a total (long winded) package.
 
#5 ·
Kurkikohtaus,

Your comparison to a religion is interesting. It would certainly explain the level of admiration some have for Bruckner's symphonies, and the way in which they defend his supposed genius.

As for 80 minute symphonies, I do like Mahler's symphonies quite a bit, and they tend to rival Bruckner's in length. Perhaps Mahler's symphonies have somehow hindered my ability to like Bruckner's?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr Johnson
#177 ·
As for 80 minute symphonies, I do like Mahler's symphonies quite a bit, and they tend to rival Bruckner's in length. Perhaps Mahler's symphonies have somehow hindered my ability to like Bruckner's?
Hey man,i am a huge Bruckner fan.I will try to answer to your questions sincere.Look,i believe that Bruckner has influenced Mahler a lot,and Mahler from his side,inspired a lot Shostakovich.So we must put these guys in a ''chronological line'',let's say Bruckner-Mahler-Shostakovich.Now,who inspired Bruckner?Bruckner's music is almost prototype,although if you listen in some parts,you will see some influences from Beethoven and Wagner,but he was the one that mastered the symphonic type and followed his own way.In the first hear,you will find him,as you said,boring and tiring,and it is very difficult to ''catch'' the themes immediately.You have to listen again and again his symphonies to understand them.BUT apart from that,i think it is a personal taste.I mean,ok,Bruckner's symphonies,as of course Beethoven's or Mahler's,are EPIC,in an ''objective'' way,but if you want to get a ''closer touch'' ,then it is subjective,personal taste-tend for the epic!For example people who prefer Mozart or Haydn's symphonies,prefer the more melodic parts,and less the powerful,spiritual,deep emotions that exist in Bruckner/Mahler works.Now,as far as the Mahler-Bruckner comparison,i must say that although Bruckner influenced Mahler a lot,you can see wide differences in their works.I can't explain with words what exactly are the differences,but Bruckner is let's say more apocalyptic,mystic he is more revealing in his works than Mahler,he has a specific type when he writes,he begins with dark,scary agony and he finally gets into the apocalyptic-revealing theme that every listener ''awaits'' to hear after that.He is difficult,but despite the many times you have to hear him,it's also a matter of personal taste.And i agree,Celibidache is probably the man that understood Bruckner completely,and mastered the conducting in a slow motive!
 
#6 ·
Have you listend to Celibidache conducting Bruckner? To me, Bruckner is the greatest symphonist ever, and in my opinion nobody interprets it better than Celi! But, as best I can tell that is not a widely held opinion. However, those that agree with me do so in a very big way.
 
#8 ·
Have you listend to Celibidache conducting Bruckner?
No, I haven't listened to Celebidache. Thanks for the recommendation. I'll keep him in mind, but considering the price for most of his Bruckner CDs, I'll see if I can find a bargain first.
 
#7 ·
Celibidache (Munich) never actually made any commercial recordings, he was opposed to the whole concept (I happen to admire him for that).

There are however archive recordings of his performances with the Munich Philharmonic, and after his death, his wife and son released these recordings, with part of the proceeds going to a children's charity. They were of course all the rage when they were released, I bought a whole bunch of them in the mid-90's, especially Bruckner.

I find them absolutely undigestible. Celibidache had an incredible sense of pace, his tempos are so slow that they are complete and total distortions of the music. BUT, this CAN work in the concert hall for a live performance, if the conductor has a strong enough presence and musical personality, as Celibidache certainly had. It just doesn't translate onto a recording, and Celibidache knew that. That's why he never made any.
 
#9 ·
I've heard only two of his symphonies, nos. 4 and 5. I must say that:

The 4th and especially 9th symphonies scherzos are unbelievable.
The first movement of the 9th is something I expect will be heard as herald music before the end of the world.
 
#10 ·
lol ... something doesn't line up in your post, Lisztfreak...

Do you mean the 9th or the 5th? Although the 9th is certainly a monument (too bad about the missing finale), I really, really like the 5th with its (super)natural use of counterpoint, but without the intellectual stigma that usually comes with that type of writing (as in Brahms).
 
#11 ·
Well yes, I meant the no.9 - sorry! I sometimes have this little problem with numbers 5 and 9 (well what? :( they're quite alike!). So I don't know about the 5th. You did intrigue me now... I'll try to find some money for that CD.
 
#13 ·
I listened to Bruckner at a live concert ... once ... fell asleep ... I don't remember which symphony it was, but it was awfully boring ... again, roses or fertilizer for some. Just getting into Mahler ... never ventured into him before in my life - but certainly lots more interesting than Bruckner ... lol
 
#19 ·
As an update to my continuing quest to appreciate Bruckner's symphonies, I have been listening to the 7th (Karajan/VPO) and I actually like it. I notice that, while I enjoy the music, once it is finished, I can barely recall what I heard. Most of the melodies aren't memorable in the way that other composers' melodies are (Beethoven and Mozart, for example). I still have a long way to go before being converted into a Brucknerite, but I'm determined to keep trying.
 
#21 ·
Bruckner Symphonies...

Imho Bruckner's best symphonies are the 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, and 9th. One of the posters to this forum used the analogy of religion. That is a good starting point since Bruckner had a fervent Christian Weltanschauung.

Apropos Mahler, I had my Mahler *kick* almost twenty years ago. What remains of that period is his 8th symphony and *Das Lied von der Erde*. Those two works sum up Mahler for me - they are the ultimate of Mahler's oeuvre.

Giovanni
 
#22 ·
The 8th and Das Lied are surely the summit of the Mahler Mountain, but what is more interesting to me are the fact that Mahler's in earlier works, for instance the 1st symphyony or Des Knaben Wunderhorn, It's All There. The 8th and Das Lied expand "it" and take "it" to unimaginable heights (and lengths), but "it" was all there from the beginning.

An interesting parallel lies between Mahler and Bruckner in this vein. Bruckner approached his music from an almost artificial theory ("general bass" and "natural counterpoint") and that remained in its essence unchanged for his entire life. His works develop from Symphony 00 to Symphony 9, but again, as with Mahler, "It's all There", well, at least from Symphony No. 3 onwards.
 
#23 ·
Bruckner approached his music from an almost artificial theory ("general bass" and "natural counterpoint") and that remained in its essence unchanged for his entire life.
So that's the reason! Since I first heard a Bruckner symphony I thought how... yes, artificial - his music seemed to me. As though it's just - music, that is. It annoyed me at first, because I came all poetic and programmatic from Liszt's and Debussy's works, and I felt a piece of music HAS to have a story in the background. I still prefer them to, but I came to like a lot Bruckner and Brahms too, however purist and anti-Weimar-school their music seems.
 
#24 ·
Although Bruckner is as you describe, I would not call him "anti-Weimar" for the simple fact that he adored Liszt and Wagner. He certainly did not write like them, but critics in Vienna nevertheless had him labelled as a "Wagnerian", whereas Mahler was the "Brahmsian" exponent of the time.

BTW, I do not mean "artificial" in a derogatory way, nor do I mean to say that his music is derivative. To clarify, I mean that wheras much of musical theory has come from a codification of well-established practices, Bruckner's music is much more founded in a pre-conceived theory from which a practice emerged than the other way around.
 
#27 ·
Bruckner Symphonies...

Lisztfreak,

Methinks you're *cerebrating* too much, ergo, making it too difficult for yourself and others. Yes, Bruckner has a Christian faith and worldview - Bach has a Christian faith and worldview. These two giants were men of the Church - you can't extract that fact from them no matter how much you try. Yes, you could then say: I won't listen to anymore of Bach's or Bruckner's music because they were Christian.

That would be horribly churlish and might I add *bigoted* and boneheaded to take such a position. I listen to and play the music of Wagner, Richard Strauss and others who were not Christian. Wagner was a master at orchestration as was R. Strauss. My point being: Open up your mind - don't close it down. Even Liszt became Christian in his later years. He was quite the gigolo in the fire of his youth, bedding down the prettiest ladies. So did St. Augustine of Hippo.

Humbly submitted,

Giovanni
 
#34 ·
Thanks for teeing that one up for me, Lisztfreak, I love any chance I can get to explain this type of thing.

Originally, in 1914-15, Sibelius conceived the 5th in 4 separate movements and the premiere was actually given that way. After the premiere he withdrew the piece and produced 2 more versions. I don't think the second version was ever performed, and the 3rd version from 1918-19 is the one we know today.

In the original version, which has actually been recorded by Osmo Vanska and the Lahti Symphony Orchestra, the second movement is a self-contained scherzo. In the final version, the first and second mvmts of the original are melded together structurally and thematically. The sonata recap serves as a transition to the scherzo, and the scherzo proper begins with the dotted-rhythm trumpet solo. The whole scherzo then proceeds as a giant 4 or 5 minute accelerando. The final bars of the movement provide special excitement for my simple mind, and the last bar, as if ending on an upbeat, is a nice touch.
 
#36 ·
In the final version, the first and second mvmts of the original are melded together structurally and thematically. The sonata recap serves as a transition to the scherzo, and the scherzo proper begins with the dotted-rhythm trumpet solo. The whole scherzo then proceeds as a giant 4 or 5 minute accelerando. The final bars of the movement provide special excitement for my simple mind, and the last bar, as if ending on an upbeat, is a nice touch.
Interesting. Does this explain why the version of Sibelius' 5th that I have by Bernstein/NYPO (found here) actually has the first movement separated into two tracks? The first track (Tempo molto moderato - Largamente) is 8:22 long and the second track (Allegro moderato - Presto) is 4:52 long. The other versions I have of the 5th only have three tracks for the three movements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr Johnson
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