I just can't get into Bruckner

I take the liberty of responding to this...

His symphonies are the crown jewels of symphonic writing. Their grandeur lies not in their melodic ingenuity (much discussed here), but above all in their perfect architecture where every phrase builds on the previous, where everything belongs together, where the end is a direct consequence of the beginning. As an example for this, just listen to the stunning ingenuity of the finale of Bruckner's 5th where everything comes together in an absolutely breathtaking way. I know no other composer who did this that well. Most certainly not Mahler who has wonderful moments, stunning orchestration, but little sense of architecture. In a way Mahler's symphonies are bombastic miniatures, ingenius but not symphonic in my view, certainly not at the level of Bruckner. I find Mahler fascinating and find myself listening to his music often, but he's not symphonic.

It's wonderful to see this strong support in the forum for Bruckner - in my view an under-rated musician often neglected on concert programs in favour of the more stunning Mahler or other composers.

Bruckner deserves better.

Ganymede, hold on! Please don't use Bruckner to bash Mahler - it just means you end up getting a repeat performance of the dopey reasoning that uses Mahler to bash Bruckner.

But I couldn't agree with you more either on the Fifth, or on Bruckner finales generally. Sometimes I feel he's the only composer of symphonies who really resolves symphonic argument, as against winding something down. Yes, that's a sweeping generalization; yes, "resolution" may not always be what's required. But those finales (5 and 8 especially) are unique in the wonderful inevitability they project.

Well, the usual suspects, the usual responses for simply defending the right to explain why some might not love Bruckner's music, even if they may appreciate it.

Jane, if you wish to believe that there is no division in some notable (or notorious) conductors about Bruckner and Mahler or if you believe that both Bernstein and Karajan had equal appreciation and excitement in conducting them, it's your perception. By the way, Penguin is not the Bible; it's another reference among many.

Going to Ganymede, who had the kindness to respond to my questions, in such a civilised way (as always):

Your response answers almost exclusively why Bruckner is a great composer and a major Symphonist and I could agree with your analysis to a great extent, except for the melodic ingenuity (to some extent, at least). However, my question had to do with what you feel out of this great and (perhaps even perfect) musical construction. What is the message you get after 80 minutes of this heavily orchestrated gargantuan Symphonies. That is the question, not the musical value of them.

In a strange way, you gave an indirect reply, when you admitted that he is "underrated, often neglected on concert programs". I'm in a major Asian capital, for my last assignment, and both the concert and the classical music TV programs are fraught with Mahler, Tchaikovsky and Berlioz (the "Fantastique" twice in a couple of months!). No Bruckner at all! That may indicate something.

Thanks again for your response.

Parla

P.S.: While I can easily ignore any sort of insults, I think you, the usual suspects, go now even further trying to bully and patronise me or the moderators or both. Anyway, I can bear even this behaviour. I won't return any favour. As for the forum, I trust it will remain free. (Bazza loathes Bruckner and it's O.K. Why not?)

Do you think the second item disproves the first item?

Against my better judgment, since it’s obviously impossible to debate anything with His Lordship, for the simple reason that he is clearly unable to admit he’s wrong about anything, even when the facts presented to him prove otherwise, I will try (yes Jane, like you I do ask myself why I’m even wasting my precious time…) to refute Parla’s preposterous presentation of Chinese concert programming to justify his personal opinion on Bruckner. Apart from the fact that it’s plain annoying to be constantly confronted with the public at large, the wise old professors, the many musician-friends when the only thing someone is trying to do is to desperately defend his personal preferences: anyone who has seen Stern’s “From Mao to Mozart” can understand that Chinese audiences have a lot of catching up to do where classical music is concerned. Their development of orchestra’s, concert halls and music education facilities since that movie was shot (1979) is impressive indeed, but that doesn’t alter the fact that Chinese audiences still haven’t the stamina (nor the discipline – as I’ve witnessed a few times, even in Hong Kong) that audiences in the West have. It’s therefore understandable that many of their orchestral programs contain music with a fair share of boisterousness and spectacle. Berlioz’ Fantastique twice in a couple of months rather proves my point. (On a side note: that’s exactly why Jaap van Zweden is the perfect music director for the Hong Kong Philharmonic – and that’s of course not meant is a compliment.) Also, historically the Soviet-Union has had a huge impact on professional music education in China, especially where piano- and string-playing, as well as conducting, is concerned, hence the enormous amount of Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov. Again, as others have said, this doesn’t prove anything about the nature of Bruckner’s music, simply that I should know better that there are only three ways to deal with the Parla Pestilence: completely ignore him (which for some strange reason I find difficult), make fun of him or leave this Forum altogether (as many much more interesting posters than myself have done).

I don't find what Parla said particularly controversial. It is a quite widely reported view that Karajan was not that interested in Mahler until later in his career. He may have eventually made several commercial Mahler recordings, but he didn't make the first one of these (DLVDE) until 1970 when he was 62. Before that he had only conducted Mahler in concert very rarely - in fact all he appears to have conducted in his life were some performance of DLVDE in the centenary year 1960 and some Mahler songs in 1955 according to an online website I looked at. I doubt that his eventual interest in Mahler was purely commercial though - presumably like many others he became more interested in Mahler by the 1970s. I think I read somewhere he listed Mahler 6 as being one of the few works that really took it out of him when he conducted it.

In contrast he conducted all the later Bruckner Symphonies (#4-9) and the Te Deum numerous times (63 times in the case of #8) from around the late 1930s onwards. (He only appears to have conducted #1-3 for records.)

Ted

It may or may not be controversial, TedR, but the point is: it doesn't prove anything about the quality of Bruckner's music. (Concerning you're Karajan-quote: you must have read it in Richard Osborne's "Conversations with Karajan".)