Is Bruckner Boring to You?
dd_matt...@yahoo.com
Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should I
persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
Any advice will be highly appreciated.
Thanks.
--MM
P.S. My thanks to everyone who responded to my recent Mahler inquiry.
I'm currently starting my journey into his world with Symphonies 1, 4,
and 5. Thumbs up so far.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
barry7665
he's now one of my three or four favorite composers.
You may want to give number six a try. That's the first one
of his symphonies that really clicked for me. Celibidache
on EMI is my favorite recording, but Klemperer may be a
better starting point.
Barry
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Curtis Croulet
Perhaps not. There's no shame in it.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
Paul Bodine
until I saw the 7th performed by the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra. Now I'm a
believer . . .
Paul Bodine
<dd_matt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e2lmv$k9h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Brian Park
news:3905183d$0$62...@news.execpc.com...
> I recommend seeing Bruckner performed live. I was not much of a Bruckner
fan
> until I saw the 7th performed by the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra. Now I'm
a
> believer . . .
>
> Paul Bodine
>
>
Well, it depends. There was a thread on this a while back after I had a
very similar experience of finally understanding Bruckerer's music when I
saw the CSO perform the 4th earlier this year. That concert was conducted
by Barenboim. I was completely blown away. A few months earlier, however,
I attended another CSO concert where Semyon Bychov conducted their
performance of the 7th. I walked away from that concert feeling utterly
confused and hopeless at the possibility of understanding Bruckner. My
conclusion from these two experiences and further discussion in this
newsgroup is that Brucker is one of those composers who really does need the
help of not only outstanding playing from the orchestra, but even more
importantly from a conductor who clearly grasps and understands the vision
of his music and can guide the listener through the long, seemingly
repetitive melodic lines and dynamic contrasts. I got a hold of Bohm's
recording of the 4th with the VPO and I actually began to *like* the music.
Then I saw Barenboim conduct it live (with a fabulous brass section, I might
add!), and that clinched it for me.
Brian Park
Simon Roberts
: I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
: Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
: EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
: both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should I
: persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
: Any advice will be highly appreciated.
Well, you're hardly the first. Many don't like Bruckner, many don't want
to like Bruckner, many like not liking Bruckner.... I wouldn't worry
about it. Play each of those discs a few more times (I don't think
different performances will make a difference) and see what happens. Then
try 8 and 9 and repeat. If they don't do it, move on....
Simon (who often finds 4 dull)
Michael Weston
: Bruckner didn't sink in immediately with me either, but
: he's now one of my three or four favorite composers.
: You may want to give number six a try. That's the first one
: of his symphonies that really clicked for me. Celibidache
: on EMI is my favorite recording, but Klemperer may be a
: better starting point.
: Barry
It took almost a year of just favoring the scherzo movements before I
tould take them whole. The eigth is my favorite, but I listened to it
numerous times before it made much sense. On the other hand, you may end
up not caring for him. What do you think of Schubert's 9th?
m
M-T
Regards,
mt
A. Brain
good?
I don't know about the Jochum recording in question (though I have the set,
I haven't listened to that one lately). The Karajan EMI was the version I
first knew well, but now I find it rather bland.
Though he leaves out the percussion parts in the adagio, I like Walter's
performance of the 7th. It seems to flow, rather than to stop and start.
As I have remarked before, his recording is particularly miraculous since
according to the liner notes, it was recorded in 1963, whereas Walter is
reliably reported to have died the year before.
--
A. Brain
Remove "nospam" when replying via email
Brian Park <bkp...@megsinet.net> wrote in message
news:wj9N4.2634$Hc7....@news.corecomm.net...
> > > I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
> > > Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
> > > EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
> > > both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should
I
> > > persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
> > > Any advice will be highly appreciated.
Jeffrey Smith
>I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
>Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
>EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
>both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should I
>persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
>Any advice will be highly appreciated.
>Thanks.
>--MM
>
>P.S. My thanks to everyone who responded to my recent Mahler inquiry.
>I'm currently starting my journey into his world with Symphonies 1, 4,
>and 5. Thumbs up so far.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
I would like to make two points here. Firstly, you have started in
what is perhaps the worst place. I have often found No. 4 to be boring
rather than the 'Romantic' name which it has, and for many years I
also listened to the Eugen Jochum/BPO DG recording which you have. To
a point there is not much difference between Jochum and Karajan. The
Georg Tintner version on Naxos, however, is a different matter
entirely. It is the same 1878-80 Haas version, but is recorded in
clear transparent sound which should dispel some, if not all, of your
boredom.
The other point is that Bruckner is an acquired taste. You need to
persevere with it, movement by movement, symphony by symphony. Play
the first movement one day, then repeat it the next day, and the third
and so on. It really is worthwhile.
Jeffrey Smith.
Adrian Hunter
>
> I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
> Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
> EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
> both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should I
> persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
> Any advice will be highly appreciated.
> Thanks.
> --MM
>
> P.S. My thanks to everyone who responded to my recent Mahler inquiry.
> I'm currently starting my journey into his world with Symphonies 1, 4,
> and 5. Thumbs up so far.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
I'm not Brucknerite, but I have been slowly coming around.
I think one of your problems is #4. #4 was the first one I heard
(live) and I really enjoyed it, and I know that Jochum recording
and it's good. The trouble is the piece, IMO, has an immensely
boring slow movement. It's like you wear yourself out tryig to
understand what's _supposed_ to be "great" about it (not much
IMO) that the whole symphony becomes tedious. I hardly ever
listen to #4 much now.
#7 is better, but as others have said, I guess you just have to
let things sink in. Don't sit down and listen to them three times
in a row, but give them some weeks and months to mature.
#8 and #9 are great, but perhaps the same warnings apply.
Now, to my real point (and it's a cheap one too!) try the Tintner
recordings on Naxos. Most of these were the fresh air I was
looking for, none bad, and some the best. I've particularly
fallen for #3--although don't be put off by movement timings
because they don't seem to last as long as that! It's the
unfailing sense of direction that wins the day. Bruckner can
easily come across as vast blocks of music, and very repetitious,
without variation. To some extent, I think the music does have
that "architectural" quality, but there is goal-direction, and
Tintner for me brings it out better than some others (but of
course not being a real Brucknerite, there are many others I've
not tried!).
Adrian
Mark Jordan
> >I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
> >Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
> >EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
> >both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should I
> >persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
> >Any advice will be highly appreciated.
> >Thanks.
> >--MM
The Jochum/BPO 4 isn't bad, but I agree that the bargain priced Tintner 4th
has something quite magical about it. One tip for listening to Bruckner:
With many composers (for comparison, let's say Mahler or Brahms), one must
pierce through the details and complexities to get a feel for what the
composer is saying. In Bruckner, however, one's focus needs to be more on
the large scale, the overall ebb and flow, at least to some degree. In
Mahler, you learn the details in order to grasp the whole. In Bruckner, you
learn the whole in order to grasp the details.
Mark
Heck
Jochum, Berlin Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan,
Berlin Philharmonic, 1971 EMI). After several listening
sessions, I concluded that I found them both to be
extremely boring. Am I missing something or what?"
Try some different performances. #4 and #7 esp, are great
works. Try Walter, or Barenboim/CSO (DG 2-fer 4&7), Solti's
#7 is great, also.
If my exposure to Bruckner had been just Herbert and Abner
(Jochum) I would find it boring also.
Paul Goldstein
<dgallaghe...@mediaone.net.invalid> wrote:
>If my exposure to Bruckner had been just Herbert and Abner
>(Jochum) I would find it boring also.
Did Eugen and Georg Ludwig have another conducting brother named
Abner?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Bob Reid
> As I have remarked before, his recording is particularly miraculous since
> according to the liner notes, it was recorded in 1963, whereas Walter is
> reliably reported to have died the year before.
>
> --
A truly remarkable achievement.
samir ghiocel golescu
Which doesn't beat, though, Mendelssohn's 1929 SMP!
JRsnfld
when I listened to the scherzi. So for a long time I just listened to these
movements. Then the Adagio of the 8th struck me for its profundity, as did the
last movement of that symphony. Pretty soon I was able to put the whole picture
together. I still rarely have time or energy to listen to a symphony in one
sitting.
Another way to look at Bruckner: I often think of Bruckner as a composer who
presents a symphony as if it's a beautiful building he's touring for the first
time. He walks all around it (at his own pace), sketching it from different
angles, giving you pieces and glimpses sequentially. The beauty of the whole is
conveyed this way over a long time span, but only by the very end is the
essence of the big picture revealed. And it tends to be a very simple, but
profound, essence.
In some conductors' hands, this is not only a tedious process, it never adds up
to anything. The key is not just the ability to make Bruckner's simple
brushstrokes vibrant, but to handle the "pauses" between each sketch with
aplomb. The silences must feel like they are pregnant with thought, as if the
musicians are actively considering what to sketch next. There needs to be a
gentleness with which a theme or countersubject is passed from one orchestral
voice to another. Then suddenly the music blossoms from being a mere sequence
of utterly simple lines and patterns to a really complex, satisfying canvas of
intricate composition.
--Jeff
Kjell A. Johansen
Try Böhm (Decca) in #4 and Haitink (Philips) in #7.
Nr. 8 and 9 with both Giulini and Karajan.(Both DGG versions with HvK.!)
Regards
Kjell Johansen
"Heck" <dgallaghe...@mediaone.net.invalid> skrev i melding
news:01efbc34...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com...
> "I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4,
> Jochum, Berlin Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan,
> Berlin Philharmonic, 1971 EMI). After several listening
> sessions, I concluded that I found them both to be
> extremely boring. Am I missing something or what?"
>
> Try some different performances. #4 and #7 esp, are great
> works. Try Walter, or Barenboim/CSO (DG 2-fer 4&7), Solti's
> #7 is great, also.
> If my exposure to Bruckner had been just Herbert and Abner
> (Jochum) I would find it boring also.
>
>
>
Paul Bodine
the extent to which Bruckner prefigures Mahler's music in some ways. I
haven't looked into what Mahler thought of Bruckner but at times I thought I
heard a definite resemblance (in some of the more lyrical parts of the 7th's
second movement, for example).
Paul Bodine
JRsnfld <jrs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000425143839...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
Chris Bekhuis (Radio Xymphonia)
jrs...@beckman.demon.co.uk says...
> I would like to make two points here. Firstly, you have started in
> what is perhaps the worst place. I have often found No. 4 to be boring
> rather than the 'Romantic' name which it has, and for many years I
> also listened to the Eugen Jochum/BPO DG recording which you have. To
> a point there is not much difference between Jochum and Karajan. The
> Georg Tintner version on Naxos, however, is a different matter
> entirely. It is the same 1878-80 Haas version, but is recorded in
> clear transparent sound which should dispel some, if not all, of your
> boredom.
>
> The other point is that Bruckner is an acquired taste. You need to
> persevere with it, movement by movement, symphony by symphony. Play
> the first movement one day, then repeat it the next day, and the third
> and so on. It really is worthwhile.
>
> Jeffrey Smith.
After having listened to Haitink's Bruckner cycle I actually had
dismissed it as not being my cup of tea (the music). A few months ago
after having read quite a lot of recommendations for the Tintner
performances I bought Bruckner 3 and did exactly the thing you are
recommending: going movement by movement. Since then there hasn't been a
week without having listened to at least 1 Bruckner symphony (have bought
3,4,5,6 and 9). I had to invest some (or in this case, quite a lot) of
time but in the end it really was worthwhile.
--
Chris Bekhuis
"Remember what's been given, not taken away" - Brett W. Kull
Dave Fox
>I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
>Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
>EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
>both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should I
>persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
>Any advice will be highly appreciated.
You've gotten some good responses on this, so I'll just agree with the
major points. Bruckner is an acquired taste, and I've never
understood why the 4th and 7th are so often recommended for Bruckner
newcomers.
Keep in mind that Bruckner isn't very good "background music", so
you'll need to focus your attention on it. Try headphones if you've
got a good pair.
I'd suggest the Third, Sixth, Eighth or Ninth.
Dave Fox
Curtis Croulet
try 1874.
Curtis Croulet
>according to the liner notes, it was recorded in 1963, whereas Walter is
>reliably reported to have died the year before.
The current Sony release (SMK 64 482) of this says that it was recorded in
1961. The back cover says (p)1963, but that's because the recording was
first released in late 1963.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
A. Brain wrote in message
<_3bN4.22367$PV.15...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>Could it be that the recordings this original poster tried are not that
>good?
>
>I don't know about the Jochum recording in question (though I have the set,
>I haven't listened to that one lately). The Karajan EMI was the version I
>first knew well, but now I find it rather bland.
>
>Though he leaves out the percussion parts in the adagio, I like Walter's
>performance of the 7th. It seems to flow, rather than to stop and start.
>As I have remarked before, his recording is particularly miraculous since
>according to the liner notes, it was recorded in 1963, whereas Walter is
>reliably reported to have died the year before.
>
>--
>> > > I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
>> > > Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
>> > > EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found
them
>> > > both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should
>I
>> > > persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
>> > > Any advice will be highly appreciated.
John Wilson
>I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
>Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
>EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
>both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should I
>persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
>Any advice will be highly appreciated.
>Thanks.
>--MM
>
It took me a long time for Bruckner also and I still don't
particularly care for either 4 or 7 the very ones you are having
trouble with. 5 was the first one that clicked for me (all that
wonderful counterpoint in the last movement). You may have to keep
trying but if you decide in the end he isn't for you there's no shame
in that either. BTW, my favs now are 3, 5, 6, 8 & 9.
John
rkha...@adnc.com
dd_matt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
> Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
> EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
> both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should
I
> persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
> Any advice will be highly appreciated.
There are people who don't respond to Bruckner and there's no problem
with that (I have deaf ears for Berlioz and Elgar, both of whom I find
annoying at times). I recommend first to try a different symphony.
4 and 7 are his most popular ones and it could be that you respond
differently than most people. I have always thought that No. 6 is an
excellent starting point with Bruckner as the symphony is not too long,
contains beautiful melodies (as in the Adagio) and exemplifies perhaps
better than any of the others the Bruckner "rhythm" (as in the very
beginning of the symphony). Blomstedt/SFSO on Decca (if you can find
it) would be an excellent starting point. If you like more modern
music, try the Ninth. It has the sort of dissonance that foreshadows
some modern composers and the emotional impact (of a good performance)
never ceases to amaze. Try either Haitink (digital recording) or Van
Beinum, both on Philips and both with the Concertgebouw. These are both
fantastic recordings.
Another thing you could try is different performances of 4 and 7.
Jochum's BPO 4th is fleet and uneven in tempo, and perhaps Bohm's VPO
recording (now on Decca Legends) will be a good antidote because it is
grand and expansive throughout, with few tempo manipulations.
I found Karajan's EMI 7th extremely weak and stodgy. There is a superb
and inexpensive 7th on Vox with Hans Rosbaud and the SWF Orchestra of
Baden-Baden that has been a favorite for many, many years.
If after following the above process you still don't respond, chances
are it's time to move on and perhaps come back after a long break.
Ramon Khalona
Seattle
A. Brain
possible that errors like this get past editors. Several years ago, a
friend showed me a book of literary criticism, published by a university
press, where the introduction to the second edition had, in the second or
third paragraph, the contraction form "it's" [it is] for the possessive
pronoun "its". This error is more common now, as a result of general
confusion and falling standards, as well as other factors (such as teachers
who do not teach standard English usage, or much else), but that hardly
excuses its appearance in a scholarly book, in an introduction to a later
edition, presumably the most read and proofread part of any book.
Another apparent error on my copy of the Bruckner 7th CD b Walter, as I
have mentioned before, is in the liner notes where it says that Bruckner did
not revise this work as he did others, and "therefore there are blessedly no
problems about which version to perform....the Seventh is usually played (as
it is, of course, in this recording) as it was conceived and written." (you
Bruckner scholars correct me if I misunderstand something, but this is an
even more egregious error I think; how did it get past the editors?)
Remember, these people get paid to write this stuff.
--
A. Brain
Remove "nospam" when replying via email
Curtis Croulet <curt...@pe.net> wrote in message
news:3fvN4.4370$%i.90...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> >> > > I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
> >> > > Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
> >> > > EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found
> them
> >> > > both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what?
Should
> >I
> >> > > persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
> >> > > Any advice will be highly appreciated.
Jon A Conrad
another performance, is good. But in the end, we like what we like (even
if our tastes may evolve over time) , and some music-lovers otherwise much
in sympathy with the late Romantic musical idiom do find Bruckner boring.
I'm one. After some years of "giving him a chance," I found it a great
relief to admit that something in me is not in tune with him, and leave
him alone.
So it doesn't mean you're wicked or unmusical if you eventually decide
Bruckner isn't for you. Nobody likes everything.
J.A.C.
Raymond Hall
>
> In article <8e2lmv$k9h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> dd_matt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
> > EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
> > both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should
> I
> > persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
> > Any advice will be highly appreciated.
>
> with that (I have deaf ears for Berlioz and Elgar, both of whom I find
> annoying at times). I recommend first to try a different symphony.
> 4 and 7 are his most popular ones and it could be that you respond
> differently than most people. I have always thought that No. 6 is an
> excellent starting point with Bruckner as the symphony is not too long,
> contains beautiful melodies (as in the Adagio) and exemplifies perhaps
> better than any of the others the Bruckner "rhythm" (as in the very
> beginning of the symphony). Blomstedt/SFSO on Decca (if you can find
> it) would be an excellent starting point. If you like more modern
> music, try the Ninth. It has the sort of dissonance that foreshadows
> some modern composers and the emotional impact (of a good performance)
> never ceases to amaze. Try either Haitink (digital recording) or Van
> Beinum, both on Philips and both with the Concertgebouw. These are both
> fantastic recordings.
>
> Another thing you could try is different performances of 4 and 7.
> Jochum's BPO 4th is fleet and uneven in tempo, and perhaps Bohm's VPO
> recording (now on Decca Legends) will be a good antidote because it is
> grand and expansive throughout, with few tempo manipulations.
> I found Karajan's EMI 7th extremely weak and stodgy. There is a superb
> and inexpensive 7th on Vox with Hans Rosbaud and the SWF Orchestra of
> Baden-Baden that has been a favorite for many, many years.
>
> If after following the above process you still don't respond, chances
> are it's time to move on and perhaps come back after a long break.
>
to start me on my journey. Never looked back since. Thank God for
Bruckner.
Regards,
Ray, Sydney
ElShaddai Edwards
ElShaddai
Paul Bodine <pbo...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:3906010a$0$19...@news.execpc.com...
Joseph Colombo
don't get it. Friends would give me this or that recording and I
would dutifully listen...and listen...and listen. Having a stong
superego, I recently purchased some of the Celibidache recordings and
bingo. Maybe it was the recordings and the slow tempi let me hear
what I didn't hear before. Maybe it was the new (and more detailed)
speakers that allowed my ears to decipher some of the thickness of the
music. Maybe it was that I'm just getting older. Whatever it is, no
one needs to apologize or feel ashamed for not liking a piece or
composer. I have always considered the beauty of music, the
connection between me and a piece to be a moment of grace--something
not owed to me.
On 26 Apr 2000 07:06:27 -0400, con...@copland.udel.edu (Jon A Conrad)
wrote:
ltm...@my-deja.com
jrs...@aol.com (JRsnfld) wrote:
>
>
[snip]
> Another way to look at Bruckner: I often think of Bruckner as a
composer who
> presents a symphony as if it's a beautiful building he's touring for
the first
> time. He walks all around it (at his own pace), sketching it from
different
> angles, giving you pieces and glimpses sequentially. The beauty of the
whole is
> conveyed this way over a long time span, but only by the very end is
the
> essence of the big picture revealed. And it tends to be a very simple,
but
> profound, essence.
>
>
[snip]
This is a nice analogy. But the landscape of Bruckner's music is, to
me, rugged and imbued with themes, textures and tone colors suggestive
of natural imagery. There is a wonderful cragginess to the climactic
moments. I've listened to several Bruckner symphonies while hiking in
the Adirondacks and Catskills, and it often seemed that the music was
specifically written for the occasion!
LTMSFI
Bob Reid
dd_matt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
> Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
> EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
> both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should I
> persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
> Any advice will be highly appreciated.
> Thanks.
> --MM
OK I think I figured out a definitive test. Get Tinters Bruckner 3. Put
on the third movement. If that doesn't grab you then perhaps Anton's not
for you. If it does try the opening movement of the 7th (Bruno Walter).
Maybe easing you in is the way to go. Also tincture of time can work
wonders. 15 years ago my opinion of Bruckner was that he wrote 1 symphony
that was 12 hours long. I've since revised this opinion.
Bob Reid
John Wilson wrote:
>5 was the first one that clicked for me
Wow! 5 has always eluded me. 8 too unfortunately.
Paolo G. Cordone
> Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
> Any advice will be highly appreciated.
At this stage in the thread you have received several good replies on how
to become better accustomed to Bruckner's music. But I'd like to add my
little contribution to it, since I have discovered this great composer only
half a year ago and am slowly becoming a major fan of his.
I immediately realised that the sheer length of his symphonies is certainly
a daunting prospect to any unprepared listener, so, what I did was to buy
myself a wonderful little guide called "Bruckner - Symphonies" by Philip
Barford. This is a short (68 pages) book which will give you an insight
into Bruckner's personality, put him into context, and present you with
many essential facts which will make a lot of sense when listening to the
works. Moreover, the guide also contains a great deal of detailed score
analysis, with fragments printed in it, so that one can get a feel for the
actual music he wrote.
As I am not a trained musician, I would have had considerable problems in
discerning all of Bruckner's themes and motives in the symphonies. However,
this little booklet really helped me appreciate such wonderful (if
sometimes long-winded and convoluted) compositions.
I am not so sure how easy it is to get the book in the US. Philip Barford
was a senior lecturer with the University of Liverpool and has written
articles on C.P.E. Bach, Mahler and on Buddhism (in case you wonder about
the latter, his interest in the philosophy of religion and in musical
symbolism is quite relevant and apparent in his discussion of the music of
both Mahler and Bruckner).
The book is published by Ariel Music - BBC Publications (ISBN
0-563-20512-1) and costs a mere UK£2.95!
Paolo
Maintainer of the Online Classical-CD Stores FAQ.
http://indigo.ie/~pamolo/faq.html
Curtis Croulet
sounds like something that would have been written ca. 1962. Editors are
perpetually confused about Bruckner editions and variants, and with some
bonafide alternate versions now available, the confusion has gotten worse.
In the case of the Seventh there's a widespread perception that the only
difference between the Haas and Nowak editions is the cymbal crash, but
there are in fact a number of other small differences to entertain
sharp-eared listeners. And that percussion bit can be (and has been) added
to or deleted from performances of both editions.
I always thought Columbia/CBS was one of the sloppier of the big labels for
both pressing quality and packaging. One of the earlier CD releases of
Walter's Mahler Resurrection (M2K 42032) said on the box and notes that the
orchestra was the Columbia SO, when in fact it's the NY Phil. The discs are
labeled correctly.
Curtis Croulet
Curtis Croulet
somewhat accepting of Bruckner, just that he/she might not respond to the
most-commonly played version of the Fourth.
There's no shame in not liking him. At this very moment, people in this
forum are posting enthusiastic messages about composers who escape me, just
as people in this thread don't "get" Bruckner. I'm forever the poorer, I
know, by not responding to Shostakovich and Elgar. I'll keep trying. Who
knows? -- maybe something in me will change, and someday I'll rank them up
right there with Anton.
jbay...@hotmail.com
while waiting to "mature into" them. Bruckner was one such composer
that I didn't learn to appreciate until a few years ago.
John
In article <8e2lmv$k9h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
dd_matt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
> Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
> EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
> both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should
I
> persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
> Any advice will be highly appreciated.
> Thanks.
> --MM
>
> P.S. My thanks to everyone who responded to my recent Mahler inquiry.
> I'm currently starting my journey into his world with Symphonies 1, 4,
> and 5. Thumbs up so far.
>
jbay...@hotmail.com
rkha...@adnc.com wrote:
> In article <8e2lmv$k9h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> dd_matt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
> > Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
> > EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found
them
> > both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what?
Should
> I
> > persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
> > Any advice will be highly appreciated.
>
> with that (I have deaf ears for Berlioz and Elgar, both of whom I find
> annoying at times). I recommend first to try a different symphony.
> 4 and 7 are his most popular ones and it could be that you respond
> differently than most people.
For some reason, for me, it was the 5th that broke the ice. Hardly
his most approachable symphony (which is probably the 7th).
John
JRsnfld
the Adirondacks and Catskills,<
I suspect if I did the same, I'd end up hearing the staggering gait of my heart
pounding through it all--like Mahler 9 overlaid on Ravel's La Valse.
--Jeff
ltm...@my-deja.com
shape for hiking/Bruckner season! :)
LTMSFI
Mark Jordan
<ltm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8e9f0q$rin$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
If you get the treadmill, shoot it on videotape and I'll watch it while
sitting on the couch eating Ben & Jerry's chocolate chip cookie dough ice
cream with Bruckner's 8th roaring through the speakers.
Mark
Victor Chen
> tould take them whole. The eigth is my favorite, but I listened to it
> numerous times before it made much sense. On the other hand, you may end
> up not caring for him. What do you think of Schubert's 9th?
>
> m
I have had similar experiences with Schubert's 9th. I was first attracted
by its scherzo movement, but the rest of the symphony took several tries
before I can truly say I enjoy the symphony.
-Victor
JRsnfld
sitting on the couch eating Ben & Jerry's chocolate chip cookie dough ice
cream with Bruckner's 8th roaring through the speakers.
Mark<
Save the pint of Chunky Monkey for the Te Deum.
--Jeff
Paul Bodine
Bruckner?
Paul Bodine
dd_matt...@yahoo.com
Yes.
But just to confirm, I'll send him an email and ask.
--MM
A. Brain
> Of course, an equally valid question might be, would you be boring to
> Bruckner?
>
Not if you were a little girl. Unless maybe you had a shrill, squeaky
singing voice that is really irritating and omnipresent.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> Paul Bodine <pbo...@execpc.com> wrote in message
> news:3909b65f$0$26...@news.execpc.com...
> > Of course, an equally valid question might be, would you be boring to
> > Bruckner?
> >
>
> Not if you were a little girl. Unless maybe you had a shrill, squeaky
> singing voice that is really irritating and omnipresent.
Heh heh heh. Give the soprano part in the Te Deum to you-know-who!
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
Jarl Sigurd
dd_matt...@yahoo.com wrote in message <8e2lmv$k9h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
>Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
>EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
>both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should I
>persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
>Any advice will be highly appreciated
I tried listening to the Karajan(8th) and Jochum(4th) Bruckner as well
as the Solti(6th) at the library and I must say that I was not very
impressed by any of these performances. I also heard the Klemperer
8th and found it irritating. When it comes to Bruckner, one conductor
towers above all the others and that is Wilhelm Furtwangler. You really
haven't heard Bruckner until you've hear Furtwangler's interpretations.
His recordings dwarf everyone elses, including Knappertsbusch and
Celibidache, who I consider to be two of the best Bruckneriens.
Furtwangler's Bruckner is anything but boring. His wartime 8th and
9th are truly awesome.
Jarl Sigurd
to listen to a symphony composed by Jarl Sigurd
visit: http://geocities.com/Paris/Lights/3333
>P.S. My thanks to everyone who responded to my recent Mahler inquiry.
>I'm currently starting my journey into his world with Symphonies 1, 4,
>and 5. Thumbs up so far.
>
>
Paul Kintzele
Marc Perman wrote:
>
> "Jarl Sigurd" <jarls...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >I tried listening to the Karajan(8th) and Jochum(4th) Bruckner as well
> >as the Solti(6th) at the library and I must say that I was not very
> >impressed by any of these performances. I also heard the Klemperer
> >8th and found it irritating. When it comes to Bruckner, one conductor
> >towers above all the others and that is Wilhelm Furtwangler. You really
> >haven't heard Bruckner until you've hear Furtwangler's interpretations.
> >His recordings dwarf everyone elses, including Knappertsbusch and
> >Celibidache, who I consider to be two of the best Bruckneriens.
> >Furtwangler's Bruckner is anything but boring. His wartime 8th and
> >9th are truly awesome.
>
> But are they macho?
Muy, muy macho.
Paul
Marc Perman
Jeffrey Smith
<jarls...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>dd_matt...@yahoo.com wrote in message <8e2lmv$k9h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>I recently picked up two Bruckner symphonies (No 4, Jochum, Berlin
>>Philharmonic, 1967 DG; and No 7, Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, 1971
>>EMI). After several listening sessions, I concluded that I found them
>>both to be extremely boring. Am I missing something or what? Should I
>>persist or just give up? Perhaps Bruckner isn't for me.
>>Any advice will be highly appreciated
>
>I tried listening to the Karajan(8th) and Jochum(4th) Bruckner as well
>as the Solti(6th) at the library and I must say that I was not very
>impressed by any of these performances. I also heard the Klemperer
>8th and found it irritating. When it comes to Bruckner, one conductor
>towers above all the others and that is Wilhelm Furtwangler. You really
>haven't heard Bruckner until you've hear Furtwangler's interpretations.
>His recordings dwarf everyone elses, including Knappertsbusch and
>Celibidache, who I consider to be two of the best Bruckneriens.
>Furtwangler's Bruckner is anything but boring. His wartime 8th and
>9th are truly awesome.
>
>Jarl Sigurd
>
I still believe that you haven't got a complete picture until you have
listened to Georg Tintner in all these works.
Jeffrey Smith.
Simon Roberts
: I still believe that you haven't got a complete picture until you have
: listened to Georg Tintner in all these works.
I don't think Jarl wants "a complete picture"....
Simon