Greatest Austro-Germanic composer of High-Late Romanticism?

[Jack Kelso]

Bruckner equal to Brahms as a symphonist? Brahms, who appreciated Wagner ("Do you think I am such a clod as not to realize that Meistersinger is a mastepiece?") though Bruckner lauguable. The ability to get from the beginning to the end in great forms does not equate to genius.

Brahms' scathing article on Bruckner caused him many a headache later in life, which is no doubt why he never wrote another. Anyone today who can actually believe Brahms' article was anywhere near the truth must be a "Super-Brahmsian". Recognizing Wagner back then was considerably easier than coming to terms with Bruckner. Brahms' might have even felt threatened.

Yes, John.....Bruckner's symphonies show a different type genius than do Brahms'---just as do the symphonies of Mahler (I rate Bruckner higher than Mahler since I feel his spiritual level is considerably higher).

Were great conductors like Bruno Walter, Otto Klemperer, Hans Rosbaud,
Herbert von Karajan, Georg Solti and dozens of contemporary lovers of Bruckner's works simply tone-deaf.....?!

GOOD LISTENING!

Jack

[Opus132]

In terms of form, Bruckner pretty much the wrote the same symphony over and over with different content. I can understand why somebody like Brahms didn't like them very much. Also, Bruckner was a bit of a goof ball and people were naturally inclined to be circumspect around him.

BTW, it must be said that they did make up a truce after personally meeting each other. I think it was then Brahms realized what type of man he was dealing with, and pretty much left Bruckner alone ever since...

[jbuck919]

Bruckner equal to Brahms as a symphonist? Brahms, who appreciated Wagner ("Do you think I am such a clod as not to realize that Meistersinger is a mastepiece?") though Bruckner lauguable. The ability to get from the beginning to the end in great forms does not equate to genius.

Brahms' scathing article on Bruckner caused him many a headache later in life, which is no doubt why he never wrote another. Anyone today who can actually believe Brahms' article was anywhere near the truth must be a "Super-Brahmsian". Recognizing Wagner back then was considerably easier than coming to terms with Bruckner. Brahms' might have even felt threatened.

Yes, John.....Bruckner's symphonies show a different type genius than do Brahms'---just as do the symphonies of Mahler (I rate Bruckner higher than Mahler since I feel his spiritual level is considerably higher).

Were great conductors like Bruno Walter, Otto Klemperer, Hans Rosbaud,
Herbert von Karajan, Georg Solti and dozens of contemporary lovers of Bruckner's works simply tone-deaf.....?!

GOOD LISTENING!

Jack

There is a huge element of wishful thinking in much our listening. We want the universe to be filled with great music, and resist any constraint on that. The truth of the matter is quite different. For the sake of not having to listen over and over again to, say, the four symphonies of Brahms, we invent fictions like Bruckner and Mahler and pleasantly imagine them to be great composers.

[val]

jbuck919

Bruckner equal to Brahms as a symphonist? Brahms, who appreciated Wagner ("Do you think I am such a clod as not to realize that Meistersinger is a mastepiece?") though Bruckner lauguable.

To me, they are not equal. Bruckner is very superior. I invite you to listen the 8th Symphony. If you don't have the pacience for long works, listen only the Adagio. I think it will be enough.
And the stupid things that Brahms said about Bruckner are only matched by the stupid things Bruckner said about Brahms ("How can a musician be so deprived of creativity and originality?").

[moldyoldie]

I'm hardly qualified to determine "the greatest"; besides, I listen and evaluate more in terms of "good and bad" versus "the best and the rest".

Of those on the list, my favorite is Bruckner....subject to change without notice. (Lucky Anton. Timing's everything.)

[Jack Kelso]

Were great conductors like Bruno Walter, Otto Klemperer, Hans Rosbaud,
Herbert von Karajan, Georg Solti and dozens of contemporary lovers of Bruckner's works simply tone-deaf.....?!

GOOD LISTENING!

Jack

There is a huge element of wishful thinking in much our listening. We want the universe to be filled with great music, and resist any constraint on that. The truth of the matter is quite different. For the sake of not having to listen over and over again to, say, the four symphonies of Brahms, we invent fictions like Bruckner and Mahler and pleasantly imagine them to be great composers.[/quote]

Ach, John. Is this your humor again?! Maybe that is what happens between you and Bach cantatas...?

What you say reminds me of my first college music professor, William Klein---he was one of those "Super-Brahmsians" who love to barricade themselves in their own small turret of righteousness while passionately protecting their Master from any onslaughts of comparisons with others that might possibly uncover even the slightest weakness in any of his compositions.

I LOVE the Brahms symphonies (just as much as Beethoven's or Schumann's), but would anyone agree that Klemperer, Walter, Furtwängler et al "deceived" their own minds by pretending that Bruckner was a great composer if he were not---and to perform him with such understanding and love...!? Bruckner and Mahler are not Raff.

And those marvelous Brucknerian scherzi! While Mendelssohn's are "dances with fairies", Bruckner's are "festive dances among titans" (not my quotes).

Brahms' 3rd mvts are pleasant interludes to lead us into a great finale; they were good enough for Brahms---and they should be good enough for us, too.

Jack

[Jack Kelso]

jbuck919

Bruckner equal to Brahms as a symphonist? Brahms, who appreciated Wagner ("Do you think I am such a clod as not to realize that Meistersinger is a mastepiece?") though Bruckner lauguable.

To me, they are not equal. Bruckner is very superior. I invite you to listen the 8th Symphony. If you don't have the pacience for long works, listen only the Adagio. I think it will be enough.
And the stupid things that Brahms said about Bruckner are only matched by the stupid things Bruckner said about Brahms ("How can a musician be so deprived of creativity and originality?").

You're right, Val. But Tschaikowsky, Mahler, Wolf and Milhaud also thought that of Brahms....

Hmm---I GUARANTEE everyone that in loving Brahms' symphonies, Violin Concerto, "Academische Fest-Ouvertüre", etc., etc. that I am NOT, I repeat NOT suffering from a delusion.....!!

Jack

[paulb]

In terms of form, Bruckner pretty much the wrote the same symphony over and over with different content. I can understand why somebody like Brahms didn't like them very much. Also, Bruckner was a bit of a goof ball and people were naturally inclined to be circumspect around him.

BTW, it must be said that they did make up a truce after personally meeting each other. I think it was then Brahms realized what type of man he was dealing with, and pretty much left Bruckner alone ever since...

Very good post
So succint

[paulb]

Bruckner equal to Brahms as a symphonist? Brahms, who appreciated Wagner ("Do you think I am such a clod as not to realize that Meistersinger is a mastepiece?") though Bruckner lauguable. The ability to get from the beginning to the end in great forms does not equate to genius.

Brahms' scathing article on Bruckner caused him many a headache later in life, which is no doubt why he never wrote another. Anyone today who can actually believe Brahms' article was anywhere near the truth must be a "Super-Brahmsian". Recognizing Wagner back then was considerably easier than coming to terms with Bruckner. Brahms' might have even felt threatened.

Yes, John.....Bruckner's symphonies show a different type genius than do Brahms'---just as do the symphonies of Mahler (I rate Bruckner higher than Mahler since I feel his spiritual level is considerably higher).

Were great conductors like Bruno Walter, Otto Klemperer, Hans Rosbaud,
Herbert von Karajan, Georg Solti and dozens of contemporary lovers of Bruckner's works simply tone-deaf.....?!

GOOD LISTENING!

Jack

There is a huge element of wishful thinking in much our listening. We want the universe to be filled with great music, and resist any constraint on that. The truth of the matter is quite different. For the sake of not having to listen over and over again to, say, the four symphonies of Brahms, we invent fictions like Bruckner and Mahler and pleasantly imagine them to be great composers.

John, Very good post,
Wow, the truth is finnaly comming out. I love when folks just speak their minds with no personal attacks involved.

[Brahms]

To me, they are not equal. Bruckner is very superior.

I agree that Bruckner 8 and 9 are quite extraordinary........ But to claim that "Bruckner is very superior" to Brahms is utter nonsense.

[paulb]

jbuck919

Bruckner equal to Brahms as a symphonist? Brahms, who appreciated Wagner ("Do you think I am such a clod as not to realize that Meistersinger is a mastepiece?") though Bruckner lauguable.

To me, they are not equal. Bruckner is very superior. I invite you to listen the 8th Symphony. If you don't have the pacience for long works, listen only the Adagio. I think it will be enough.
And the stupid things that Brahms said about Bruckner are only matched by the stupid things Bruckner said about Brahms ("How can a musician be so deprived of creativity and originality?").

Oh man you really have the post of the year here. Congrats! You win the prize, how bout it Corlyss, can Val get the prize now or wait til yr end ceremony?

"just listen to the adagio"....now this is what i hear from Malerians, 'oh i love sym 5, but only movements X", "of I love Mahler's sym 7 but only movement Y".
Here with Bruckner as well, "I admit if you don't have the patience...."...for overly long works.....

Also very funny your comments on how one can only imagine the things each composer throught about one another...that Bruckner line is a riot.
Good going Val, for putting the issue in balance.

[karlhenning]

jbuck919

Bruckner equal to Brahms as a symphonist? Brahms, who appreciated Wagner ("Do you think I am such a clod as not to realize that Meistersinger is a mastepiece?") though Bruckner lauguable.

To me, they are not equal. Bruckner is very superior. I invite you to listen the 8th Symphony. If you don't have the pacience for long works, listen only the Adagio. I think it will be enough.

If it's any consolation, John would say much the same about Tchaikovsky (viz., that Brahms is a Divine Musical Great, and why are we even mentioning Pyotr Ilyich in the same sentence?)

And the stupid things that Brahms said about Bruckner are only matched by the stupid things Bruckner said about Brahms ("How can a musician be so deprived of creativity and originality?").

Both Brahms and Tchaikovsky handily illustrate the fact that a great composer produces musical art, but not musical opinion, to last through the ages.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Jack Kelso]

Bruckner equal to Brahms as a symphonist? Brahms, who appreciated Wagner ("Do you think I am such a clod as not to realize that Meistersinger is a mastepiece?") though Bruckner lauguable. The ability to get from the beginning to the end in great forms does not equate to genius.

There is a huge element of wishful thinking in much our listening. We want the universe to be filled with great music, and resist any constraint on that. The truth of the matter is quite different. For the sake of not having to listen over and over again to, say, the four symphonies of Brahms, we invent fictions like Bruckner and Mahler and pleasantly imagine them to be great composers.

John, Very good post,
Wow, the truth is finnaly comming out. I love when folks just speak their minds with no personal attacks involved.

Hey, Paul---I enjoyed reading your agreement with John.

You two seem to think alike in many ways....

Jack

[paulb]

but would anyone agree that Klemperer, Walter, Furtwängler et al "deceived" their own minds by pretending that Bruckner was a great composer if he were not---and to perform him with such

Jack

Jack i happen to catch the tape interview of Bruno Walter shortly before he passed.
When the interview came to Bruckner and Mahler, I did not sense any deep conviction in Walter's feelings of love toward either compsoers music.
I found what Walter had to say rather like the music, ....Walter made a lot of talk, but I could not make much meaning of what he was saying. Walter was actually struggling for words and seemed like he wanted to change the subject. Walter recorded Bruckner and Mahler because being german himself, he was expected to record these composers, as they were "hot items" back in the 60's.
I wish the interviewer had asked Bruno why he did not record much contemporary music, say like.... Dimitri Shostakovich
Goes for Furtwangler too, keeping the geramn composers alive, unforgotten with his Bruckner.
btw He did not record Mahler . I wonder why nor even perform Mahler, EVER!

[paulb]

Hey, Paul---I enjoyed reading your agreement with John.

You two seem to think alike in many ways....

Jack

Jack I'll have to admit, pretty good shot, got both John and me at one throw, "2 birds with one stone" or would I guess you're thinking "2 dumbasses with one bullet".

[karlhenning]

btw He did not record Mahler . I wonder why :roll: nor even perform Mahler, EVER!

I wonder why so many conductors today do not even perform Schnittke or Pettersson, EVER! :-)

Yes, I wonder why.

Cheers,
~Karl

[paulb]

Hey, Paul---I enjoyed reading your agreement with John.

You two seem to think alike in many ways....

Jack

Hey Jack, thats a pretty good shot...the ol "2 birds/one stone' deal.
But I guess you might like to express it as '2 dumbasses with one shot"

[karlhenning]

Jack I'll have to admit, pretty good shot, got both John and me at one throw, "2 birds with one stone" or would I guess you're thinking "2 dumbasses with one bullet".

No, Paul, I am certain that Jack thinks only charitable thoughts of you.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Jack Kelso]

'Guess I didn't see it coming---this thread has turned into a battle royale between Brahmsians and those who also can enjoy Bruckner on the same level.

Obviously, Val and I (and others!) hear things in Bruckner that equal or go beyond Brahms, but (in my case) I also hear things in Brahms that he does finer than Bruckner. It's what makes you happy that determines it all.

I can joyfully admit: I adore the symphonies of Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Bruckner, Brahms, Franck, the late ones of Dvorak and Tschaikowsky, Mahler (basically 1-6, occasionally the others) and then right smack dab into the 20th century. And there are wonderful things in the symphonic ouvre of the so-called "lesser Germanic lights" of the Romantic (Volkmann, Gade, Goldmark, Gernsheim, Draeseke, Bruch, Raff, etc).

The more music one can enjoy, the more open one is to his/her own favorites.

Jack

[karlhenning]

I can joyfully admit: I adore the symphonies of Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Bruckner, Brahms, Franck, the late ones of Dvorak and Tschaikowsky, Mahler (basically 1-6, occasionally the others) and then right smack dab into the 20th century. And there are wonderful things in the symphonic ouvre of the so-called "lesser Germanic lights" of the Romantic (Volkmann, Gade, Goldmark, Gernsheim, Draeseke, Bruch, Raff, etc).

The more music one can enjoy, the more open one is to his/her own favorites.

And yet, Jack, in your description of your musical pleasure, I do not see anything like John's strawmannish "we want all music to be great."

Strange :-)

Cheers,
~Karl

[Jack Kelso]

I can joyfully admit: I adore the symphonies of Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Bruckner, Brahms, Franck, the late ones of Dvorak and Tschaikowsky, Mahler (basically 1-6, occasionally the others) and then right smack dab into the 20th century. And there are wonderful things in the symphonic ouvre of the so-called "lesser Germanic lights" of the Romantic (Volkmann, Gade, Goldmark, Gernsheim, Draeseke, Bruch, Raff, etc).

The more music one can enjoy, the more open one is to his/her own favorites.

And yet, Jack, in your description of your musical pleasure, I do not see anything like John's strawmannish "we want all music to be great."

Strange

Cheers,
~Karl

Karl, it's just that I don't demand of myself to listen ONLY to recognized "greats".

There is much out there which is perhaps only "talent" to some folks(Gernsheim? Bruch?), but if I didn't give it a chance---how would I know for myself? I just can't be a snob about it.

Some 50 years ago Bruckner and Mahler didn't enjoy anywhere near the status they have now. "My time will come!" said Mahler. And it did. That could happen again to others.

Tschüß--- and Prost---to all the composers who have worked so hard to give us musical pleasure.

Jack

[karlhenning]

Karl, it's just that I don't demand of myself to listen ONLY to recognized "greats".

Plain, sturdy sense, Jack!

Cheers,
~Karl

[jbuck919]

(Gernsheim? Bruch?),

Gernsheim? I'm sure I'd find him delightful too if I knew who the hell he was.

[Corlyss_D]

Oh man you really have the post of the year here. Congrats! You win the prize, how bout it Corlyss, can Val get the prize now or wait til yr end ceremony?

Thank you for your help, Paul. However, there is no award for post of the year, only post of the day, and the sole criterion for that award is the post has to make me laugh . . . a lot. Nothing about Bruckner makes me laugh, nothing. I'm sure Val's insight, whatever it was, is brilliant, so no offense to Val.

[Länzchen]

There is a huge element of wishful thinking in much our listening. We want the universe to be filled with great music, and resist any constraint on that. The truth of the matter is quite different. For the sake of not having to listen over and over again to, say, the four symphonies of Brahms, we invent fictions like Bruckner and Mahler and pleasantly imagine them to be great composers.

This certainly does exist. In fact, it is related to the desire to believe *so highly* in the divinity of certain creators, that as a consequence nothing else is seen to be worthy of consideration. In this state it is nessacery to be predisposed to being unaffected by the work of other creators, so that the individual can feel that the emotion which they have invested in their deity is fitting and justified.

I've gone between extremes and am now happy being open and not devout

[Brendan]

but would anyone agree that Klemperer, Walter, Furtwängler et al "deceived" their own minds by pretending that Bruckner was a great composer if he were not---and to perform him with such

Jack

Jack i happen to catch the tape interview of Bruno Walter shortly before he passed.
When the interview came to Bruckner and Mahler, I did not sense any deep conviction in Walter's feelings of love toward either compsoers music.
I found what Walter had to say rather like the music, ....Walter made a lot of talk, but I could not make much meaning of what he was saying. Walter was actually struggling for words and seemed like he wanted to change the subject. Walter recorded Bruckner and Mahler because being german himself, he was expected to record these composers, as they were "hot items" back in the 60's.
I wish the interviewer had asked Bruno why he did not record much contemporary music, say like.... Dimitri Shostakovich
Goes for Furtwangler too, keeping the geramn composers alive, unforgotten with his Bruckner.
btw He did not record Mahler . I wonder why nor even perform Mahler, EVER!

Furtwangler recorded fahrenden Gesselen with Fischer-Dieskau (http://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Lieder-Wun ... F8&s=music) and said that beyond a particular mvt of the 1st sym he could not go. Sorry, cannot recall the quote in full.

From http://www.musicweb.uk.net/classRev/200 ... er_DFD.htm

You will sometimes hear it said that Furtwängler never touched Mahler's music. When this recording is pointed out the reply is that this is the exception that proves the rule. In fact, whilst Furtwängler could not be called a Mahlerian in the same way as some of his contemporaries, it is the case that he performed Mahler's music during his career. Not often and not much, but perform it he did. Between 1916 and 1932 he gave Symphonies 1, 2, 3 and 4, as well as Kindertotenlieder and Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen. No Mahler during the Nazi era, of course, but after the war more performances of the song cycles. Had he not stayed in Nazi Germany and had he lived longer, maybe Furtwängler would have performed more Mahler. Maybe not. After attending a performance of Mahler's Fifth by the young Rafael Kubelik Furtwängler went backstage to congratulate his young colleague. "But is it really worth all the effort?" he asked.


Walter was a prodigy of Mahler and learned much from him. That he could not articulate his feelings for Mahler does not mean he had none of any worth or pofundity. His feeling for Mahler is highly prized due to his association with the composer, if not for the recordings themselves. Many think his a 'magic touch' with Mahler.

[Lance]

Interesting here, as I look on 10/31/07 at 12:40 a.m., that Brahms gets 60% and Mahler 16%. I would have probably voted the same way, as I did for Brahms in the first place. The concensus of the music-loving public, at least on CMG, seems to be widely in favour of Brahms.

[Jack Kelso]

(Gernsheim? Bruch?),

Gernsheim? I'm sure I'd find him delightful too if I knew who the hell he was.

Friedrich Gernsheim was born in 1839 of Jewish parentage in Worms. He was a good friend of Brahms, also wrote four very fine symphonies and can be found on the Web over GOOGLE.

Jack

[jbuck919]

(Gernsheim? Bruch?),

Gernsheim? I'm sure I'd find him delightful too if I knew who the hell he was.

Friedrich Gernsheim was born in 1839 of Jewish parentage in Worms. He was a good friend of Brahms, also wrote four very fine symphonies and can be found on the Web over GOOGLE.

Jack

Thanks. I thought someone was pulling my leg with a conflation of Bernstein and my well-known bete noir Gershwin. No c between the s and the h. Guess it's pronunced Gerns-heim, eh?

[Jack Kelso]

but would anyone agree that Klemperer, Walter, Furtwängler et al "deceived" their own minds by pretending that Bruckner was a great composer if he were not---and to perform him with such

Jack

Jack i happen to catch the tape interview of Bruno Walter shortly before he passed.
When the interview came to Bruckner and Mahler, I did not sense any deep conviction in Walter's feelings of love toward either compsoers music.
I found what Walter had to say rather like the music, ....Walter made a lot of talk, but I could not make much meaning of what he was saying. Walter was actually struggling for words and seemed like he wanted to change the subject. Walter recorded Bruckner and Mahler because being german himself, he was expected to record these composers, as they were "hot items" back in the 60's.
I wish the interviewer had asked Bruno why he did not record much contemporary music, say like.... Dimitri Shostakovich
Goes for Furtwangler too, keeping the geramn composers alive, unforgotten with his Bruckner.
btw He did not record Mahler . I wonder why nor even perform Mahler, EVER!

Furtwangler recorded fahrenden Gesselen with Fischer-Dieskau (http://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Lieder-Wun ... F8&s=music) and said that beyond a particular mvt of the 1st sym he could not go. Sorry, cannot recall the quote in full.

From http://www.musicweb.uk.net/classRev/200 ... er_DFD.htm

You will sometimes hear it said that Furtwängler never touched Mahler's music. When this recording is pointed out the reply is that this is the exception that proves the rule. In fact, whilst Furtwängler could not be called a Mahlerian in the same way as some of his contemporaries, it is the case that he performed Mahler's music during his career. Not often and not much, but perform it he did. Between 1916 and 1932 he gave Symphonies 1, 2, 3 and 4, as well as Kindertotenlieder and Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen. No Mahler during the Nazi era, of course, but after the war more performances of the song cycles. Had he not stayed in Nazi Germany and had he lived longer, maybe Furtwängler would have performed more Mahler. Maybe not. After attending a performance of Mahler's Fifth by the young Rafael Kubelik Furtwängler went backstage to congratulate his young colleague. "But is it really worth all the effort?" he asked.


Walter was a prodigy of Mahler and learned much from him. That he could not articulate his feelings for Mahler does not mean he had none of any worth or pofundity. His feeling for Mahler is highly prized due to his association with the composer, if not for the recordings themselves. Many think his a 'magic touch' with Mahler.

So Furtwängler didn't like Mahler..? Okay, Mahler didn't like Brahms.

Walter always had a thick German accent, his recorded rehearsals with Mozart show that. But he was MARVELOUS with Bruckner's 4th and 9th Symphonies---my favorite recordings of those works. Spiritually, Bruckner went beyond Mahler BEFORE Mahler.

With Mahler, I prefer Kubelik, Bernstein, Solti, etc.

Jack

[Jack Kelso]

(Gernsheim? Bruch?),

Gernsheim? I'm sure I'd find him delightful too if I knew who the hell he was.

Friedrich Gernsheim was born in 1839 of Jewish parentage in Worms. He was a good friend of Brahms, also wrote four very fine symphonies and can be found on the Web over GOOGLE.

Jack

Thanks. I thought someone was pulling my leg with a conflation of Bernstein and my well-known bete noir Gershwin. No c between the s and the h. Guess it's pronunced Gerns-heim, eh?

Exactly!

Jack

[val]

paulb

"just listen to the adagio"....now this is what i hear from Malerians, 'oh i love sym 5, but only movements X", "of I love Mahler's sym 7 but only movement Y".
Here with Bruckner as well, "I admit if you don't have the patience...."...for overly long works.....

I didn't say I just loved the Adagio. But I think that, for someone who doesn't like Bruckner's music - or the music of any other composer - the best thing to suggest is one of his most inspired moments.
In fact, my opinion is that the all 8th is an extraordinary work, leading to a fabulous last movement.

Regarding Mahler, it is a little different. In most of his Symphonies the movements have not a very strong relation between each other: see the 2nd and 3rd movement compared to the first in the 2nd Symphony or the case of the 3rd Symphony.

[Sapphire]

Recent posts here have been most interesting. I won't copy tons of it. I am talking about the extent to which one's music "tastes" are partly based on wishful thinking.

Having searched my conscience, I think there's some substance in this. This issue has always been lurking in the back of my mind, but I've brought it to the fore. I've just had a look at my CD collection and asked myself the serious question how much of this do I really like, and how much is, well shall we say, of more peripheral interest based on a feeling that I "ought" to like it.

I'm not telling you my answer precisely! But suffice to say there is quite a chunk in the latter category. I'm afraid I do tend to buy stuff occasionally that I think I should have, but quite frankly I often find I don't get all that much pleasure from it.

The most recent examples are Shostakovich, Ravel, Bruckner, Debussy. I have greatly expanded my collection recently, but I don't really care for much of it if truth be told. And yet, if asked - and depending on the circumstances - I might be tempted to put the best possible gloss on it because one doesn't like to appear narrow-minded or lacking in practical knowledge. (I wouldn't say I like something which I don't).

So often, I've said I don't like composer X only to be told "how do you know if you haven't tried?". It's this taunt that irritates me. My answer in future will be "I've heard enough, thanks; one instinctively knows".

Confession over. Back to the real Greats!


Saphire

[Brendan]

I didn't care for Bruckner for many years, but it was well worth the wait and "effort". Now one of my personal favourites. I hope the same will happen one day with Dvorak and Stravinsky, but time will tell.

The works and artists recognized over time and distance is a fairly reliable guide, IMHO.

[paulb]

Recent posts here have been most interesting. I won't copy tons of it. I am talking about the extent to which one's music "tastes" are partly based on wishful thinking.

Having searched my conscience, I think there's some substance in this. This issue has always been lurking in the back of my mind, but I've brought it to the fore. I've just had a look at my CD collection and asked myself the serious question how much of this do I really like, and how much is, well shall we say, of more peripheral interest based on a feeling that I "ought" to like it.

I'm not telling you my answer precisely! But suffice to say there is quite a chunk in the latter category. I'm afraid I do tend to buy stuff occasionally that I think I should have, but quite frankly I often find I don't get all that much pleasure from it.

The most recent examples are Shostakovich, Ravel, Bruckner, Debussy. I have greatly expanded my collection recently, but I don't really care for much of it if truth be told. And yet, if asked - and depending on the circumstances - I might be tempted to put the best possible gloss on it because one doesn't like to appear narrow-minded or lacking in practical knowledge. (I wouldn't say I like something which I don't).

So often, I've said I don't like composer X only to be told "how do you know if you haven't tried?". It's this taunt that irritates me. My answer in future will be "I've heard enough, thanks; one instinctively knows".

Confession over. Back to the real Greats!


Saphire

Saph, once again you pretty much speak as how I see it, or actually, hear it.
I've looked over my collection quite often in the past 3 or 4 yrs and thought "OK now , whta recordings can I dump?" And off went at least 14th-1/3 of my collection, many 3rd and 4th+ copies had to go. I try to keep favs down to no more than 2, rarely 3 recordings of ane work. Composers too. Which composers works am i not interested in? I thined things out that way , and at times the entire composer has left my shelf.

I've got , oh about 50+ cds sitting in my garage, and another 50 looking to dump on Ebay.
But back to your post.

Exactly, after you've heard one or 2 works by a composer, no need to go further really.
I like you sense of straight up honesty.
You are not clear on your mention of Shostakovich, Debussy, Ravel.
Did/are you saying, you recently bought some of their music, and that frankly you seem not to care much for it?

Now here we might have some conflicts, as I'm a fan of Debussy, big fan of ravel and also of Shosty.

Whats up with that?
btw only certain recordings work for me.

I figure classical is JUST LIKE THIS.
Lets say you go to a Deep Purple concert, and Richtie Blackmore is playing great.
Now weks later comes along a band that plays the Deep Purple music.
Will you like it the same?
Mostly likely not.
Same with Debussy. Some play it like Deep Purple plays their music, and another orch comes along and "attempts" to play Debussy.
You follow?

I just got in Tortelier/Ulster's Ravel 4 cd set.Now I love Ravel,
But I hate Tortelier's Ravel. It lasted less than 1 hour, its now listed on amazon. Hey, I tried.

[Sapphire]

I didn't care for Bruckner for many years, but it was well worth the wait and "effort". Now one of my personal favourites. I hope the same will happen one day with Dvorak and Stravinsky, but time will tell.

The works and artists recognized over time and distance is a fairly reliable guide, IMHO.

I agree entirely with your last comment. All I'm saying is that Bruckner is not in my list of top 10 composers, nor in many peoples' I shouldn't think. I used to like his work rather more than I do now. In fact there are only two works that I still quite enjoy now, and these are S4 and S8. Even these I find somewhat long-winded, repetitve, and over-laboured. They seem to get lost in the middle but they usually end OK. I used to like S7 but now find it less inspiring. The earlier material is poor in my view. On balance, there's not enough material for me to say that I greatly like Bruckner. It's OK but that's all.

I don't care much for Stravinky. I get about as far 10 minutes into Firebird or Rite of Spring and I can't take any more. I've tried so many times. I know it's possibly odd, but I just don't appreciate it.

You mention Dvorak. I do like Dvorak. The rich Romantic tones and melody is far more to my taste than the sombre and long-winded Bruckner. I think New World is a real joy. S7 and S8 are nice too. The Cello Concerto is excellent (try Rostropovich). Brahms had a very high regard for Dvorak.

I hope I don't sound too negative. I could go on for hours about all the material I do like which covers a lot of Mozart and most other 19th C music from the great names, plus a selection up to about 1950 (RVW, Elgar, Sibelius, Holst).

Regards


Saphire

[paulb]

I didn't care for Bruckner for many years, but it was well worth the wait and "effort". Now one of my personal favourites. I hope the same will happen one day with Dvorak and Stravinsky, but time will tell.

The works and artists recognized over time and distance is a fairly reliable guide, IMHO.

I agree entirely with your last comment. All I'm saying is that Bruckner is not in my list of top 10 composers, nor in many peoples' I shouldn't think. I used to like his work rather more than I do now. In fact there are only two works that I still quite enjoy now, and these are S4 and S8. Even these I find somewhat long-winded, repetitve, and over-laboured. They seem to get lost in the middle but they usually end OK. I used to like S7 but now find it less inspiring. The earlier material is poor in my view. On balance, there's not enough material for me to say that I greatly like Bruckner. It's OK but that's all.

I don't care much for Stravinky. I get about as far 10 minutes into Firebird or Rite of Spring and I can't take any more. I've tried so many times. I know it's possibly odd, but I just don't appreciate it.

You mention Dvorak. I do like Dvorak. The rich Romantic tones and melody is far more to my taste than the sombre and long-winded Bruckner. I think New World is a real joy. S7 and S8 are nice too. The Cello Concerto is excellent (try Rostropovich). Brahms had a very high regard for Dvorak.

I hope I don't sound too negative. I could go on for hours about all the material I do like which covers a lot of Mozart and most other 19th C music from the great names, plus a selection up to about 1950 (RVW, Elgar, Sibelius, Holst).

Regards


Saphire

Not a bit abusive, just downright honesty.
You see the romantic crowd wants you to feel bad, The Traditionalists want you to have a guilt trip for expressing what you truly feel about the romantics. I've heard someone call this group, "the romantic gestapo". There is certainly a grain of truth in that accusation.

I've tried Stravinsky often as well. I tried to force myself to like the music.
But its no use, except during a Parisian ballet, those cute little french ballerinas You see Stravinsky wrote some cool ballet music, 2 or 3 I believe, this was his musical credit. The music doesn't fly on recorded format. His violin concerto and other works are rather dull.
I use to like Dvorak's 9th as well. He got that lovely melody in the 9th from the US, while visiting southern blacks and their spiritual songs.
Though as to Dvorak's 1-8 syms, well those are Beethoven rehashed. Which iwhy I call him Junior" (Ludwig junior)

Not clear what you mean about RVW, Elgar, Holst, and also on Debussy, ravel.
Did you read my above post?

[Länzchen]

You mention Dvorak. I do like Dvorak. The rich Romantic tones and melody is far more to my taste than the sombre and long-winded Bruckner. I think New World is a real joy. S7 and S8 are nice too. The Cello Concerto is excellent (try Rostropovich). Brahms had a very high regard for Dvorak.

I hope I don't sound too negative. I could go on for hours about all the material I do like which covers a lot of Mozart and most other 19th C music from the great names, plus a selection up to about 1950 (RVW, Elgar, Sibelius, Holst).

Not a bit abusive, just downright honesty.
You see the romantic crowd wants you to feel bad, The Traditionalists want you to have a guilt trip for expressing what you truly feel about the romantics. I've heard someone call this group, "the romantic gestapo". There is certainly a grain of truth in that accusation.

The only romantic composer Saphire mentioned not liking here was Bruckner, and then mentioned liking most other 19th century music from the great names---what do you think this means?? It means romantic composers. How could the romantic crowd make Saphire feel bad, then?

BTW, Stravinsky rules. Consistantly.

[Jack Kelso]

One of the primary reasons why a composer (or a certain work) doesn't "hit home" with us is the quality of the recording---or a lack of sensitivity in the performance.

Still having big-time trouble digesting that Sibelius 4th Symphony. But I haven't given up----egads! All those crescendi!!! Maybe someday....?!

I have lots of tapes/CDs that I seldom or almost never listen to, but someday I will---so I keep every recording I've ever bought (e.g., I have over a dozen recordings of the Schumann symphonies and play EACH and every one of them at some point in time......same with Beethoven and Brahms).

Jack

[paulb]

The only romantic composer Saphire mentioned not liking here was Bruckner, and then mentioned liking most other 19th century music from the great names---what do you think this means?? It means romantic composers. How could the romantic crowd make Saphire feel bad, then?

BTW, Stravinsky rules. Consistantly.

And he also said that he is in a transitional phase, where things are constantly shifting. That he may not have the smae regards for a composer he loves now, but later on may not.
IOW why keep listening to something he feels is not meeting his needs. And says its best if hi is honest with himself. He's in growing pains IOW's.

What i am saying is that this is a different world than it was back 75 or even 50 yrs ago. Heck even 25 yrs ago. Things are changing. Look how many recordings came out since say 1965.
Socialogically this is a different world. Better for some, not so good for others. Our music reflects our psychic needs. The music chooses us, we do not have total decision on which composers we prefer and others reject.

The romantics are great composers, is a qualified idea. Its true in one sense, from another perspective it may not be so true.

[karlhenning]

The romantics are great composers, is a qualified idea. Its true in one sense, from another perspective it may not be so true.

Nonsense, Paul. Your failure to appreciate great art, does not make it "not great."

Why do you resist the simple, sensible idea that your personal perception is not the center of the aesthetic universe?

Cheers,
~Karl

[paulb]

The romantics are great composers, is a qualified idea. Its true in one sense, from another perspective it may not be so true.

Nonsense, Paul. Your failure to appreciate great art, does not make it "not great."

Why do you resist the simple, sensible idea that your personal perception is not the center of the aesthetic universe?

Cheers,
~Karl

You are not reading my words carefully.
I said there are 2 perspectives. The scholastic/academic/historical and there is the individual living in 2006.
Neither opinion or POV should be seen as contradictory, but in fact as complimentary. How so?
Well just as we established a place in history of past composers by recognizing their great contribution to the musical arts, so today we continue to acknowledge the truly greats of the late 20th century, those who continue in that standard of excellence.
Of course everyone will peel off dozens on composers who they personally feel attain to this level of excellence. there's no simple formula. But if one really carefully considers each late 20th C composers output, I think some will separate themseleves from the pack.
Of course everyone will cry "FOUL" that their composer was not considered along with the tradition of truly greats.

You know the times we live in. Everything is all topsy turvy. Who's right? Who's wrong? Its all relative...blah, blah, blah....I've heard it all before.

"Ligeti is just as great as Schnittke"...these kinds of statements just make the issue pointless to even consider discussing.
"Lutoslawski is just as great as Pettersson" Even worse.
Each man has to find his own way on the path to great music.
No one can take his hand and lead him. Least of all "the group"...which I'm afraid wants to have the last word.
So Karl go right ahead.

[karlhenning]

You are not reading my words carefully.

Paul, that is another uproariously funny comment, coming from you!

Cheers,
~Karl

[paulb]

Well then karl, since i've got you in a good mood.
here's another you should know.
We living in 2006 have placed some composers in such estimation
BARTOK....SHOSTAKOVICH....SCHONBERG

And yet other composers, just a few a few yrs later receive others equally as fine , hardly a nod

pettersson...schnittke...carter

This is one stupid world we live in.
Well i know my bible well enough that says the end times would coooky and zany.
Anarchy, everything topsy turvey.
Blind and deaf.

The latter group is equal to the former. IOW Bartok is not a better composer than Petterson.
Man I can just see Todd's reaction AAARRRGGGHHHHH

[Stonebraker]

I voted for Brahms. I'm not very knowledgeable about classical music, and I haven't heard works from any of the other composers outside of Strauss and Mahler, Mahler i listened to the first time yesterday and enjoyed it tremendously.

But Brahms first two symphonies are extraordinary. Never have I heard such terrific music. I have two recordings of the first, Barbiolli and Klemperer, and a DVD of the first two with Seymon Bychov and the WSG Koln I think.

Anyways, the first symphony is so great, so easy to listen to. The haunting motifs in the first movement that all seem to work together so well, to the majestic ride at the end. Friends, that music makes me feel like I am flying, without the use of drugs or alcohol.

The second symphony is the greatest thing ever. There seems to be so much depth to the symphony. I've listened to it more than twice a day the past week, and I still feel there's so much left to learn about it.

Thanks for letting me share my thoughts... even though the only person I could've voted for was J. Brahms

[jbuck919]

I voted for Brahms. I'm not very knowledgeable about classical music, and I haven't heard works from any of the other composers outside of Strauss and Mahler, Mahler i listened to the first time yesterday and enjoyed it tremendously.

But Brahms first two symphonies are extraordinary. Never have I heard such terrific music. I have two recordings of the first, Barbiolli and Klemperer, and a DVD of the first two with Seymon Bychov and the WSG Koln I think.

Anyways, the first symphony is so great, so easy to listen to. The haunting motifs in the first movement that all seem to work together so well, to the majestic ride at the end. Friends, that music makes me feel like I am flying, without the use of drugs or alcohol.

The second symphony is the greatest thing ever. There seems to be so much depth to the symphony. I've listened to it more than twice a day the past week, and I still feel there's so much left to learn about it.

Thanks for letting me share my thoughts... even though the only person I could've voted for was J. Brahms

If you voted for Brahms, you are knowledgeable about classical music. And just in case you're interested, though I am unable to make the distinction in my own ears, scholars who devote themselves to Brahms also frequently express the opinion that the second symphony is his greatest work.

[karlhenning]

Paul, you're writing more science-fiction. Carter is being performed, new pieces of his are being commissioned right and left. He absolutely does not belong down among the (deserved) outcasts Pettersson and Schnittke

Cheers,
~Karl

[karlhenning]

. . . scholars who devote themselves to Brahms also frequently express the opinion that the second symphony is his greatest work.

You may need a fact-checker here, John :-)

Cheers,
~Karl

[jbuck919]

. . . scholars who devote themselves to Brahms also frequently express the opinion that the second symphony is his greatest work.

You may need a fact-checker here, John

Cheers,
~Karl

Somehow or other the second paragraph of my post did not take. In it I stated that I had not heard of Schnittke or Petterson until I came to this site. Perhaps some computer glitch such as user error?

Honestly, Karl, I'm just reporting an opinion I have heard. The four symphonies of Brahms are to my ears approximately equal, but I'm not lying when I say that people I've respected seem to be able to make a distinction that I cannot hear. If a neophyte is able to hear the same thing, then let me give him every encouragement.

[karlhenning]

Fair enough, John; and as far as I'm concerned, everyone is entitled to a favorite Brahms symphony of his own choosing.

As I listen to Nicolas Flagello's Theme, Variations and Fugue from 1956, though, John, I think you'd enjoy listening to it: You might just feel that this is music Brahms might have written, had he lived 100 years later.

Cheers,
~Karl