Bruckner

[LMcD]

They ain't "competing" - they're "complementing".


A bargain! One of my favourite recordings of the work - plenty of joy there for your next quarter century ... and, I hope, beyond.

Thank you - I've already played it and am seriously impressed. The recording sessions, held under what were apparently pretty trying conditions, were shared between the Mahler and Gundula Janowitz's 4 Last Songs (which I also have). The Mahler is beautifully recorded and played. The dynamic range is extraordinary. Interestingly, Karajan and Barbirolli (another recent charity shop bargain) have contrasting views on the 4th and 5th movements. Karajan certainly takes the last movement at a fair old lick, doesn't he!

[richardfinegold]

I am going to give Cloughie a little support here and opine that some of the Final Movements of Bruckner Symphonies seem to chug along and to quote a recently disgraced member of the British Royal Family “let the side down”. For me the most egregious examples are the Seventh and the Eighth , where the magnificent music that has preceded the Finales can be undone by what sounds to be a Composer on autopilot who can’t figure out what to do with his material. I am perfectly happy to listen to the Ninth as a 3 movement torso for the same reason, and none of the reconstructions of the Finale that I have heard make wish that AB had given more time to complete it. All right, the above will make me persona non grata with Petrushka and JLW, , but this my opinion after three decades or so of listening to records and concerts of AB, and pace Ferney, I’ll bet that one could scrape together hundreds of thousands of listeners who have felt the same way through the years, fwiw.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I’ll bet that one could scrape together hundreds of thousands of listeners who have felt the same way through the years, fwiw.

No doubt - but they'd all be wrong.

EDIT - in the sense that their "feelings" (that the finales can "sound like a composer on autopilot") have led them to miss Bruckner's logical thought processes.

[Richard Tarleton]

For me the most egregious examples are the Seventh and the Eighth , where the magnificent music that has preceded the Finales can be undone by what sounds to be a Composer on autopilot who can’t figure out what to do with his material.

I was greatly puzzled by this remark, richard, as the finale of the 7th has always struck me as one of Bruckner's tautest, tightest, finales - at 12-13 minutes, not even very long. Robert Simpson offers three pages of detailed analyisis, explaining how it is characterised by three tonal forces jostling for dominance, ending with: 'It would be a pleasure to be able to answer the simple question "What form is it in?" instead of having to describe this astounding finale in such complicated narrative. But its unique organisation is describable in its own terms and if we are to feel its immense cogency and the utter originality of it we must give up the comforting prop of any familiar yardstick....'.... For me it is one of Bruckner's most profoundly satisfying. As for the 8th, in Simpson's eloquent words, "It is the cathedral the architect has been trying, through all the world's distractions, to find in his mind's eye. One by one the impediments have been removed, until the image is clearly revealed..." And, significantly [is this your problem?] "Pauses and inaction have their rightful place in its massive deliberations, and it is a grave mistake to suppose that the structure is weakened by them; they are the open spaces in the cathedral". Like the 7th's, the 8th's finale has never semed less than perfect to me.

[doversoul1]

No doubt - but they'd all be wrong.

EDIT - in the sense that their "feelings" (that the finales can "sound like a composer on autopilot") have led them to miss Bruckner's logical thought processes.

I am surprised to read this. Does this mean that there is right and wrong way of responding to a work of music?

In the world of literature, it was believed that the ‘truth’ was in the author’s words (the book) and there was one correct reading/understanding of a literary work. This changed (I think) in the 1960s when a new way of thinking about literature and reading came about. It insisted that literature only existed when being read and the ‘truth/meaning' of the work was what the readers make of based on their knowledge and experience*.

Can not the same or similar thing be said about music? Bruckner’s works may be perfectly constructed but that does not by any means they produce the ‘expected’ effect or ‘correct’ response in individual listeners?

*there are theories that argue that literary works do have some control over the readers' responses.

Or have I got something completely wrong?

[jayne lee wilson]

I was greatly puzzled by this remark, richard, as the finale of the 7th has always struck me as one of Bruckner's tautest, tightest, finales - at 12-13 minutes, not even very long. Robert Simpson offers three pages of detailed analyisis, explaining how it is characterised by three tonal forces jostling for dominance, ending with: 'It would be a pleasure to be able to answer the simple question "What form is it in?" instead of having to describe this astounding finale in such complicated narrative. But its unique organisation is describable in its own terms and if we are to feel its immense cogency and the utter originality of it we must give up the comforting prop of any familiar yardstick....'.... For me it is one of Bruckner's most profoundly satisfying. As for the 8th, in Simpson's eloquent words, "It is the cathedral the architect has been trying, through all the world's distractions, to find in his mind's eye. One by one the impediments have been removed, until the image is clearly revealed..." And, significantly [is this your problem?] "Pauses and inaction have their rightful place in its massive deliberations, and it is a grave mistake to suppose that the structure is weakened by them; they are the open spaces in the cathedral". Like the 7th's, the 8th's finale has never semed less than perfect to me.

The very locus I would have quoted from myself, RT....Simpson goes on to say of the 7th's finale:
"The form that grows from this is the resultant of three tonal forces acting from different directions, one of them strong enough to dominate the outcome, but not strong enough to maintain a simple course by sweeping the others out of the way. The piece evolves, and along no familiar lines, though the fact of key-conflict itself derives from sonata."

I would add that, as Korstvedt has commented, most of Bruckner's first and last movements are based on a three-subject sonata form background, though of course with many inventions and variations and divergencies.
The 7th is one of these & I could attempt a description (e.g. 1st & 3rd subjects are versions of each other etc), but .... the sun will dip behind the trees in just over an hour, so I need to go and stare at it....

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I am surprised to read this. Does this mean that there is right and wrong way of responding to a work of music?
In the world of literature, it was believed that the ‘truth’ was in the author’s words (the book) and there was one correct reading/understanding of a literary work. This changed (I think) in the 1960s when a new way of thinking about literature and reading came about. It insisted that literature only existed when being read and the ‘truth/meaning' of the work was what the readers make of based on their knowledge and experience*.
Can not the same or similar thing be said about music? Bruckner’s works may be perfectly constructed but that does not by any means they produce the ‘expected’ effect or ‘correct’ response in individual listeners?
*there are theories that argue that literary works do have some control over the readers' responses.
Or have I got something completely wrong?

It's the difference between a statement like "the structures of Bruckner's finales are those of a composer on autopilot who can't figure out what to do with his material" (to paraphrase - and distort - rfg's wording) and one like "I can't work out what Bruckner's thought he was up to in his finales - they seem to me to ramble on aimlessly", dovers. The first, as a statement of "fact" is demonstrably incorrect, in the sense that the logical thought-processes of a master composer in total command of his material can be demonstrated/illustrated. The second is a statement of personal experience and personal taste ... a statement of the listener's reaction which has little to do with the composer's skill.

This is a bit different from the idea of a reader/listener/viewer "completing" a work of Art by their individual response(s) to it - understanding any "truth/meaning" arising from one's own "knowledge & experience" cannot be said to be "full"/"adequate" (or "made") when that "knowledge & experience" is itself incomplete. In my own "knowledge and experience", the work of Henry James is long-winded and intolerably prolix. But this is an insupportable opinion - studying those sentences, I can see that the structure and vocabulary is precise and, well, "masterly". There is no question about James' intentions and his command of his means of expression. It's just that, personally, for me, the effort required to wring out my appreciation is not one that brings sufficient rewards - the characters and situations don't stir or disturb me - and I find what he achieved in his writing to be much more effectively offered in other writers (such as Joyce). This is nothing to do with James - it is a reflection on me and on my personality and on my preferences. And it may change - which, because the texts haven't altered, would be because I have changed; so, again, nothing to do with James - even though his work is the focus of my reaction to it, of course.

[vinteuil]

.

... ferney - your #202 beautifully expressed, thank you.

Sometimes it is Bruckner I think of when reading late Henry James. In The Golden Bowl book five chapter two, at night when Maggie is circling outside the lit-up room in which the rest are playing bridge inside, and book six chapter two when the Prince returns to Maggie - you sense the power of worlds turning on themselves, whole universes moving around a pivot of her 'doing nothing' - enormous structures shifting without the reader being quite aware how it is being done.

If late James doesn't do it for you - I hope you can get joy from the earlier stuff, the short stories and novellas. The Turn of the Screw, surely?

.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It is comments like yours that make me feel that I really should give James more attention, vinty; and it is over 10 years (in fact, more like 20 - these "time jolts" are alarmingly increasing) since I last read any. Portrait of a Lady was part of my degree course, and I read Turn of the Screw and Washington Square at "A"-level (to mention the works I know best). It just didn't "connect" - and hasn't with any of the works I have subsequently read (not The Golden Bowl, but, from memory, The Wings of the Dove, Daisy Miller, and The Bostonians).

He's an important writer, and one who is held high in the opinion of many people whose opinions I respect. I used to have the excuse that work life left me insufficient time to devote to a proper reading - as I no longer have that excuse, I feel I ought to now investigate further, in the hope that a brand-new pleasure is awaiting the remainder of my life. Thank you.

[vinteuil]

He's an important writer, and one who is held high in the opinion of many people whose opinions I respect.

... I didn't get in to James until I was in my forties - and it was because he was 'held high in the opinion of people whose opinion I respected.' Mistakenly, in the arrogance of (relative) youth I plunged straight in to the late works, thinking "here am I, bright chap, benefits of an expensive eddication, how hard can this be... " to give up vanquished after the first twenty pages of The Ambassadors. Rueful, humbled, but undeterred, I went back to the beginning and read (nearly) all of his works chronologically from The American onwards. By the time I got to The Golden Bowl it was a doddle...

That was then. I'm too old to relish the prospect of tackling the big ones again now. But it was an enormous joy at the time.

Sorry - we've moved far from Bruckner....

.

[doversoul1]

.

... ferney - your #202 beautifully expressed, thank you.

Sometimes it is Bruckner I think of when reading late Henry James. In The Golden Bowl book five chapter two, at night when Maggie is circling outside the lit-up room in which the rest are playing bridge inside, and book six chapter two when the Prince returns to Maggie - you sense the power of worlds turning on themselves, whole universes moving around a pivot of her 'doing nothing' - enormous structures shifting without the reader being quite aware how it is being done.

If late James doesn't do it for you - I hope you can get joy from the earlier stuff, the short stories and novellas. The Turn of the Screw, surely?

.

Yes. Perfect. Thank you.

I don’t think the question of knowledge and experience being adequate or complete comes into it, as nobody’s knowledge etc. can be said to be complete. I suppose the problem with music is how to think about performance of the work: how much facts does it come into it?

As for Henry James: How about Daisy Miller?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I don’t think the question of knowledge and experience being adequate or complete comes into it, as nobody’s knowledge etc. can be said to be complete.

Not "complete", perhaps - but it can be "adequate" enough to demonstrate that "Bruckner's finales show a composer on autopilot who cannot figure out what to do with his material" is fake news. My local GP's knowledge of Medicine might not be "complete" - in the sense that more effective cures and treatments are still and always to be discovered which, of course - but I'm going to trust her knowledge and experience in her treatment of my Hypertension over that of a [insert any non-medically based employment] who tells me that "Doctors?! What do they know? Have a bit more salt on your chips and enjoy yourself - you only live once."

I suppose the problem with music is how to think about performance of the work: how much facts does it come into it?

Well there is the information set down in the various versions of the scores, and authentic and, perhaps, anecdotal records of the composer's comments on his work. Performers who seriously disregard such evidence - Klemperer making a massive cut in the Finale of his studio recording of the Eighth, for example - might present a performance that some listeners find enjoyable, but that performance cannot be called a genuine or fair representation of the the composer's ideas as he would have wished it to be received or how the work deserves to be heard.

As for Henry James: How about Daisy Miller?

Been there (see #204); done that (if inadequately); didn't bother with the Tee-Shirt. Yrt.

[doversoul1]

Not "complete", perhaps - but it can be "adequate" enough to demonstrate that "Bruckner's finales show a composer on autopilot who cannot figure out what to do with his material" is fake news. My local GP's knowledge of Medicine might not be "complete" - in the sense that more effective cures and treatments are still and always to be discovered which, of course - but I'm going to trust her knowledge and experience in her treatment of my Hypertension over that of a [insert any non-medically based employment] who tells me that "Doctors?! What do they know? Have a bit more salt on your chips and enjoy yourself - you only live once."


Well there is the information set down in the various versions of the scores, and authentic and, perhaps, anecdotal records of the composer's comments on his work. Performers who seriously disregard such evidence - Klemperer making a massive cut in the Finale of his studio recording of the Eighth, for example - might present a performance that some listeners find enjoyable, but that performance cannot be called a genuine or fair representation of the the composer's ideas as he would have wished it to be received or how the work deserves to be heard.


Been there (see #204); done that (if inadequately); didn't bother with the Tee-Shirt. Yrt.

Interesting-er and interesting-er

The difference between reader response theory and the point you are describing here is that the readers in this particular theory are what you might call general readers who are unlikely to have critical or analytical knowledge of literature. The readers here are very much like majority of listeners of music out there in the world (even on this forum ) who do not necessarily have the knowledge of compositions or any other music theories.

The responses of these general, non-specialist (untrained) readers are seriously studied in literary criticism although it can be very much leaning toward sociology. How seriously are general listeners’ responses to performances which are almost entirely affective, taken in music criticism?

[Richard Barrett]

I don't imagine there will ever be a time when everyone likes Bruckner, nor should there be, but returning to this:

"Bruckner's finales show a composer on autopilot who cannot figure out what to do with his material"

I'm not sure that anyone really has sufficient knowledge of (a) composition technique and (b) the inside of Bruckner's head to credibly accuse him of not being able to figure out what to do with his material. Continuing from what fg has been saying, surely it's likely to be more enlightening to begin from the assumption that he knew what he was doing, and how to do it, and that, as someone who wrote relatively few works and spent much time reworking a considerable proportion of those he did write, he isn't likely to have been on "autopilot" in the way one might imagine say Vivaldi or Telemann to have been capable of (and even then their command of the craft is always luminously present).

There are times when nothing but Bruckner will do for me, and other times when that music is the last thing I want to hear (I mean last among the things that I often do want to hear!). There was a time not so long ago when I regarded the music of Shostakovich as hideous and unlistenable, and finding my way from that point to the love for it that I have now was a heartwarming example of how musical tastes are never set in stone and there might always be new/old things to discover even in the years of one's supposed maturity...

I find the finales of 7 and 8 highly convincing; the completion of 9, as I've said elsewhere, falls short for me in a way that suggests to me that if Bruckner had eventually finished it, it might have ended up very different from the material of it that does exist, and that one reason for its not being finished is precisely the problem of following and unifying what happened in the previous three movements. But as far as I'm concerned his most impressive finale is that of no.5.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Interesting-er and interesting-er
The difference between reader response theory and the point you are describing here is that the readers in this particular theory are what you might call general readers who are unlikely to have critical or analytical knowledge of literature. The readers here are very much like majority of listeners of music out there in the world (even on this forum ) who do not necessarily have the knowledge of compositions or any other music theories.
The responses of these general, non-specialist (untrained) readers are seriously studied in literary criticism although it can be very much leaning toward sociology. How seriously are general listeners’ responses to performances which are almost entirely affective, taken in music criticism?

I cannot speak for professional Music Sociologists, but I think that there are so many different listening talents amongst "general listeners" that it's impossible for me to make generalised comments about them. Us. Analysis is just careful, attentive listening and memory - the technical bits only come from knowing the "names". "Modulation", "flattened subdominant", "prolongation", "hexatonic cycle" etc etc etc - these are really just adjectives to describe what everyone who is paying attention hears in a performance, even if they do not know the technical terms to describe these features.

Similarly, Literary analysis is just careful, attentive reading; and visual Art analysis careful, attentive looking. It can be made easier (and "fuller", more empowered) through learning listening/reading/viewing tactics: and these give a common language to communicate ideas and informed opinions of Art - but individuals without such training can, if they are so inclined, develop their own ways of regarding and thinking about these matters - and perhaps even unconsciously.
Numquam Satis!