hack attacks Bruckner

[herman]

in the British Independent newspaper. On Duchen's weblog there's a
longer version of this anti-Bruckner piece, indicating, perhaps, that
physical attractiveness and a healthy sexual life are the traits of a
good composer.

It does explain why Schubert's music is so awful, too.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/classical/features/anton-bruckner-makes-me-lose-the-will-to-live-7621907.html?origin=internalSearch

[Dufus]

>On Apr 9, 5:46 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Actually, the 7th she mentions is one I do enjoy. Kurt Masur / NYPO
played it at his debut TV concert as Music Director of the NYPO,
although to some criticism, for some reason, as I recall. I watched
that TV broadcast, have the Solti / CSO cd.

I was surprised to find the Bruckner Society of America seems now
headquartered in Iowa. Enthusiasts may wish to reveiw the
discography , downloads at the site. And his 5th Symphony was
performed here just this past February :

http://www.abruckner.com/editorsnote/thebrucknersociety/briefhistoryofthes/

http://www.orchestraiowa.org/Events/20120210/119/Bruckner-5.aspx

Of course, not much to do here in Feb., and perhaps beats watching
corn grow.

Dufus

[Johannes Roehl]

A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting,
but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
of the features of the music being disliked.

[Dufus]

On Apr 10, 4:29 pm, EM <emmemmmemnmme...@gnail.com> wrote:
> Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> - Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:37:38 +0200:

> it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> > explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> > of the features of the music being disliked.

> Indeed.

Perhaps she felt " res ipsa loquitur " ?

Dufus

[Sol L. Siegel]

Johannes Roehl <parr...@web.de> wrote in
news:9ujgft...@mid.individual.net:

This follow-up turned up in my e-mail service last weekend:

"It's kind of ironic that this piece is out today, because a week
ago, listening to Bernard Haitink coaching young conductors in Lucerne
on Bruckner's Seventh, I ended up with the thing on the brain for 36
hours solid. It was the first time - and I mean the first ever - that I
started thinking that there might be something more under the hot air
after all... "

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA

[herman]

On 10 avr, 21:37, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:

>
> A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting,
> but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> of the features of the music being disliked.

Probably she was thinking two (mutually exclusive) things.

1) plain folk will like me for being unpretentious. The British love
it when you attack art for being too complicated or long. Except when
it's Elgar's Violin Cto; Elgar was one of us.

2) this piece will get a lot of reader feedback; the editor will
commission a new piece of stupid soon

[herman]

On 11 avr, 03:16, "Sol L. Siegel" <vod...@aol.com> wrote:

> I ended up with the thing on the brain for 36
> hours solid. It was the first time - and I mean the first ever - that I
> started thinking that there might be something more under the hot air
> after all... "

that doesn't matter. After all, they played it when Hitler died.

Talk about res ipsa.

[T. Esteban Ayala]

Ain't that the truth...

[John Thomas]

On Apr 10, 11:59 pm, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
worth taking seriously? Those benighted few of us who don't care for
his music would like to know.

[herman]

On 11 avr, 22:44, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> worth taking seriously?  Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> his music would like to know.

You don't habe to like Bruckner. No doubt you like a couple of
composers I don't care for.

The point is there is very little space for classical music journalism
in mass circulation media.

It's a very bad thing to use that space to demolish a major composer
with juvenile stuff like he isn't good-looking and his music is so
longwinded it's boring.

[M forever]

On Apr 11, 4:44 pm, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 11:59 pm, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 avr, 21:37, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > > A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting,
> > > but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> > > explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> > > of the features of the music being disliked.
>
> > Probably she was thinking two (mutually exclusive) things.
>
> > 1) plain folk will like me for being unpretentious. The British love
> > it when you attack art for being too complicated or long. Except when
> > it's Elgar's Violin Cto; Elgar was one of us.
>
> > 2) this piece will get a lot of reader feedback; the editor will
> > commission a new piece of stupid soon
>
> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> reading

What, if not exactly that, is Ms Duchen's "article"?

> why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> worth taking seriously?  Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> his music would like to know.

It should be enough for you to note that there are many, many
musicians and music lovers who get a lot out of the music. And no,
that's not the "if quantity counts then Lady Gaga must be great music"
argument since we are talking about a special interest segment of
music and a special interest group of musicians and music lovers.
What's the point in trying to explain to you things in words that you
don't get from listening? Would it help you? I doubt that.

[Paul]

Listening to Klemperer/philharmonia Bruckner 9 right now. Any good recording of this work shows it to be one of the most beautiful and profound compositions ever written.

[John Thomas]

In article
<cc4b7bbc-b32a-4adb...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,

So neither you nor herman can actually defend your claim that Bruckner
is a "major" composer. No problem; I've learned over the years that
musical judgements are generally just a matter of personal taste. But I
can't help but wonder why you and herman (and Duchen) are so emotional
about what are just personal preferences. And I wonder why you're all
so determined to manufacture massive posts on r.m.c.r. explaining and
defending your tastes. And are so judgmental of those who don'r share
them. The music threads are really not that different from the political
threads. Let me recommend "Free Will," by Sam Harris, for your
edification.
--
John Thomas

[Christopher Webber]

On 11/04/2012 21:44, John Thomas wrote:
> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> worth taking seriously? Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> his music would like to know.

Au contraire, the onus is entirely on you to *dis*enlighten us, as to
why he isn't "worth
taking seriously". If you can't do that considerably better than La
Duchen, you might be best to keep mum and wallow in darkness. For her
this sort of thing is short-term gain, long-term pain, as fewer and
fewer editors take *her* seriously.

Anti-intellectualism is a particularly British disease, but even in its
Rampant (as opposed to Passant Gardant) mode, it is alas not confined to
these shores.

[M forever]

On Apr 11, 6:04 pm, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <cc4b7bbc-b32a-4adb-9447-ad3142e54...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,

Dunno about Herman, but I could explain that to you - the question is:
would it be worth my time? Would it be useful for you? Would you be
able to understand what I might say?

> No problem; I've learned over the years that
> musical judgements are generally just a matter of personal taste.

In some respects, yes, in others, no. In some, it's somewhere in
between. If you are still on the level of insight in which you think
these things are *generally* a matter of random personal taste, then I
think the answer to the questions I asked above would be "no".

> But I
> can't help but wonder why you and herman (and Duchen) are so emotional
> about what are just personal preferences.

Again, I can't really speak for Herman, but his posts didn't strike me
as particularly emotional. In fact, his observations were rather dry
and to the point. My one brief point about this subject can't really
be interpreted as "so emotional" either. It's just two brief, basic
observations. So why do you use that kind of rhetoric?

> And I wonder why you're all
> so determined to manufacture massive posts on r.m.c.r. explaining and
> defending your tastes.

What an odd statement in this context in which I just said I am not
really interested in trying to explain this at length. Your responses
here have little to nothing to do with what Herman or I actually said.
You are randomly making up reactions we never gave. Why is that?

> And are so judgmental of those who don'r share
> them.

Not at all. That's another freely made up comment which doesn't have
anything to do with anything I actually said. Why do you do that?

> The music threads are really not that different from the political
> threads.  Let me recommend "Free Will," by Sam Harris, for your
> edification.

What do you think can I get from that book? What did you get from it?

[M forever]

On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

Not at all - so why do you say it is a "particularly British" disease?
What I mean by asking that is that I am not at all familiar with the
arts and intellectual "scene" in Britain. So is that kind of rant in
any way typical, in fashion, considered cutting edge?

[td]

On Apr 11, 4:44 pm, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:

They can't.

It's like trying to explain the virtues of Diarrhea.

TD

[td]

Demolish? Is his music not still available? By the carload? Do you
think conductors are going to stop conducting it?

Silly hyperbole.

Ms. Duchen is just expressing what a huge majority of classical music
lovers feel deep down about this composer.

You don't like that? Tough.

TD

[Dufus]

>On Apr 11, 7:35 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>It's like trying to explain the virtues of Diarrhea.

At least with diarrhea , one usually feels better after all the
movements have finished ; not so with all CM.

Dufus

[Mark S]

As a lover of Bruckner's music, that statement is akin to saying that
deep down, the majority of classical music lovers hate Beethoven.

I really don't see what there is that is off-putting about Bruckner's
music. Perhaps it's just too sophisticated for the average classical
music lover. Unfortunately, Bruckner is long dead, so he can't make an
effort to write less-sophisticated music...which leaves it up to the
rabble to endeavor to become musically sophisticated to the point
where they realize what it is about Bruckner that inspires such love
and devotion from so many top-tier musicians.

Seriously - I thought this was a settled issue. Certainly the number
of recordings and performances of Bruckner these days would indicate
he has entered the mainstream. But then, we live in a time when
certain people want to refight long-settled arguments, be it about a
woman's right to contraception or Bruckner's worth as a composer...

[herman]

On 12 avr, 02:37, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:


>
> Demolish? Is his music not still available? By the carload? Do you
> think conductors are going to stop conducting it?

[...]

>
> Ms. Duchen is just expressing what a huge majority of classical music
> lovers feel deep down about this composer.
>

Do I sense a little contradiction in Bruckner's music being avaialble
(per cd) "by the carload" and "a huge majority of classical music
lovers" being averse to Bruckner?

And, as I said before, I have no problem with people not liking
Bruckner's music, I just hope their taste is a little more
sophisticated that Duchen, who seems to think Bruckner is no good
becuase he didn't look like George Clooney.

[herman]

On 12 avr, 00:04, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> So neither you nor herman can actually defend your claim that  Bruckner
> is a "major" composer.  No problem; I've learned over the years that
> musical judgements are generally just a matter of personal taste.  But I
> can't help but wonder why you and herman (and Duchen) are so emotional
> about what are just personal preferences.

Perhaps I expressed myself unclearly; perhaps you weren't quite awake.

I wasn't defending Bruckner; he doesn't need my defense.

What my post was about is the lamentable state of music journalism, if
a music critic in a major British newspaper uses the scarce space
alotted to classical music for such a juvenile attack on a long
established composer, using lowbrow arguments that are ultimately
damaging to every single composer. No composer I can think of is sexy
enough to fit Duchen's bill, and pretty much every piece of music
longer than five minutes is too complicated and too long if you're
avowing this attitude.

Let me add (sigh) this is not an "ad hominem" attack. Some people
think (and pardon my Latin) any sort of disagreeing is ad hominem per
se. It's not about whether Ms Duchen herself is sexy or unboring (even
though that is perhaps what's she's trying to get across); it's about
what she's writing. I hope you can see the difference.

[td]

On Apr 12, 1:10 am, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 5:37 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 4:56 pm, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 11 avr, 22:44, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> > > > reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> > > > worth taking seriously?  Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> > > > his music would like to know.
>
> > > You don't habe to like Bruckner. No doubt you like a couple of
> > > composers I don't care for.
>
> > > The point is there is very little space for classical music journalism
> > > in mass circulation media.
>
> > > It's a very bad thing to use that space to demolish a major composer
> > > with juvenile stuff like he isn't good-looking and his music is so
> > > longwinded it's boring.
>
> > Demolish? Is his music not still available? By the carload? Do you
> > think conductors are going to stop conducting it?
>
> > Silly hyperbole.
>
> > Ms. Duchen is just expressing what a huge majority of classical music
> > lovers feel deep down about this composer.
>
> As a lover of Bruckner's music, that statement is akin to saying that
> deep down, the majority of classical music lovers hate Beethoven.

How so? I fail to see the equivalence.

> I really don't see what there is that is off-putting about Bruckner's
> music.

You're not the one who "fails to see".

To turn the statement on its head?

I really don't see what there is about Bruckner's music.

> Perhaps it's just too sophisticated for the average classical
> music lover.

Hmmm. Somehow I doubt that, Mark.

> Unfortunately, Bruckner is long dead, so he can't make an
> effort to write less-sophisticated music.

Less-sophisticated music is unimaginable. Unless you listen to a lot
of pop music, I guess.

>..which leaves it up to the
> rabble to endeavor to become musically sophisticated to the point
> where they realize what it is about Bruckner that inspires such love
> and devotion from so many top-tier musicians.

I really think you have to belly up to the bar and make an argument
FOR Bruckner, Mark. One has to wonder why it seems so hard to do.

> Seriously - I thought this was a settled issue.

Even Wagner is not a settled issue, Mark.

> Certainly the number
> of recordings and performances of Bruckner these days would indicate
> he has entered the mainstream.

That's easy. Record execs are weak. They say yes to conductors too
often and too easily.

Conductors? They LOVE to be the star for hours and hours and hours
while conducting simple-minded music of zero sophistication which
makes such a lot of noise.

> But then, we live in a time when
> certain people want to refight long-settled arguments, be it about a
> woman's right to contraception or Bruckner's worth as a composer...

Unnecessary equivalence, Mark, and in bad taste. Let's leave a woman's
sexual organs to the women of this world.

Now, how about a cogent defense of Bruckner.

TD

[td]

On Apr 12, 1:34 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 12 avr, 02:37, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Demolish? Is his music not still available? By the carload? Do you
> > think conductors are going to stop conducting it?
>
> [...]
>
> > Ms. Duchen is just expressing what a huge majority of classical music
> > lovers feel deep down about this composer.
>
> Do I sense a little contradiction in Bruckner's music being avaialble
> (per cd) "by the carload" and "a huge majority of classical music
> lovers" being averse to Bruckner?

See my answer to MS.

> And, as I said before, I have no problem with people not liking
> Bruckner's music, I just hope their taste is a little more
> sophisticated that Duchen, who seems to think Bruckner is no good
> becuase he didn't look like George Clooney.

Well, he didn't.

TD

[td]

Yes, you DO need to mount a defense of Bruckner's music. It has just
been trashed. Have you nothing to say in its favour? Except to blather
about how ignorant Ms. Duchen is?

TD

[Christopher Webber]

On 12/04/2012 10:49, td wrote:
> Yes, you DO need to mount a defense of Bruckner's music.

No he doesn't. On the contrary, if you've got a negative point to make
about this music it is you who need to mount a cogent attack on it
(which of course neither Ms Duchen nor even your good self is able to
do, because you don't empathise with the composer, and that has to be a
starting point for any worthwhile criticism of anything. Unless of
course you are prepared to attack chalk for not being cheese.)

When did you last follow, let's say, Karajan's last recording of the 8th
Symphony with a score? What would you like to criticise about the piece?

More effort needed, Tom!

[herman]

On 12 avr, 11:49, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:

>
> Yes, you DO need to mount a defense of Bruckner's music.

No I don't. I'm perfectly comfortable with your not liking Bruckner's
music. It only means more for me.

[td]

On Apr 12, 6:00 am, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

> On 12/04/2012 10:49, td wrote:
>
> > Yes, you DO need to mount a defense of Bruckner's music.
>
> No he doesn't. On the contrary, if you've got a negative point to make
> about this music it is you who need to mount a cogent attack on it

> More effort needed, Tom!

Wrong.

You need to present a case for it.

It is not automatically accepted that Skippy peanut butter is good for
you just because people eat it and claim it's wonderful.

The case FOR Bruckner needs to be made.

Otherwise Goetz is great!

TD

[td]

You are not obliged to do so. But if you want your case against Duchen
to have any weight at all, you do.

Of you don't care to, it's just a matter of opinion.

TD

[Christopher Webber]

On 12/04/2012 14:35, td wrote:
> The case FOR Bruckner needs to be made.

Where've you been the last hundred years or so? If you're unwilling to
listen to his work for yourself with fresh ears, and would prefer some
worthwhile reading, you could start with Deryck Cooke's chapter on
Bruckner in "The Symphony" (Penguin).

[John Wiser]

"td" <tomde...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:f62b44cd-0615-439b...@j15g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

If you had read Duchen for content, or in fact, at all,
Tom, you might not have committed the silliness quoted above.

JDW

[Gerard]

Dufus <steve...@gmail.com> typed:

As your posts show?

[Mark S]

On Apr 12, 2:46 am, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:

>
> Now, how about a cogent defense of Bruckner.
>

"Every place has a local spirit that wishes to elevate minor talent to
major heights. That is the very essence of parochialism. It can be
less endearing and more dangerous if serious critics persist in
extolling Havergal Brian in the same breath as Anton Bruckner. Yet a
performer who wants to acquire a catholic taste - which I consider a
sine qua non, at least for an international career in music - must
also be able to put Bruckner in the proper perspective. There are a
number of very significant composers who are geniuses - but not
everywhere. The claims for Sibelius, Elgar, Bruckner and others must
be considered. In the Germanic part of Central Europe, Bruckner reigns
supreme, along with Beethoven and Brahms. But perform his symphonies
in Geneva and you encounter some wondrously different responses. There
the non-Catholic, non-German strain is worse than indifferent:
Bruckner's music produces an allergic reaction. The same response
occurs if one forces Sibelius on the Viennese.

"There are no conspiracies or Mafias working to form these local
prejudices: these are great national or regional composers whose
appeal is not universal." - Erich Leinsdorf, "The Composer's
Advocate" (pgs. 41-42)

[Christopher Webber]

"Anton Bruckner was one of the great refashioners. There is not the
slightest ground for the widespread view that his unorthodox structures
are merely a spectacular mishandling of orthodox symphonic form. He knew
well what he was doing, and that it was something unprecedented. He once
said, with his characteristic simplicity: 'They want me to compose in a
different way; I could, but I must not'. That he could is manifest in
his early and 'orthodox' Overture in G minor, but when he turned to the
symphony, he found himself forced along a new path..."

"It is useless to try and evaluate Bruckner by yardsticks applicable to
Beethoven and Brahms: we must assess his symphonies according to what
they are intended to be. And if we do this, we find that Bruckner offers
a unique kind of symphonic experience, not provided by any other
symphonist."
(from the first paragraphs of Deryck Cooke's essay in
"The Symphony".)

There is no mileage in the notion that Bruckner, or indeed Sibelius, are
somehow "provincial" or "not understood" outside certain defined
geographical areas. Although such a view might have had some small
justification up until the 1950's, the arrival of the LP and global
distribution laid any such idea to rest many decades ago.

Which isn't to say, of course, that opaque, individual incomprehension
cannot bloom in any clime, at any time.

[laraine]

On Apr 12, 8:54 am, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

That's a good idea.

Also, did Bruckner, or Mahler, for that matter,
ever write any piano music? Or do piano
or other transcriptions exist of their orchestral
and other works? T'would be a good way for
some of us to be introduced to those
composers

If not, some modern-day Liszt should get to
work on it right now.

C.

[Mark S]

On Apr 12, 9:16 am, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

>

> There is no mileage in the notion that Bruckner, or indeed Sibelius, are
> somehow "provincial" or "not understood" outside certain defined
> geographical areas.

Of course, you're right.

BTW - why is it that composers who are claimed to have a "universal"
appeal always seem to have two things in common: being long dead...and
being German?

[Gerard]

laraine <lara...@gmail.com> typed:

AFAIk there are several piano transcriptions of symphonies by Mahler.
(Wasn't Klemperer one of the first to make one?)

[Christopher Webber]

On 12/04/2012 17:31, laraine wrote:

> Also, did Bruckner, or Mahler, for that matter,
> ever write any piano music? Or do piano
> or other transcriptions exist of their orchestral
> and other works? T'would be a good way for
> some of us to be introduced to those
> composers

Bruckner wrote a fair quantity of piano music, but I think all of it is
rather feeble juvenilia.

As for a piano transcription of any of his symphonies... well, I don't
know if such a thing exists, but I suspect that it might be about as
much use (as a guide to the music) as Berlioz's "Symphonie Fantastique"
arranged for piccolo and accordion!

[David Fox]

We all have likes and dislikes, but attacking artists is a fool's
game. I don't particularly care for Ravel but then again I don't
particularly care for mayonnaise either. What does it matter to
anyone else? I can describe why I don't like Ravel and/or mayonnaise
in hyperbolic terms (and often do to the annoyance and/or
entertainment of my friends and family), but am I really saying more
about the subjects of my wrath or about myself?

Read through Slonimsky's “Lexicon of Musical Invective.” There is an
eerie sameness to the nature of dismissive criticism over the years.
The first word that comes to mind is “ignorance.” The buffoons are
clearly the critics, not their ostensible targets.

Also, if any of you haven't figured out already the use of ad-hominem
attacks on popular composers, performers, etc is a time-honored
trolling tactic on this forum. Don't feed the trolls.

DF

[David Fox]

On Apr 12, 9:46 am, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

There are piano reductions of all of Bruckner's symphonies - one piano
two-hands, one piano four-hands, two-piano
four-hands, and perhaps more. I've downloaded a number of the one-
piano two-hand transcriptions from IMSLP, loaded them onto my iPad,
and had a hoot trying to play them. They are rather ridiculous,
especially the tympani rolls in the left hand. Depending on the
transcriber they become next-to-impossible (or officially impossible)
to play if they insist on retaining every independent voice of the
score at all times. I've found them to be very useful in helping me
to understand the scores more deeply. I came to music through the
piano and I find it easier to think in pianistic terms. It's far
easier for me to get inside a piano score than an orchestral score.
For example, I never really appreciated the harmonic richness of the
Fifth symphony until I played through the piano reduction.

DF

[Mark S]

On Apr 12, 9:46 am, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

>

> Bruckner wrote a fair quantity of piano music, but I think all of it is
> rather feeble juvenilia.
>
> As for a piano transcription of any of his symphonies... well, I don't
> know if such a thing exists, but I suspect that it might be about as
> much use (as a guide to the music) as Berlioz's "Symphonie Fantastique"
> arranged for piccolo and accordion!

The same observation applies to Wagner's operas, where the many
tremolo effects in the orchestra that make a grand impression in the
theater sounds like bad advertising when played from a vocal score on
the piano.

[td]

On Apr 12, 9:54 am, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

> On 12/04/2012 14:35, td wrote:
>
> > The case FOR Bruckner needs to be made.
>
> Where've you been the last hundred years or so?

What does that matter?

Where have you been?

TD

[td]

On Apr 12, 10:19 am, "John Wiser" <ceec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "td" <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote in message

I am afraid that comment lacks definition, John. If you want to make a
statement, please do so, but don't try oblique. It doesn't work.

TD

[Johannes Roehl]

Some were Austrian, and several italian opera composers also qualify for
universal appeal.

The Leinsdorf quotation is interesting. The situation has certainly
changed, but not completely and not everywhere. I don't think Sibelius
and Nielsen, not to speak of Elgar are remotely as popular (or
considered as "great") in Germany/Austria as Bruckner is. All four are
probably still seen as an "acquired taste" in France or Spain.

Still, there is clearly a huge difference in popularity between Bruckner
on the one hand and Reger or Pfitzner on the other, even in Germany.

[M forever]

On Apr 12, 6:00 am, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

Deacon can't read a score, nor can he grasp complex harmonic and
melodic development by ear. He clearly revealed that when he talked
about the "simple-minded" modulations in Bruckner's 5th which is
actually a harmonically extremely complex work - except that Bruckner
makes it all fit together so well it sounds very natural, not
artificially made complicated.

[td]

On Apr 12, 12:16 pm, Christopher Webber

Or that clear, widespread comprehension might not break out in some
particular clime at some particular time.

Bruckner may mean something to some people. No problem. That he means
nothing to most people should also pose no problem. The thing is it
seems to do precisely that, hence the virulent reaction to Ms.
Duchen's welcome post expressing her opinion and reflecting a large
proportion of the audience for classical music.

If you like foie gras, you dislike it when it is trashed, or forbidden
for sale (those poor ducks/geese) as has apparently happened in the
enlightened state of California.

Bruckner is, for me, one dumpling too many.

TD

[M forever]

I think "wrath" is the central point here - we all have our likes and
dislikes, but why get so angry about something we don't like, like
Duchen got over Bruckner? I can't really picture you getting "angry"
about over though. Just out of interest, what is it that doesn't
appeal to you about his music?

[M forever]

On Apr 11, 8:37 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 4:56 pm, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 avr, 22:44, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> > > reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> > > worth taking seriously?  Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> > > his music would like to know.
>
> > You don't habe to like Bruckner. No doubt you like a couple of
> > composers I don't care for.
>
> > The point is there is very little space for classical music journalism
> > in mass circulation media.
>
> > It's a very bad thing to use that space to demolish a major composer
> > with juvenile stuff like he isn't good-looking and his music is so
> > longwinded it's boring.
>

> Demolish? Is his music not still available? By the carload? Do you
> think conductors are going to stop conducting it?
>

> Silly hyperbole.

>
> Ms. Duchen is just expressing what a huge majority of classical music
> lovers feel deep down about this composer.
>

> You don't like that? Tough.

Bruckner is one of the most performed and most recorded composers out
there. The vast majority of conductors are dedicated to his music, and
so are many music lovers. So saying that "the huge majority of
classical music lovers" feels that way is clearly nonsense.

You don't like that? Tough.

[td]

On Apr 12, 12:46 pm, Christopher Webber

<zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 17:31, laraine wrote:
>
> > Also, did Bruckner, or Mahler, for that matter,
> > ever write any piano music?  Or do piano
> > or other transcriptions exist of their orchestral
> > and other works? T'would be a good way for
> > some of us to be introduced to those
> > composers
>
> Bruckner wrote a fair quantity of piano music, but I think all of it is
> rather feeble juvenilia.

This is different from his mature music?

TD

[td]

Leinsdorf was nobody's fool, of course, despite his less than stellar
reputation in this newsgroup.

Incidentally, nobody has, to my knowledge, done a better job of
Sibelius 4 than the VPO did with Maazel for Decca.

TD

[David Fox]

I've written about it before here. I'm really bothered by Ravel's habit of
immediately repeating every musical thought as soon as he presents it. His
music also strikes me as pure surface. The surface can be impressive at
times, but that's all there is and I quickly get bored - then annoyed again
by his speech impediment described above. To me, Ravel is nothing more
than a flavor, and I don't like the flavor.

I'm not looking for an argument nor am I trying to convince anyone that I'm
right. Please don't try to argue or convince me that I'm wrong either.
This is just my highly-subjective take on one composer. Clearly he is
highly-regarded by many and unquestionably a major composer. My lack of
affinity for his music is my loss.

DF

[herman]

On 12 avr, 20:15, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:


>
> Bruckner may mean something to some people. No problem. That he means
> nothing to most people should also pose no problem. The thing is it
> seems to do precisely that, hence the virulent reaction to Ms.
> Duchen's welcome post expressing her opinion and reflecting a large
> proportion of the audience for classical music.
>

My main concern, I've said this before, was the extraordinary low
level kind of journalism / criticism in Duchen's piece.

Bruckner wasn't pretty? An extract of a symphony was played on the
radio when Hitler died? His symphonies last too long? Ms Duchen has
heard two of his symphonies, and hates all of them? Until she hears
one them at a Haitink master class, and maybe she got a great lunch
freebie?

Who knows? When a critic starts writing this kind of stuff, you get
the feeling the music doesn't play the slightest role.

[graham]

"David Fox" <davidf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2045772367355948344.5075...@news.giganews.com...

Bitten famously despised the music of Brahms, so there's no accounting for
tastes.
Graham

[M forever]

Don't worry, I am not going to try to convince you that you should
like Ravel. I was just surprised to read that from you, and I was
curious about the reasons. If criticism is voiced in a reasonable
manner like you did here, not like Duchen's juvenile rant or Deacon's
constant celebration of his ignorance, it can actually be interesting
and thought provoking to read the criticism. I don't quite get what
you mean by "the habit of repeating every musical thought as soon as
he presents it". Off the top of my head, I can't think of any such
passages although I am not doubting there are some - apart from Boléro
obviously which I think is awesome because of the sheer nerve and
cheek Ravel displays in that piece. I am surprised though you find the
music superficial because for me, it has enormous emotional depth and
complexity - often in the musically most concise moments, like the
slow movement of the piano concerto and much of the left hand concerto
which is a particular favorite of mine, probably because of its deeply
tragic quality. The last long piano solo leading up to the abrupt
ending never fails to make a huge emotional impact on me. But I also
find a lot of depth in many of the smaller pieces. In fact, Ravel,
along with Bruckner and Sibelius is one of the composers which are
most "important" to me, and he is one of the composers whose music has
really helped me in difficult times.

[Dufus]

>On Apr 12, 4:50 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In fact, Ravel,
> along with Bruckner and Sibelius is one of the composers which are
> most "important" to me,

And to me as well, the Ravel Left-Hand Concerto , Sonatine, Ma Mere
L'Oye, and Piano Trio big favs, as are Sibelius' 1,2,5,6,7 Symphonies,
especially 5 , 7.

Yet not Sibelius 3,4 nor his vocal works or poems, nor Bruckner other
than the 7th Symphony. My fault lines run strangely , I guess.

Dufus

[Mark S]

We all have our blind spots. Personally, Mozart is a blind spot for me
in that I appreciate his music more than I love it. My short list of
Mozart pieces that I can say I really love is fairly short -
Symphonies 21 in A, the Linz and the Prague, The Abduction from the
Seraglio...and beyond that, it gets dicey.

I happen to love Sibelius 4. I have heard it only once in live
performance, and I have to say that it was a nerve-wracking
experience. The piece is so compact that one small misstep can ruin
the whole thing.

[Dufus]

>On Apr 12, 7:50 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My short list of
> Mozart pieces that I can say I really love is fairly short -
> Symphonies 21 in A, the Linz and the Prague, The Abduction from the
> Seraglio...and beyond that, it gets dicey.

Similar for me. Not 21, but 25 ( "little" G minor ), Linz,Prague,39, K.
271,453,467,595 in the piano concerti, the Clarinet Quintet, "Don
Giovanni".
In May,1970, in London waiting a flight to USA, got dirt cheap tickets
at Covent Garden for "Giovanni", Sherril Milnes ( I think) , cheap
because so far stage left in the second or third balcony , I could see
only the orchestra , and the very front of the stage , rarely visited
by the singers. But I could hear, and just off that balcony was a bar
serving reasonably priced Guiness, so , and assisted by the cheap
ticket price, and at age 21 , I was OK with my pact with the Devil !

Dufus

[Dufus]

>On Apr 12, 1:37 pm, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Barenboim, Staatskapelle Berlin, RFH London, live, Bruckner 8th
( Haas) :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01g4xy5 ( Next Tuesday on BBC
Radio 3 )


Only 2 days left , Ogawa discusses :

A personal view of classical music from a range of presenters
continues with a selection of music chosen by acclaimed pianist Noriko
Ogawa to illustrate her life in music. Includes works by Debussy,
Mozart, Bach and Liszt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01fhy0q#synopsis

[Lena]

On Apr 12, 7:59 am, "Gerard" <ghen-nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dufus <steveha...@gmail.com> typed:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 7:35 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > It's like trying to explain the virtues of Diarrhea.
>
> > At least with diarrhea , one usually feels better after all the
> > movements have finished ; not so with all CM.
>
> As your posts show?

That's undeserved, Gerard...

(The YouTube things are an exhortation for doing social listening. I
at least like that sort of thing.)

L.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:f345c26e-ed69-4bd0-8538-2c63693c6135
@f37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

> We all have our blind spots. Personally, Mozart is a blind spot for me in
> that I appreciate his music more than I love it. My short list of Mozart
> pieces that I can say I really love is fairly short - Symphonies 21 in A,
> the Linz and the Prague, The Abduction from the Seraglio...and beyond that,
> it gets dicey.

I have never loved "Le nozze di Figaro" anywhere near as much as I do "Die
Zauberflöte," "Don Giovanni," or even "Così fan tutte."

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.

[weary flake]

Christopher Webber <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:

> On 12/04/2012 17:31, laraine wrote:
>
> > Also, did Bruckner, or Mahler, for that matter,
> > ever write any piano music? Or do piano
> > or other transcriptions exist of their orchestral
> > and other works? T'would be a good way for
> > some of us to be introduced to those
> > composers
>
> Bruckner wrote a fair quantity of piano music, but I think all of it is
> rather feeble juvenilia.

It may be, but I love the Erinnerung anyway. Shiraga's CD on Bis
is worth getting, with that and the adagio transcription from the
seventh symphony. She plays with restrained tempo, while some
others tend to play these too dangity fast.

[Mark S]

On Apr 13, 9:10 am, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> I have never loved "Le nozze di Figaro" anywhere near as much as I do "Die
> Zauberflöte," "Don Giovanni," or even "Così fan tutte."

My pecking order in liking those operas would be Flute, Nozze,
Cosi...and lastly, Don G, which I find to be a monumental bore, its
few outstanding arias notwithstanding.

[Mark S]

On Apr 12, 9:16 am, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

>

> There is no mileage in the notion that Bruckner, or indeed Sibelius, are
> somehow "provincial" or "not understood" outside certain defined
> geographical areas. Although such a view might have had some small
> justification up until the 1950's, the arrival of the LP and global
> distribution laid any such idea to rest many decades ago.

I would mention that Leinsdorf's book (The Composer's Advocate) was
published in 1981, and that his last performances were given in, I
believe, 1989 (he died on 9/11/1993).

Just wanted to dispel the idea that Leinsdorf's thoughts on the
subject reflected some "small justification" that dated from the
1950s.

[M forever]

I think they are all great, and they are all so different, with so
many different characters and angles. Don G may be my favorite though.
I think the mixture of buffa and seria and the wide variety of
characters and musical situations from the light-hearted to the
ominous is awesome.

[rkhalona]

On Apr 11, 1:44 pm, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 11:59 pm, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 avr, 21:37, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > > A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting,
> > > but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> > > explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> > > of the features of the music being disliked.
>
> > Probably she was thinking two (mutually exclusive) things.
>
> > 1) plain folk will like me for being unpretentious. The British love
> > it when you attack art for being too complicated or long. Except when
> > it's Elgar's Violin Cto; Elgar was one of us.
>
> > 2) this piece will get a lot of reader feedback; the editor will
> > commission a new piece of stupid soon

>
> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> worth taking seriously?  Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> his music would like to know.

It could be that you just don't respond to his music, the way I cannot
to Berlioz's or Elgar's.
In that case, trying to convince you will be a waste of time, but
there is a certain transcendence to Bruckner's music that no other
composer
achieved so consistently. He is known for his great Adagios,
beginning with that of the Second, but try the Adagios from the Sixth
onwards.
If you don't respond to any of them, stop trying. He is just not for
you.

RK

[rkhalona]

On Apr 10, 12:37 pm, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 09.04.2012 12:46, schrieb herman:
>
> > in the British Independent newspaper. On Duchen's weblog there's a
> > longer version of this anti-Bruckner piece, indicating, perhaps, that
> > physical attractiveness and a healthy sexual life are the traits of a
> > good composer.
>
> > It does explain why Schubert's music is so awful, too.
>
> >http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/classical/features/an...

>
> A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting,
> but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> of the features of the music being disliked.

Men's brains are serial machines while women's are parallel machines.
Serial machines excel at performing one task at a time, while parallel
machines
excel at multi-tasking. Some say the reason women's brains are
parallel machines is caused by the ability to bear children and to
maximize the survival of the species.
What does this have to do with Bruckner? There is an obsessive
quality to Bruckner's music that is best appreciated serially. A
person who wants to hear several things at a time will certainly be
bored by the repetitive nature that appears to be the overriding
feature of Bruckner's music to a newbie (and someone who doesn't make
an effort to find out more about this music simply because she doesn't
like it -- even a knowledgeable music critic -- will always be a
newbie in this domain).

I once attended a performance of Bruckner's Seventh with the SFS under
Blomstedt at Davies Hall with my wife. She loved the first two
movements, but became exasperated by the last two. Her summary: "I
cannot believe that a composer that created such beautiful initial
movements could descend so low".
She liked two out of four, so I considered the night a success.

The above brain reference is, of course, an oversimplification, but it
is true that many more men love Bruckner's music that women, so
perhaps there is something to the theory/conjecture.

RK

[Johannes Roehl]

This is somewhat odd, because I think the finale of the 7th is far less
repetitive than its slow movement (and than Bruckners norm), it is one
of his tersest pieces, IMO, and repetetiveness is o.k. in scherzo
movements ;) The overall perference for the first two movements is
understandable, because especially the first movement is somewhat
un-Brucknerian in its beautiful lyric way. I do have some reservations
with some of Bruckner's music, even after more thean 20 years listening
to it (and I was still a comparative newcomer to classical music, when I
discovered him with 17 or 18), but the 7th is for me probably his most
successful piece.
So, not being a die-hard Brucknerian, I think I do understand some
aspects the dissidents despise, up to a point at least. But I am still
dissappointed on Duchen's take as a piece of music journalism (as Herman
has put it very succinctly) She is basically reproducing clichés and
pathetic biographic details and a stupid Nazi reference don't help either.

[herman]

On 14 avr, 09:56, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:

> So, not being a die-hard Brucknerian, I think I do understand some
> aspects the dissidents despise, up to a point at least. But I am still
> dissappointed on Duchen's take as a piece of music journalism (as Herman
> has put it very succinctly) She is basically reproducing clichés and
> pathetic biographic details and a stupid Nazi reference don't help either.

I'm not a die-hard Brucknerian either. Sometimes I don't listen to
Bruckner for years.

[Lena]

On Apr 13, 5:39 pm, rkhalona <rkhal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 12:37 pm, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > Am 09.04.2012 12:46, schrieb herman:
>
> > > in the British Independent newspaper. On Duchen's weblog there's a
> > > longer version of this anti-Bruckner piece, indicating, perhaps, that
> > > physical attractiveness and a healthy sexual life are the traits of a
> > > good composer.
>
> > > It does explain why Schubert's music is so awful, too.
>
> > >http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/classical/features/an...
>
> > A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting,
> > but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> > explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> > of the features of the music being disliked.
>
> Men's brains are serial machines while women's are parallel machines.

(laugh)

> What does this have to do with Bruckner?  [...]

> A person who wants to hear several things at a time will certainly be
> bored by the repetitive nature that appears to be the overriding
> feature of Bruckner's music

[...]

Perhaps another explanation would work better. :)

(Parallel machines should have a good time with Bruckner, considering
another obvious quality...)

L.

[Mark S]

On Apr 14, 12:56 am, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:


>the finale of the 7th is far less
> repetitive than its slow movement (and than Bruckners norm),

As if repetition isn't a basic element in lots of music. One may as
well rail against strophic songs with multiple verses, or keyboard
works that employ the Alberti bass, or any set of theme and
variations, or any Menuet/Trio one happens to find, or sonata form, or
the entirety of minimalism, for god's sake.

Your statement also implies that Bruckner is repetitive without any
variation. That's simply not true.

It brings to mind the old joke about two people attending a Bruckner
concert in Vienna, one a seasoned concertgoer, the other an amateur.
After the concert, the veteran asks the nube what he thought. "Well,
there were some nice tunes, but the piece was awfully long," comes the
reply. "Ah...but you see, in Vienna," says the veteran, "we love
music."

[Dufus]

>On Apr 14, 3:15 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sometimes I don't listen to
> Bruckner for years.

And apparently with no ill effects.

[herman]

well, yes and no.

I do get older in the interval.

[John Wiser]

"Dufus" <steve...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:82e9e997-902b-49ee...@2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

>>On Apr 14, 3:15 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bruckner for years.

> And apparently with no ill effects.

How can you tell?

JDW

[Rob Lindauer]

rkhalona wrote:

>
> It could be that you just don't respond to his music, the way I cannot
> to Berlioz's or Elgar's.

> In that case, trying to convince you will be a waste of time...

> If you don't respond to any of them, stop trying. He is just not for
> you.
>
> RK

Entirely too sensible a response -RL

--
Rob Lindauer - for my real email address, please replace "att" with "sbc"

[td]

On Apr 14, 12:27 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 12:56 am, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
>
> >the finale of the 7th is far less
> > repetitive than its slow movement (and than Bruckners norm),
>
> As if repetition isn't a basic element in lots of music. One may as
> well rail against strophic songs with multiple verses, or keyboard
> works that employ the Alberti bass, or any set of theme and
> variations, or any Menuet/Trio one happens to find, or sonata form, or
> the entirety of minimalism, for god's sake.
>
> Your statement also implies that Bruckner is repetitive without any
> variation. That's simply not true.

How about "repetitive without any interesting variation"? Will that
satisfy you?

TD

[td]

In fact, it has probably led to Herman's good health.

TD

[td]

On Apr 14, 3:18 pm, Rob Lindauer <rli...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> rkhalona wrote:
>
> > It could be that you just don't respond to his music, the way I cannot
> > to Berlioz's or Elgar's.
> > In that case, trying to convince you will be a waste of time...
> > If you don't respond to any of them, stop trying.  He is just not for
> > you.
>
> > RK
>
> Entirely too sensible a response

I think I made that case many moons ago.

TD

[Mark S]

On Apr 14, 12:32 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:

>
> > Your statement also implies that Bruckner is repetitive without any
> > variation. That's simply not true.
>
> How about "repetitive without any interesting variation"? Will that
> satisfy you?
>

You may find this additional quote from Leinsdorf's book interesting:

"Bruckner, in the slow movement to his 8th Symphony - surely one of
the finest of his many moving adagios - pays special homage to two
musical ancestors without any loss of originality. The basic pulse of
the first theme's accompaniment resembles that of the love duet from
the second act of 'Tristan,' "Oh sink hernieder Nacht der Liebe,"
while the choice of the key of D-flat is surely a link to Beethoven's
last quartet, op. 135. That Bruckner tried to emulate Beethoven is
evident from several characteristic choices. Many of his openings,
most certainly those of the Third and Ninth symphonies, were composed
under the very long shadow of Beethoven's Ninth. The slow movement of
Brcukner's Seventh Symphony is patterned after that of Beethoven's
Ninth. *What is missing is Beethoven's art of variation.* In the
heavenly lilt of the second subject, Bruckner comes as close to
Beethoven as anyone ever has. In the first subject, however, there is
no way to conceal what the younger master lacks. The themes of the 3/4
portions are played twice, in both symphonies, between the three
appearances of the principal sections. Since this 3/4 melody is not
subject to variation, the heavenly Bruckner melody makes its impact
and disappears, exactly like the melody in Beethoven's adagio. But the
principal subjects are totally different: in Beethoven, we have a
moving melody with the potential of variation, while *in Bruckner we
find a great theme of such keen harmonic bent that in its self-
sufficiency no variation can possibly be derived from it*. As a result
of this thematic construction, the best we get is the grafting on of
figurations that merely avoid a problem that cannot be solved." Erich
Leinsdord, "The Composer's Advocate," Pg. 32.

[Jenn]

In article
<a30a13b2-01a9-4432...@h4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Erich
> Leinsdord, "The Composer's Advocate," Pg. 32.

A GREAT book.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[M forever]

Since you have shown on many occasions, in particular with your silly
comment about the 5th symphony's "simple minded modulations", that
your tin ears can not grasp complex harmonic development and
variations, it is safe to say that you simply can't hear what many
other people find so interesting about Bruckner's music.

BTW, you kept saying that "the vast majority of music lovers" shares
your dislike for Bruckner. Funny though that what kicked off Duchen's
article is that Barenboim is bringing the Staatskapelle Berlin to
London to play the last three symphonies in three consecutive concerts
- and as one can see on the RFH website, all three concerts are almost
completely sold out. I guess that proves you wrong, not a new feeling
for you, I know. Or maybe you think that the London audience simply
has poor taste in music.

[M forever]

Huh? The thematic material in the slow movement of the 7th - both of
the A and of the B sections - is *extensively* varied, not just
repeated a few times with "grafted on figurations". I can't believe
Leinsdorf actually wrote that nonsense.

[herman]

He also belongs to that generation that thinks the ultimate compliment
you can pay to a composer is that he following in Beethoven's
footsteps.

It's pretty obvious that Bruckner also used older, religious music
models, which Beethoven only skimmed in his late phase.

[Mr. Mike]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 03:46:10 -0700 (PDT), herman <her...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>in the British Independent newspaper. On Duchen's weblog there's a
>longer version of this anti-Bruckner piece, indicating, perhaps, that
>physical attractiveness and a healthy sexual life are the traits of a
>good composer.

Here is another article which I posted a few years ago:

http://bit.ly/IozJB8

[Johannes Roehl]

Am 14.04.2012 18:27, schrieb Mark S:
> On Apr 14, 12:56 am, Johannes Roehl<parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> the finale of the 7th is far less
>> repetitive than its slow movement (and than Bruckners norm),
>
> As if repetition isn't a basic element in lots of music. One may as
> well rail against strophic songs with multiple verses, or keyboard
> works that employ the Alberti bass, or any set of theme and
> variations, or any Menuet/Trio one happens to find, or sonata form, or
> the entirety of minimalism, for god's sake.
>
> Your statement also implies that Bruckner is repetitive without any
> variation. That's simply not true.

My statement was not meant as a criticism of the adagio or of
repetitions, just to express puzzlement over the impression of Ramon's
wife. Or more generally how someone would dislike the finale of the 7th
(which is short and compact by Bruckner's standards) for being overly
repetitive while not minding this feature when it is more prominent, as
in the adagio. Of course the effect of the adagio may depend on
sometimes only slightly varied repetitions.

[Christopher Webber]

On 15/04/2012 08:02, herman wrote:
> He also belongs to that generation that thinks the ultimate compliment
> you can pay to a composer is that he following in Beethoven's
> footsteps.
>
> It's pretty obvious that Bruckner also used older, religious music
> models, which Beethoven only skimmed in his late phase.

Spot on - you pinpoint the intellectual limitation in Leinsdorf's cogent
analysis. His comment is useful as observation, but not illuminating as
criticism.

[Mark S]

Where do you see the "huh?"

If you look at the score/listen to the Adagio of the Bruckner 7,
Leinsdorf is correct. The opening theme is basically repeated without
any real harmonic variation, let alone any development, when it
reoccurs. Bruckner adds some figurations in the violins - as pointed
out by Leinsdorf - but little else changes.

I disagree with Leinsdorf in his calling the opening theme of the
Adagio a "subject," because the word "subject" when used in a
classical music context implies something much more specific than a
theme. It implies a theme that can be subjected to variation and
development, and short, motivic subjects - ie: the kind often employed
by Beethoven - lend themselves to variation and development much more
readily than does the kind of "endless melody" that Bruckner provides
in the Adagio of the 7th.

So, IMHO, Leinsdorf is criticizing Bruckner for not doing something
that Bruckner never had any intention of doing in the first place. The
fact that the opening theme of the 7th's Adagio returns pretty much in
tact harmonically and melodically shows that Bruckner isn't interested
in writing a theme from which he can produce variations, but rather in
providing an anchor to the movement that serves the same function as
does a Rondo theme when it makes its expected re-appearances within
that musical form.

Leinsdorf also fails to recognize that Bruckner's musical citation of
the "non confundar in aeternum" theme ("let me never be confounded")
from his "Te Deum" in the principal theme of the Adagio rather
precludes him writing variations on that theme, as one of the
principal beliefs of the religious is that god does not change, that
his promises are kept, and that hope of a promise fulfilled is what
gives the believer the clarity of vision that keeps them from being
"confounded," no matter what else arises...which, in the case of the
Adagio under discussion, are the subsequent musical themes of
increasing beauty that are offered as an enticement away from the main
theme, but that are discarded by the true believer (Bruckner), who
takes the promise of "non confundar" seriously, and who returns again
and again to his opening "non-confounded theme" with no harmonic
variation, but with a more-intense/vibrant orchestration that serves
to build a stronger and stronger edifice against those themes trying
to pull the believer away from the main, non-confundar theme..

At least, that's what I think today.

[td]

My, my. All this sounds so tasty, so attractive, so appealing to the
ear, Mark.

TD

[Dufus]

>On Apr 13, 12:51 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don G may be my favorite though.

Watching a Great Performances live from the Met of " Don G" right now
on PBS ( Iowa Public TV ) , Mariusz Kwiecien in the title role.

[Dufus]

>On Apr 13, 12:51 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Don G may be my favorite though.

[John Wiser]

"td" <tomde...@mac.com> wrote:

>: My, my. All this sounds so tasty, so attractive,

> so appealing to the ear, Mark.

Now, now, Tomasito, diff'rent strokes & all that!

JDW

[herman]

On 15 avr, 20:34, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:

>
> My, my. All this sounds so tasty, so attractive, so appealing to the
> ear, Mark.
>
> TD

You don't have to like it.

[rkhalona]

There is no need to prove TD wrong. It is axiomatic that he is wrong.

RK

[rkhalona]

I have a dear friend, a man who loves Bruckner and knows his music
inside out, and he told me a while back that he would be happy if the
Seventh ended after the Adagio. But to me Bruckner is like a man who
speaks with a heavy accent and stutters. It is easy to dismiss what
he has to say on a stylistic bias, but he has wonderful and very deep
things to say. As he said himself, his music was meant for later
times and he was absolutely correct about that.

RK

[herman]

On 16 avr, 23:10, rkhalona <rkhal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2:39 am, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Am 14.04.2012 18:27, schrieb Mark S:
>
> > > On Apr 14, 12:56 am, Johannes Roehl<parrhe...@web.de>  wrote:
>
> > >> the finale of the 7th is far less
> > >> repetitive than its slow movement (and than Bruckners norm),
>
> > > As if repetition isn't a basic element in lots of music. One may as
> > > well rail against strophic songs with multiple verses, or keyboard
> > > works that employ the Alberti bass, or any set of theme and
> > > variations, or any Menuet/Trio one happens to find, or sonata form, or
> > > the entirety of minimalism, for god's sake.
>
> > > Your statement also implies that Bruckner is repetitive without any
> > > variation. That's simply not true.
>
> > My statement was not meant as a criticism of the adagio or of
> > repetitions, just to express puzzlement over the impression of Ramon's
> > wife. Or more generally how someone would dislike the finale of the 7th
> > (which is short and compact by Bruckner's standards) for being overly
> > repetitive while not minding this feature when it is more prominent, as
> > in the adagio. Of course the effect of the adagio may depend on
> > sometimes only slightly varied repetitions.
>
> I have a dear friend, a man who loves Bruckner and knows his music
> inside out, and he told me a while back that he would be happy if the
> Seventh ended after the Adagio.

That would be a very bad idea. Think of the trio of the scherzo. And
the finale is great, too.

[rkhalona]

Many, many thanks for reposting this.


<<Bruckner, I am convinced, is here to stay,
and it is up to us to face his music squarely. Like the tourist in
the
Uffizi gallery in Florence who was told by the guard, "It is not the
pictures that are on trial, it is you," one might paraphrase, "It is
not Bruckner's music that is on trial...." Perhaps the answer to the
Bruckner Problem is as simple as that. >>

I doubt this could ever be said better.

RK

[laraine]

So he died in 1896, and his music
is somehow associated with Nazism(?)
That's too bad.

C.

[M forever]

True. But it's just fun to reconfirm that now and then - or rather,
nearly every time he opens his mouth about music.
Although I do admit that it is cheap and easy fun, because he is so
clueless that it's easy to prove him wrong all the time.

[M forever]

Only in the minds of people who are still stuck in the kind of mindset
the Nazis had.

[wagnerfan]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:01:04 -0700 (PDT), M forever <ms1...@gmail.com>

True - its either effusive praise for a young pianist (usually a
pretty boy) that reads like it was written by someone who writes
Hallmark cards - or disdain usually accompanied by bigotry or jingoism
of some sort or another, accompanied by "facts" that are almost always
wrong. BTW Wasn't he supposed to be contacting his "sources" to
contradict some allegation or another made by another poster here -
funny how we never heard anything else further about that. Pathetic
old fool.

Wagner fan