Why on earth is there a separate forum for Bruckner?

[Mandryka]

And Mahler? I mean, it creates the impression that they're so special they need their own space. But they're not!

[Ein Heldenleben]

And Mahler? I mean, it creates the impression that they're so special they need their own space. But they're not!

There are thirty pages of seperate forums for individual composers each with about 10 threads per page so that’s approx 300 individual composers singled out as “special,”:

[Mandryka]

Ah now, that's avoiding the question, I think it's called whataboutism. Bruckner and Mahler have their own special status, maybe the word is "subforum" - they don't merit it IMO.

[AuntDaisy]

Horses for courses... and status is in the eye of the beholder.
Personally, I'm not a Mahler fan, but a close friend is a fervent admirer. I do enjoy the Bruckner symphonies, though, esp. 7.

How about an André Rieu or Andrew Lloyd Webber composer sub-forum / thread?

[Mandryka]

Not even Bruckner would say that Bruckner is so special that he deserves the special pedestal given to them on this forum, and Furtwangler and Celibidache would concur. I know because I've just spoken to all three on the ouija board.

[oddoneout]

Not even Bruckner would say that Bruckner is so special that he deserves the special pedestal given to them on this forum, and Furtwangler and Celibidache would concur. I know because I've just spoken to all three on the ouija board.

Bruckner might not, but there seem to be a great many people who take a different view. I don't understand it myself, but that isn't the point.

[Mandryka]

Bruckner might not, but there seem to be a great many people who take a different view. I don't understand it myself, but that isn't the point.

The silent majority? Speak out!

[Old Grumpy]

I don't like Wagner - but it doesn't mean he should be cancelled as far as dedicated threads go. There are of course arguably other reasons for cancellation!

[Andrew Slater]

I think they were given separate sub-forums because of the sheer number of posts. Also when the Composers forum was set up I think there were already a number of Bruckner and Mahler threads: merging them into one super-thread wouldn't have been a good idea.

[Mandryka]

I think they were given separate sub-forums because of the sheer number of posts. Also when the Composers forum was set up I think there were already a number of Bruckner and Mahler threads: merging them into one super-thread wouldn't have been a good idea.

Well times have changed. The time has come to relegate Bruckner and Mahler to the same status as Beethoven and Josquin and Machaut and Schoenberg and

[cria]

The only even passable thing Bruckner wrote was Hotel du Lac

[Petrushka]

Is this even worth worrying about??

[Pulcinella]

Is this even worth worrying about??

It would certainly be more consistent and logical for them to be 'relegated'.
But I'm not sure how easy a shift is for our kind hosts (with more permissions than I have).

[smittims]

This reminds me of the 'good old days' on the BBC forum when occasinally someone would pop up with a 'Mozart is rubbish' thread.

[Andrew Slater]

It would certainly be more consistent and logical for them to be 'relegated'.
But I'm not sure how easy a shift is for our kind hosts (with more permissions than I have).

But it would be completely impractical - there are 43 threads and a total of 2913 posts for Bruckner, and 19 threads and a total of 1060 posts for Mahler. As I remember, when the Composers forum was set up the individual pre-existing Bruckner (and Mahler) threads were collected from various sub-forums and placed among all the other composers, and a great deal of confusion resulted, because they had all sorts of thread titles, so appeared all over the place. In response to many complaints, they were grouped under the new sub-forums to avoid this confusion. The existence of these sub-forums has nothing to do with perceived status; it's a matter of administrative efficiency.