So I'm supposed to like this?

[jbuck919]

I'm listening to Bruckner's fourth for the umteenth time over XM radio and it is doing what Bruckner has always done to me; it is boring me into a stupor. I keep coming back because I keep thinking, "all those people can't be wrong."

On the other hand, earlier on they were playing the Dvorak Sextet in A and I liked it very much as I have before, but I got over my blanket jadedness with Dvorak a long time ago (now it's selective jadedness). Taint happened with Bruckner.

In the scherzo now, which unlike the first movement is at least not awful, asssuming you can wait through two huge movements for approximately the same level of gratification as provided by the William Tell Overture.

[Brendan]

Thanks for reminding me to enjoy the 4th again. Been listening to the last 3 Bruckner syms with transcendent delight and rapt fascination for the last few days. I need to work back to his earlier glories. Klemperer's live 4th is quite my cup of tea.

[Corlyss_D]

I'm listening to Bruckner's fourth for the umteenth time over XM radio

Isn't that the truth! I don't think they own another Bruckner symphony in their library. There was a period in 05 when every time I turned on the radio they were playing that. I spent a lot of time in 05 on Frank's Place and the 40s decade channels.

[jbuck919]

The most unlikely scenario I can imagine:

Bruckner arrives in heaven, greeted by his great predecessors:

[Brahms]

Thanks for reminding me to enjoy the 4th again. Been listening to the last 3 Bruckner syms with transcendent delight and rapt fascination for the last few days. I need to work back to his earlier glories. Klemperer's live 4th is quite my cup of tea.

Yeah, ditto . . . . . . Thanks for reminding me, JBuck, to go back and listen to the glorious 4th Symphony upon having basked myself in the transcendent 8th and 9th . . . . . . .

[Febnyc]

Yes, agree - a glorious symphony and I haven't listened in a while, Will rectify that this evening.

One of my recordings of the Bruckner Fourth is sort of out of left field - Marek Janowski conducting the Philharmonic Of Radio France. It's very good - a real sleeper!

[Corlyss_D]

John, looks like the law of unintended consequences strikes again . . . .

[RebLem]

I must say that to me, most of Bruckner sounds like a better orchestration of carnival carousel music. The Masses and the Te Deum are the exceptions.

[GK]

The 4th is my favorite Bruckner symphony but last night I listened to #0. Not as good as #4 but after the first two movements it began to sound like Bruckner.

[jbuck919]

John, looks like the law of unintended consequences strikes again . . . .

I was only expressing my opinion, and am delighted that I was able to stimulate the listening pleasure of others, even indirectly.

[Barry]

You're not supposed to like anything, John. I'm sure I don't like many of your favorites as well, but that doesn't make either of us wrong.

I've been listening to the fifth and eighth a lot the past few months, but love the fourth as well. Jochum/BPO on DG is my top pick for it.

Although I'd have to say I rate Beethoven and Brahms higher overall, Bruckner's symphonies, at least the last six or seven of them, take me to a place that is probably about as close as I get to feeling spiritual. But I know it's not everyone's cup of tea. When it's performed here, the audience reaction generally doesn't reach the level of excitement that takes place after a Mahler or Beethoven symphony.

[BWV 1080]

I'm listening to Bruckner's fourth for the umteenth time over XM radio and it is doing what Bruckner has always done to me; it is boring me into a stupor. I keep coming back because I keep thinking, "all those people can't be wrong."

On the other hand, earlier on they were playing the Dvorak Sextet in A and I liked it very much as I have before, but I got over my blanket jadedness with Dvorak a long time ago (now it's selective jadedness). Taint happened with Bruckner.

In the scherzo now, which unlike the first movement is at least not awful, asssuming you can wait through two huge movements for approximately the same level of gratification as provided by the William Tell Overture.

Right with you there. Aside from an antidote for insomnia, I find little use for Bruckner.

[Ralph]

The most unlikely scenario I can imagine:

Bruckner arrives in heaven, greeted by his great predecessors:

*****

Yes, yes I see Dittersdorf there welcoming his acolyte.

[Ralph]

Here's a fine, midpriced performance by Bohm and the VPO:

[Gary]

So who's the dude standing on Beethoven's left?

[jbuck919]

So who's the dude standing on Beethoven's left?

Bruckner is greeted by (from left to right): Liszt, Wagner, Schubert, Schumann, Weber, Mozart, Beethoven, Gluck, Haydn, Handel, Bach. (Silhouette drawing by Otto Böhler)

I lifted this from the Wikipedia, BTW, and it is the first time I've ever posted an image here.

[Gary]

So who's the dude standing on Beethoven's left?

Bruckner is greeted by (from left to right): Liszt, Wagner, Schubert, Schumann, Weber, Mozart, Beethoven, Gluck, Haydn, Handel, Bach. (Silhouette drawing by Otto Böhler)

Okay, for some reason I thought Gluck was Mozart. I also missed Weber and Liszt (thougt it was Cosima).

I lifted this from the Wikipedia, BTW, and it is the first time I've ever posted an image here.

Congrats!

[piston]

So who's the dude standing on Beethoven's left?

Bruckner is greeted by (from left to right): Liszt, Wagner, Schubert, Schumann, Weber, Mozart, Beethoven, Gluck, Haydn, Handel, Bach. (Silhouette drawing by Otto Böhler)

I lifted this from the Wikipedia, BTW, and it is the first time I've ever posted an image here.

I am greatly disappointed that they can't keep a chronological perspective on who comes first in heaven

[Gary]

That was probably why I mistook Gluck for Mozart.

[Ralph]

So who's the dude standing on Beethoven's left?

*****

Leonard Bernstein

[DavidRoss]

Bruckner is greeted by (from left to right): Liszt, Wagner, Schubert, Schumann, Weber, Mozart, Beethoven, Gluck, Haydn, Handel, Bach. (Silhouette drawing by Otto Böhler)

Obviously false. The rest might all be in heaven, but Wagner must surely be in hell. (Along with Ali Baba's camel....)

[burnitdown]

I'm listening to Bruckner's fourth for the umteenth time over XM radio and it is doing what Bruckner has always done to me; it is boring me into a stupor.

Bruckner is very sensitive to conductor... someone who doesn't "get it" will turn him into a mash.

[RebLem]

Bruckner is greeted by (from left to right): Liszt, Wagner, Schubert, Schumann, Weber, Mozart, Beethoven, Gluck, Haydn, Handel, Bach. (Silhouette drawing by Otto Böhler)

Obviously false. The rest might all be in heaven, but Wagner must surely be in hell. (Along with Ali Baba's camel....)

Ditto.

[burnitdown]

If Wagner's in the other place, that's where I wish to be. I'm sure other interesting folks like W.S. Burroughs and Josef Conrad will be there as well.

[karlhenning]

Bruckner is greeted by (from left to right): Liszt, Wagner, Schubert, Schumann, Weber, Mozart, Beethoven, Gluck, Haydn, Handel, Bach. (Silhouette drawing by Otto Böhler)

Liszt as an uncultured non-German must have been considered racially naturalized by his son-in-law.

[Stonebraker]

I bought a DVD of Wand, because it was my understanding that Wand is the interpreter of Bruckner, for the most part. I have yet to complete the first movement of Bruckner's 4th symphony. I don't know what it is, I enjoy the melodies and the orchestration, but the music just hasnt spoken to me yet.

I wanted to listen to Bruckner because I heard from many sources he's very close to Mahler. I dont think thats the case at all. While the do seem somewhat similiar in a few aspects, Mahler seems to have the ability to say much more than Bruckner in about 1/4 of the amount of time.

That's just my 2 cents... coming from someone who hasnt even listened to a full bruckner symphony, I think you can take my comments with a grain of something or another.

[burnitdown]

Bruckner is greeted by (from left to right): Liszt, Wagner, Schubert, Schumann, Weber, Mozart, Beethoven, Gluck, Haydn, Handel, Bach. (Silhouette drawing by Otto Böhler)

Liszt as an uncultured non-German must have been considered racially naturalized by his son-in-law.

They seemed to accept related cultures. Dutch, Scandinavians, even Croats and Indians.

[Jack Kelso]

I bought a DVD of Wand, because it was my understanding that Wand is the interpreter of Bruckner, for the most part. I have yet to complete the first movement of Bruckner's 4th symphony. I don't know what it is, I enjoy the melodies and the orchestration, but the music just hasnt spoken to me yet.

I wanted to listen to Bruckner because I heard from many sources he's very close to Mahler. I dont think thats the case at all. While the do seem somewhat similiar in a few aspects, Mahler seems to have the ability to say much more than Bruckner in about 1/4 of the amount of time.

That's just my 2 cents... coming from someone who hasnt even listened to a full bruckner symphony, I think you can take my comments with a grain of something or another.

Mahler is fine---for long stretches, sometimes for complete movements and symphonies. Bruckner, thankfully, doesn't go in for the over-dramatic pomp and bombast that scar so much of Mahler's best work, and have come to be viewed as a hallmark of Mahler's style.

Also, Mahler can't touch Bruckner in the invention of a deeply spiritual and unpretentious melodic or harmonic progression.

Keep listening!
Jack

[jbuck919]

Also, Mahler can't touch Bruckner in the invention of a deeply spiritual and unpretentious melodic or harmonic progression.

I don't know what you mean by "deeply spiritual" unless it is "fill in the gaps with imagined metaphysics," but I certainly agree with the "unpretentious" part. To paraphrase Churchill, he has a lot to be unpretentious about.

[Jack Kelso]

Also, Mahler can't touch Bruckner in the invention of a deeply spiritual and unpretentious melodic or harmonic progression.

I don't know what you mean by "deeply spiritual" unless it is "fill in the gaps with imagined metaphysics," but I certainly agree with the "unpretentious" part. To paraphrase Churchill, he has a lot to be unpretentious about.

John, Bruckner's melodies flow from a font of natural harmony, which also formed the basis of Schubert's inventiveness. They don't sound as if they were searched out on an instrument (here, organ).

Since the Bruckner style is more indebted to J. S. Bach and Schubert than to Beethoven or Wagner, his style should suit your taste.

When you listen to the 1st mvt of the Fourth Symphony, note the gradual accumulation of building blocks of chorale-like tone-clusters, growing into massive Alpine peaks, then descending into lyrical, green valleys. This is unique to Bruckner.

One of the greatest stumbling-blocks to appreciating his symphonies is accepting the fact that Bruckner expresses himself in a different time-universe than others, slow and deliberate.

His penchant for repetition comes again from Schubert. When you listen to the 1st mvt of Schubert's "Great C Major" Symphony, then play the Bruckner Fourth----wow!! One hears where some of Bruckner's roots sprang.

And relax. Let the orchestra just pour over you. Heavy concentration can disturb the beauty of unfolding themes and rustig rhythms.

Jack

[jbuck919]

And relax. Let the orchestra just pour over you. Heavy concentration can disturb the beauty of unfolding themes and rustig rhythms.

It is precisely this "spa" attitude toward Bruckner that makes me doubt him (and not only him) and wonder about his legions. I am reminded of the film Soylent Green where the Edward G. Robinson character asks to enter oblivion to "light classical" music and is treated to the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Sixth, which has the same problem as Bruckner's Fourth, namely over-reliance on one in-the-first-place-phony-baloney musical idea. (How was that for a German construction? )

[jbuck919]

Bruckner is greeted by (from left to right): Liszt, Wagner, Schubert, Schumann, Weber, Mozart, Beethoven, Gluck, Haydn, Handel, Bach. (Silhouette drawing by Otto Böhler)

Liszt as an uncultured non-German must have been considered racially naturalized by his son-in-law.

On the basis of a composerly pantheon it is very nearly impeccable, but one cannot help noticing that Mendelssohn is missing.

[Jack Kelso]

And relax. Let the orchestra just pour over you. Heavy concentration can disturb the beauty of unfolding themes and rustig rhythms.

It is precisely this "spa" attitude toward Bruckner that makes me doubt him (and not only him) and wonder about his legions. I am reminded of the film Soylent Green where the Edward G. Robinson character asks to enter oblivion to "light classical" music and is treated to the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Sixth, which has the same problem as Bruckner's Fourth, namely over-reliance on one in-the-first-place-phony-baloney musical idea. (How was that for a German construction? )

I remember "Soylent Green" well---Edward G. Robinson's choice was the 2nd movement from Beethoven's Sixth Symphony ("Pastorale").

No, don't try to connect Bruckner with a spa. His style has no more to do with that than Bach's has to do with a funeral.

Give him more time----and accept him on HIS terms.....not on Brahms' or anyone else's terms.

GOOD LISZTENING!!!! (Pun intended),
Jack

[jbuck919]

I remember "Soylent Green" well---Edward G. Robinson's choice was the 2nd movement from Beethoven's Sixth Symphony ("Pastorale").

From the Internet Movie Database:

The music which played when Edward G. Robinson was "going home":

The overture was the principal theme from the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6, the "Pathetique."

When the visual presentation starts, the music is the first movement of Beethoven's "Symphony #6 (The Pastoral)".

When the flock of sheep appear, the music is "Morning" from Grieg's "Peer Gynt Suite #1".

At the end of the presentation is "Asas Death", also from the "Peer Gynt Suite".

How Beethoven got in that company I'll never know. The "after the storm" sequence from the William Tell Overture, now that maybe....

[jbuck919]

No, don't try to connect Bruckner with a spa.

Only in the sense that the austere Bruckner probably never visited a spa, which would make him odd out for sophisticated Europeans of his time.

Face it, Jack, you walked right into this one. The moment you imply that music is something we should ever allow to wash over us is the moment you blur a very important distinction between greater and lesser art (I am not going to say art and schlock but the tendency would be in that direction). If you are capable of listening to anything that way and still consdering it great art, bully for you, but then I wonder how you are able to appreciate all that other stuff, including Schumann, who never "gratifies" in that meretricious manner.

His style has no more to do with that than Bach's has to do with a funeral.

Several of Bach's motets, which are among his greatest works (including Jesu meine Freude), were written for funerals. Many other works in the Christological cycle are extensive meditations on death.

[/quote]

[Jack Kelso]

I remember "Soylent Green" well---Edward G. Robinson's choice was the 2nd movement from Beethoven's Sixth Symphony ("Pastorale").

From the Internet Movie Database:

The music which played when Edward G. Robinson was "going home":

The overture was the principal theme from the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6, the "Pathetique."

When the visual presentation starts, the music is the first movement of Beethoven's "Symphony #6 (The Pastoral)".

When the flock of sheep appear, the music is "Morning" from Grieg's "Peer Gynt Suite #1".

At the end of the presentation is "Asas Death", also from the "Peer Gynt Suite".

How Beethoven got in that company I'll never know. The "after the storm" sequence from the William Tell Overture, now that maybe....

Well, whaddya know---not only did I get the Beethoven movement wrong I forgot all that other stuff. Well, the music was the best part of that film.

Funny, I remember figuring out what soylent green REALLY was before Charleton Heston did!!

Jack

Jack

[Jack Kelso]

Oh no, John---I have no problem with loving your so-called "austere" Bruckner (who shows much humor, like Haydn, in his works) and loving the works of Schumann, who are about as totally different in style and temperament as two 19th-century masters could be.

Hmm... maybe you should try Bruckner's Symphony No. 7 in E Major.....which one musicologist called "one of the dozen greatest symphonies of the 19th century" (he didn't say what the other eleven were...)

Jack

[karlhenning]

Bruckner is greeted by (from left to right): Liszt, Wagner, Schubert, Schumann, Weber, Mozart, Beethoven, Gluck, Haydn, Handel, Bach. (Silhouette drawing by Otto Böhler)

Liszt as an uncultured non-German must have been considered racially naturalized by his son-in-law.

On the basis of a composerly pantheon it is very nearly impeccable, but one cannot help noticing that Mendelssohn is missing.

I am not surprised that you gloss over the cultural blinders of a silhouette artist whose name is Böhler. Of course it is far from "impeccable"; not a single composer whose origin is otherwise than Germany or the Austro-Hungarian empire has been admitted to this musical "paradise."

The illustration is cultural jingoism of the first water. Truly, one cannot help noticing that Mendelssohn is missing.

Why, I wonder?

[jbuck919]

[I am not surprised that you gloss over the cultural blinders of a silhouette artist whose name is Böhler. Of course it is far from "impeccable"; not a single composer whose origin is otherwise than Germany or the Austro-Hungarian empire has been admitted to this musical "paradise."

The illustration is cultural jingoism of the first water. Truly, one cannot help noticing that Mendelssohn is missing.

Why, I wonder?

\

Karl, give me some credit. I did look him up. Aside from the fact that he is mid-to-late 19th century and German it is difficult to find out anything about him. He also included composers we now consider secondary (though excellent) such as Gluck and Weber but omitted Chopin. But if I had made that qualification in my earlier post, someone would have come back at me and asked just what is wrong with Gluck and Weber.

Your point appeared to be that Liszt "should" have been left off as suspect on the presumed terms of the artist (I mean Boehler), but the inclusion of other non-Germanics in the racial theory was long in development and hardly to be attributed to every German (who might already have been anti-Semitic) of the 19th century.

But do give me some credit. "I'm not surprised that you..." in this context is insulting.

[karlhenning]

I am not surprised that you gloss over the cultural blinders of a silhouette artist whose name is Böhler. Of course it is far from "impeccable"; not a single composer whose origin is otherwise than Germany or the Austro-Hungarian empire has been admitted to this musical "paradise."

The illustration is cultural jingoism of the first water. Truly, one cannot help noticing that Mendelssohn is missing.

Why, I wonder?

Karl, give me some credit. I did look him up. Aside from the fact that he is mid-to-late 19th century and German it is difficult to find out anything about him. He also included composers we now consider secondary (though excellent) such as Gluck and Weber but omitted Chopin. But if I had made that qualification in my earlier post, someone would have come back at me and asked just what is wrong with Gluck and Weber.

Your point appeared to be that Liszt "should" have been left off as suspect on the presumed terms of the artist (I mean Boehler), but the inclusion of other non-Germanics in the racial theory was long in development and hardly to be attributed to every German (who might already have been anti-Semitic) of the 19th century.

But do give me some credit. "I'm not surprised that you..." in this context is insulting.

Now, John, I consider it a sober reproof, and not an insult; we've bantered back and forth some little time, and I do not offer you insult. You have made scarcely any secret that if a "smart nuclear bomb" were somehow to erase from the world non-German-speaking composers, you would not feel that anything like the best in music has been sacrificed.

I do not doubt that Böhler considered Liszt practically German; as we observed, Liszt was born within the precincts of Austria-Hungary.

For Böhler's purposes, Chopin had no such "luck."

What I find questionable (which is partly to say, what I as your friend would invite you to reconsider) is this:

In historical perspective, and appreciating Wagner's actual musical genius, we have over time (it was not immediate in much of the German-speaking world, for instance) very sensibly separated the merits of the art produced by Wagner, from such contemptible personal vices as his anti-Semitism. Now, I am sure it is to large extent simply the fact that the failing is nowhere near as pernicious as the anti-Semitism; but the musical world has still largely just lapped up Wagner's revisionist "non-German music and musicians have had importance only insofar as German artists -- the only artists who are truly great -- have taken up those interesting foreign ideas, and brought them to fruition in 'genuine artistic [i.e., Teutonic] brilliance'."

I am sorry if it rankles, John, but I do find this "musical Aryanism" corrupt and distasteful.

[Heck148]

but the musical world has still largely just lapped up Wagner's revisionist "non-German music and musicians have had importance only insofar as German artists -- the only artists who are truly great -- have taken up those interesting foreign ideas, and brought them to fruition in 'genuine artistic [i.e., Teutonic] brilliance'."

this sounds just like the pseudo-musical puke spewed forth by the not-very-much-missed -mforever/micha/shaffer jerk

I am sorry if it rankles, John, but I do find this "musical Aryanism" corrupt and distasteful.

really. it is quite disgusting.

[jbuck919]

Obviously, Dvorak is not in the silhouette because he died after Bruckner (as did the also missing Brahms). Clearly, Tchaikovsky is not there because as a presumed suicide.... As for all those other incontestably great non-Germanic composers who died earlier than Bruckner, well let's see, there's uh, there's er, snap fingers, try to recollect, oh yes, Scarlatti.

Honestly, folks, I was just reporting the thing, which is whimsical on its own terms. Mentioning Mendelssohn was an attempt to have a friendly word in actual commiseration with Karl, when I have not had any word at all recently. This is all being taken way too seriously. Sheesh.

[karlhenning]

Obviously, Dvorak is not in the silhouette because he died after Bruckner (as did the also missing Brahms). Clearly, Tchaikovsky is not there because as a presumed suicide.... 8) As for all those other incontestably great non-Germanic composers who died earlier than Bruckner, well let's see, there's uh, there's er, snap fingers, try to recollect, oh yes, Scarlatti.

You mean Alessandro, or Domenico?

Cheers,
~Karl

[Wallingford]

Not to mention Vivaldi. Oh, and also, Buxtehude.....can't allow any Scandinavians in there either, can we?!?

[jbuck919]

Not to mention Vivaldi. Oh, and also, Buxtehude.....can't allow any Scandinavians in there either, can we?!?

Buxtehude might as well be German, and your post is, regardless of that, beside the point. There is an army of more or less pleasant but secondary baroque composers of varying nationalities. Domenico Scarlatti is not one of them--he was the Chopin of his time, a great composer beyond all doubt

People who vaunt Bruckner put him in the first rank along with most of the guys in that silhouette. The point is who counts. I can't help it that a lot of those who did (and this one, who didn't really, very much) spoke German as their native language.

[karlhenning]

The point is who counts. I can't help it that a lot of those who did (and this one, who didn't really, very much) spoke German as their native language.

The point, indeed, is who counts, John. I can't help it that a lot of the composers who did, did not speak German as their native language. Nor can I help it that that yahoo of a German illustrator depicted only Teutonocentric composers in his "paradise."

Cheers,
~Karl

[karlhenning]

And, in absolute terms, John (though without going all fergawdssake serious in this thread) how do we determine that Handel deserves to be there, more than does Bruckner? I ask the question in sincerity, since I list neither composer among my best-loved 25 (say).

Cheers,
~Karl

[Corlyss_D]

And, in absolute terms, John (though without going all fergawdssake serious in this thread) how do we determine that Handel deserves to be there, more than does Bruckner? I ask the question in sincerity, since I list neither composer among my best-loved 25 (say).

There are no objective standards. It comes down to "what do you like?" I wouldn't have Bruckner on my list of "Favorite 1000 Composers." Handel shares #1 position with Mozart and Monteverdi.

[Wallingford]

And, in absolute terms, John (though without going all fergawdssake serious in this thread) how do we determine that Handel deserves to be there, more than does Bruckner? I ask the question in sincerity, since I list neither composer among my best-loved 25 (say).

There are no objective standards. It comes down to "what do you like?" I wouldn't have Bruckner on my list of "Favorite 1000 Composers." Handel shares #1 position with Mozart and Monteverdi.

HEAR, HEAR, Corlyss. If I did actually get to the Great Beyond & found that there'd be more Bruckner played than Handel or Buxtehude (REGARDLESS of any invisible & presumptive echelon in the Valhalla of "greats"), I'd just about arrange for a transfer down below.

Actually, all 3 men, of course, wrote music to God's glory.

[Barry]

There are no objective standards. It comes down to "what do you like?" I wouldn't have Bruckner on my list of "Favorite 1000 Composers." Handel shares #1 position with Mozart and Monteverdi.

In spite of having taste about as polar opposite of you as it gets (I've virtually give up on Mozart, while Bruckner is one of my big three along with Beethoven and Brahms), I absolutely agree that it comes down to whatever you like. I remember years ago being on a thread, probably on Classical Insites, where people acted like I had a brain disease because I'm not much of a Mozart fan. They started throwing out this piece and that piece by him that they were sure would do the trick and open my eyes to the divine truth. It's a fairly ludicrous attitude to have. I think I told you when I sent you a couple Bruckner recordings at your request that these are about as accessible as it gets for Bruckner, and if you don't like them, he's probably just never going to be your kind of composer. Trying to convince someone that his or her taste is wrong is a waste of time.