I just can't get into Bruckner
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 11:31AM
#2
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
lilianruhe,
He also shared a flat with von Karajan in the sixties.
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 1:45PM
#3
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
Bruckner can be singable, since he wrote notes, but is there any memorable, beautiful tune, except for the folk melodies he used in his Scherzi.
The absurdity of this statement almost made me drop off my chair and made me break my solemn promise not to reply to any parla-post on this forum ever again.
How about the main theme or the adagio of the 7th? Or the 2nd theme of the adagio of the 6th (to me the most beautiful melody ever written by anyone)? How anyone can listen to these melodies and not acknowledge their quality is beyond me and makes me think you either don't know these pieces at all or you're deliberately trolling, something you've been accused of before, but which I refused to believe at first.
I don't even want to go into your mantra that all that matters in music is melody (actually it's just one of a dozen of factors that make great music) since anyone critizing moronic notions like this will run into a brick wall of platitudes like "the infallible oracle consisting of my collected performer-friends says so" or "the general public is never wrong".
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 2:29PM
#4
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
parla wrote:
...Bruckner can be singable...
Yes, and is done so by many a Catholic or Anglican choir around the country, Locus Iste seems to be the most popular!!
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 3:26PM
#5
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
How anyone can listen to these melodies and not acknowledge their quality is beyond me and makes me think you either don't know these pieces at all or you're deliberately trolling, something you've been accused of before, but which I refused to believe at first.
The Hectic One is far too busy to listen to music.
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 3:34PM
#6
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
...makes me think you either don't know these pieces at all or you're deliberately trolling, something you've been accused of before, but which I refused to believe at first.
Or maybe both? It's been a long time since it became clear to me that Parla's sole aim is to make an utter nuisance of himself by continually posting pretentious drivel, so it's reassuring that I am not alone in reaching this conclusion. Buckner doesn't do melody indeed - only a moron could post such a remark. And Parla's is a moron indeed.
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 4:28PM
#7
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
He also shared a flat with von Karajan in the sixties.
Ah, a fantasist. Explains much.
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 4:49PM
#8
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
To return to the subject, Bruckner!
I've always found it difficult to find a convincing 'way in' for someone who doesn't enjoy a composer's music. One way that has worked for me more often than most (if the opportunity exists for you) is to attend a live performance. My real entrée into Bruckner came many years ago with a performance in London of the Eighth Symphony by Jascha Horenstein and the LSO. That really opened my ears to Bruckner's music in a way that numerous highly regarded recordings could not at the time.
Bruckner's colossal sound world can never sound quite the same at home, even with the best hi-fi!
If you have the chance -try it: it might work for you too!
Chris
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 5:57PM
#9
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
Impressive reaction, while I thought once the whole Bruckner issue should come to an end.
So, eyeresist again:
1. If you wish to see Bruckner as "Classical" anyway, I could agree in the way that all the Germanic Symphonists are. Classical or not, his main influence is Wagner and that counts.
2. Of course there is not an "official" division. However, those who managed to "comprehend" and perform greatly Bruckner have some difficulties with Mahler and not only. Conductors who managed to make a name in Bruckner, like Blomstedt, Celibidache, Simone Young, Van Zweden, Wand have little or no involvement with Mahler. And vice versa.
3. "Tons of lovely tunes". Then, you're "lucky" if you can name them (50m named two obvious ones and I already mentioned the ones from the Scherzi. Is that a proof of a composer of "tons" of lovely tunes?).
4. If you can claim that Rautavaara's 3rd and Schnittke's 3rd sound actually even a bit Brucknerian, then, there should be an influence. I cannot say that at all. In any case, in broader terms, neither of them are considered as composers with clear influence from Bruckner.
Parla
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 6:39PM
#10
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
Jane, the fact that Mahler "prepared a piano reduction of Bruckner's 3rd" does not prove that his music has anything or much to do with Bruckner. I have no problem with the argument of the "more adventurous" harmonic language. Bruckner was a great musician, by all means. This cannot make him a beloved composer. Mahler was simpler, quite a few times he even sounded naive or superficial, but he was effective and he could speak a very beautiful musical language.
So, that bring us to the issue of having "admirers of both" composers. Of course, I admire them both (like many others), but I love the music of one of them more. This does not mean that I cannot listen to some movements or parts of Bruckner's Symphonies without enough satisfaction.
If Schubert's 9th is "Romantic" because you put it "side by side" with a typical (not a great) Haydn Symphony, what about if you put it side by side with Beethoven's 3rd, 5th or 7th, to name only three?
My reference to Mendelssohn had to do with his Symphonies, since we're discussing about the Symphonic work of Bruckner here. In his Symphonies, he was closer to develop greater structural forms rather than having been simply melodious. His Symphonies are great exactly for that reason. They are works beyond the miniatures of the Lieder ohne Worte or the slow movements of the Piano Trios or some of the String Quartets. Speaking of them, he does the same thing. Important form, less songful melodies (except for some slow movements). In his two String Quintets, he goes even further as for the form and more complex structure.
I don't know if I can make myself clear once more. Bruckner is great enough to be in the pantheon of the most important composers of Classical Music. However, this does not mean that his Symphonies are of the same interest, appeal, love as some other composers, who happened to have written some kind of different (sometimes quite different) music (in terms of melodic invention, memorable tunes all along the development of the Symphony etc.). Is this that difficult to comprehend and, eventually, agree on?
Parla
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 7:10PM
#11
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
Finally, 50m's turn. Of course, in his enormous and gigantic work of numerous pages of Symphonic music, Bruckner should have had some memorable, great tunes. I already accepted that, in his Scherzi, there are some nice, tuneful folk melodies, particularly in the very early ones. However, the issue I raised is what happens in the development of these few great themes and, most importantly, what happens in these 60 - 80 minutes of works with hugely developed movements.
As for the "all that matters in music is melody", it is your perception of what I wrote. I just repeated what I was told by a wise old professor: "The melody is the social face of music". In other words, melody is this sort of identity of a music work to communicate with the audience. By all means, there are a dozen other "factors" to define the greatness of a musical work. However, without their social passport, the other factors won't easily pass and reach their destination. Ravel, as an intelligent (at least) composer, he wrote a cleverly nice melody in his grande etude pour l'orchestration, his Bolero, and he made even the most unaware listener to follow the tune all the way, enjoying, at the same time, this masterful study of orchestration to the very end.
So, instead of calling me so easily names, try to read me more carefully.
Parla
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 8:25PM
#12
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
I just can't get into Parla.
His/her pidgin-english prose is just ... too..."maybe"..."painful."
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 9:19PM
#13
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
Her.
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 10:31PM
#14
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
50m named two obvious ones
and I already mentioned the ones from the Scherzi.
and I already mentioned the ones from the Scherzi.
You want me to go through all the symphonies and list all the unforgettable melodies that spawned from Bruckner's incredibly gifted brain? Each movement has at least 3 great melodies, multiplied by 4 movements and 11 symphonies, makes roughly 130 melodies that every Brucknerian knows and cherishes. Not enough for you?
You can quote all the wise old professors you want, but your original message about Bruckner's lack of melodic talent was complete and utter bullsh*t, and you know it. I suspect that doesn't matter to you since your goal, leaving your urine mark on a thread that you weren't even interested in in the first place, is already accomplished.
Tue, Feb 19 2013, 10:51PM
#15
RE: I just can't get into Bruckner
I know the conversation has moved on, but I have to comment on Parla's suggestion that if one is a great Bruckner conductor, one doesn't get Mahler, and vice versa. Haitink, to name but one, is a great conductor of both composers, even if his temperament is closer to Anton. And Klaus Tennstedt was pretty good at both, though temperamentally closer to Gustav. I'm not sure of the value of this issue anyway in this debate, which remains of pretty high quality, but didn't want to let the point go unchallenged.
Don’t forget, Jane, that one of his many friends in the learned professor- or trained musician-department told him so, so there really is no denying it!