Bruckner

[Ein Heldenleben]

There's something by Bruckner - possibly his 8th symphony - droning away in the background as I browse the Forum. Nothing much seems to have happened in the last 30 minutes or so, apart from an apparently endless sequence of crescendi - what am I missing?

I was listening to that performance by Runnicles and the BBC SSO as well. It seems to have had a few outings this year perhaps as a result of lockdown - Bruckner is pretty well unperformable at the moment. It was , despite a few rough edges , something of a classic performance. I have been listening to a phenomenal amount of Bruckner over the last few months - particularly when Afternoon concert doesn’t appeal. I think the problem some have with him is the amount of repetition - particularly in the scherzi and the relative (choosing my words carefully ) lack of harmonic momentum. So there will be bars
and bars of the same chord particularly in what Stephen Johnson calls the brass “blaze-ups”. Judged by the standards of Beethoven , Mozart , Mahler etc perhaps there is a relative dearth of melodic invention given the vast tracts of time his music occupies . And yet I still think he is one of the great musical geniuses - perhaps the greatest of those whose symphonic works were written entirely in the 19th century. As others have said I would start with 4 and 7 - 8 is a bit of a beast to be honest . But that Adagio - surely one of the greatest pieces written in the 19th century ...almost up there with Gotterdamerung .

[gurnemanz]

As to where to start, I would begin with No 4 or No 7 neither of which are too difficult to grasp. The constant transformation of themes is, perhaps, easier to pick up in these and you will give a cry of delight when you s spot a new one as I still do even after close on 50 years of listening!

When I was launching into Bruckner, also about 50 years ago, I had two LPs: Walter 4th, CSO on CBS and Jochum 9th on cheapo Heliodor (this one). I was quickly hooked and at the time, with a much smaller collection of recordings, these were played to excess. Still there in the garage, dog-eared and probably unplayable. I didn't get any more recordings till CDs came in and have accumulated quite a few over the years.

A bit later, when I joined our local choir with little prior experience of proper singing, thinking I was a tenor, one of the first things we did was Bruckner Te Deum. Its frequent top A's in the tenor line taught me that I was more of a baritone.

[Ein Heldenleben]

When I was launching into Bruckner, also about 50 years ago, I had two LPs: Walter 4th, CSO on CBS and Jochum 9th on cheapo Heliodor (this one). I was quickly hooked and at the time, with a much smaller collection of recordings, these were played to excess. Still there in the garage, dog-eared and probably unplayable. I didn't get any more recordings till CDs came in and have accumulated quite a few over the years.

A bit later, when I joined our local choir with little prior experience of proper singing, thinking I was a tenor, one of the first things we did was Bruckner Te Deum. Its frequent top A's in the tenor line taught me that I was more of a baritone.

Yep that Te Deum is God’s way of telling you that or it’s time to acknowledge the passing of the years ....

[Leinster Lass]

You’re not very good with dates are you?

The dates you should be referring to regarding THE God are actually 1770 to 1827. As a clue, his birthday anniversary is being celebrated throughout this year worldwide.

Rathfarnhamgirl, this is my first reply to one of your postings. I hope you will excuse my jesting. Beethoven and Mozart are two rather special individuals, aren’t they?

I’m steering clear of the Bruckner discussion!

Best wishes,

Mario

Delighted to confirm that your jest has not caused me the slightest distress. I actually have more Beethoven than Mozart on CD and other media, partly because I have complete sets (plus a few added 'singletons') of the piano sonatas, string quartets and other chamber works, with 2 sets of the symphonies and a third with Rattle and the BPO well on the road to completion.
For me, Beethoven is awesome but Mozart is joyful.

[Richard Barrett]

a relative dearth of melodic invention

That is at least arguable (I think of the first movement of no.9 as packed with melodic invention for example), but, more importantly, why should "melodic invention" always or be one's priority when listening to music? Bruckner's work goes in other directions, towards harmonic invention for example - the cited long stretches of unchanging harmony exist in an architectural context and balance, rather than expressing any lack of invention on Bruckner's part - or towards the construction of powerful and expressive forms by the accumulation of layers moving at different rates, using a completely individual and "modern" view of counterpoint which at the same time relating clearly and creatively to tradition; or towards an integration between form and orchestral timbre that again is completely individual; then there's what for want of a better word is the "cosmic" aspect of the music's poetic identity; and so on. I think it happens too often that composers are taken to task for things like a "dearth of melodic invention" as if they're trying but failing to write memorable tunes, while what the composer is actually doing is missed.

[Leinster Lass]

That is at least arguable (I think of the first movement of no.9 as packed with melodic invention for example), but, more importantly, why should "melodic invention" always or be one's priority when listening to music? Bruckner's work goes in other directions, towards harmonic invention for example - the cited long stretches of unchanging harmony exist in an architectural context and balance, rather than expressing any lack of invention on Bruckner's part - or towards the construction of powerful and expressive forms by the accumulation of layers moving at different rates, using a completely individual and "modern" view of counterpoint which at the same time relates clearly to tradition; or towards an integration between form and orchestral timbre that again is completely individual; then there's what for want of a better word is the "cosmic" aspect of the music's poetic identity; and so on. I think it happens too often that composers are taken to task for things like a "dearth of melodic invention" as if they're trying but failing to write memorable tunes, while what the composer is actually doing is missed.

Gosh! Perhaps Jayne is right (seriously) when she says that I just don't understand and can't hope to. I understand all of the words you've used, but must confess to not always grasping the meaning or significance of some of the combinations.

One has to wait quite a long time for a 'proper tune' in, for example, Beethoven's 6th and Sibelius's 2nd and 5th, but it's worth waiting for - something which, to my regret and probably because of my lack of understanding and musical training, isn't the case with Bruckner as far as I'm concerned.

The first Bruckner I ever heard was a recording of the 8th - I've no idea which version - conducted by Jascha Horenstein. Would it have been on the Vox label? Unlike Elgar's 2nd, my first hearing of which 'blew me away' as they say - my first encounter with the slow movement remains one of the highlights of my cultural life - it made little impression on me, so I guess that, despite my higgerance in more arcane musical matters, I can at least claim to have been consistent over the years where my musical tastes are concerned, just as I have when it comes to Cliff Richard and Marmite

[Edgy 2]

I listen to Bruckner occasionally.
Sometimes I enjoy,others I switch off before the end,applies to many other composers too.
We are not all going to 'get' or like the same music.
There's even someone on this forum who is still wondering what he is missing in Sibelius Symphonies

[Richard Barrett]

One has to wait quite a long time for a 'proper tune' in, for example, Beethoven's 6th and Sibelius's 2nd and 5th, but it's worth waiting for

What I'm saying is that "waiting for a proper tune" isn't the only way to listen to music, and it isn't the only way to compose music. Why did Beethoven and Sibelius not introduce their "proper tunes" at the beginning? Do you imagine they thought of what happens before them as "waiting"? And, once more, what's so important about "proper tunes"? As for "musical training", I don't believe Jayne is a trained musician, though she'll correct me if I'm wrong, and in fact I didn't have any formal qualification in music until the age of 58, so that's really a red herring. Bruckner's music isn't there to confirm what you already think you know about music but to challenge and expand it. Maybe you're not interested in that!

[Bryn]

. . . As for "musical training", I don't believe Jayne is a trained musician, though she'll correct me if I'm wrong, and in fact I didn't have any formal qualification in music until the age of 58, so that's really a red herring. . . .

So you were teaching music at a tertiary level while not formally qualified, eh? I like it.

[Richard Barrett]

So you were teaching music at a tertiary level while not formally qualified, eh? I like it.

Yes indeed!

I don't know if I was the person referred to by Edgy as still wondering what he's missing in Sibelius' symphonies, but that does rather describe my feelings about them, which I hope might change some time. Of course not everyone is going to appreciate everything, nor should they, but sometimes the reasons given are a little strange. Criticising Bruckner for not writing proper tunes is a bit like criticising Chopin for not writing operas.

[jayne lee wilson]

Thankyou, Richard, for a wonderfully lucid series of posts.....

Absolutely no training here. Not a single lesson.

I'm aghast at the comments that Bruckner lacks "harmonic momentum"..... he uses tonality in a very original way, creating bases and plateaux and conflicts between them, in multi-themed forms of continuous melodic and contrapuntal development. You absolutely don't need to identify a given key to hear all these stages, progressions and conflicts. Follow the sounds and shapes that you hear. Try to relax and open up to the larger scale architecture before you. This is far-flung, fantastical music...Planet Bruckner. Convention or conformity are off the agenda.

Brucknerian thematic "Repetition" is in a constant state of contrapuntal variation, apart from the scherzi (just listen to the evolving dramas of his recapitulations and codas - scarcely any literal repeat of anything, often with glorious conclusions - try the 4th or the overwhelming 6th).
But most classical scherzi repeat, pretty literally, their outer sections anyway. Bruckner wrote some of the most (melodically!) lovable and memorable trios, based on the Austrian landler dance/folk character. Just listen to that of the 8th....arms spread wide on the hilltop!

As for a lack of melody..... da capo again, he is one of the most memorable of all melodists, including his true predecessor Schubert, and Schumann, and Mendelssohn..... it just takes time. I'm very lucky to have started listening to Bruckner in my late teens, courtesy Radio 3, Gramophone, the Master Musicians books and a nearby Record Library.......

Try this as a guide to what is actually happening......

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Essence-Bruckner-Robert-Simpson/dp/057505221X/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3704BWCUOWD63&dchild=1&keywords=robert+simpson+bruckner&qid=1608124073&rnid=1642204031&s=books&sprefix=robert+simpson+%2Caps%2C153&sr=1-2

Look around for a better price....!
Quick tip: try hearing the outer movements as "three-subject sonata forms"..... with no repeat....most of them are some highly inventive variant upon this.

Poor Bruckner. It is as if the shade of Eduard Hanslick still stalks Planet Musiclover. But this composer was ahead of his time, and probably still is, and perhaps always will be.

But The Happy Few know something else....

[Edgy 2]

Yes indeed!

I don't know if I was the person referred to by Edgy as still wondering what he's missing in Sibelius' symphonies, but that does rather describe my feelings about them, which I hope might change some time. Of course not everyone is going to appreciate everything, nor should they, but sometimes the reasons given are a little strange. Criticising Bruckner for not writing proper tunes is a bit like criticising Chopin for not writing operas.

Sorry RB I was referring to myself but it's good to know I'm not the only one

[Ein Heldenleben]

That is at least arguable (I think of the first movement of no.9 as packed with melodic invention for example), but, more importantly, why should "melodic invention" always or be one's priority when listening to music? Bruckner's work goes in other directions, towards harmonic invention for example - the cited long stretches of unchanging harmony exist in an architectural context and balance, rather than expressing any lack of invention on Bruckner's part - or towards the construction of powerful and expressive forms by the accumulation of layers moving at different rates, using a completely individual and "modern" view of counterpoint which at the same time relating clearly and creatively to tradition; or towards an integration between form and orchestral timbre that again is completely individual; then there's what for want of a better word is the "cosmic" aspect of the music's poetic identity; and so on. I think it happens too often that composers are taken to task for things like a "dearth of melodic invention" as if they're trying but failing to write memorable tunes, while what the composer is actually doing is missed.

You are misunderstanding my post . I didn’t say or imply Bruckner lacks harmonic invention - far from it.I am producing some reasons why some people don’t like Bruckner . By harmonic momentum I mean harmonic change bar on bar - that’s why you get the common criticism that it all sounds the same. The relative lack of memorable tunes compared to say Tschaikovsky is another reason why his symphonies have never been audience grabbers . There’s nothing wrong with either preference one way or another . Some people want a melody , others aren’t so fussed .

[Mario]

I’m sorry but I must jump in here, as I’m getting more and more frustrated by what I read.

So here I am, approaching my 70th year, determined to complete my Music Theory course (currently at Grade 5) and REALLY struggling with cadences, and I read that one of the most erudite, accomplished, knowledgeable contributors with an enviable command of the English language, while another, who just happens to be a professional composer, have either of them not had serious music training? And one didn’t start till he’s 58, and another has not had a single lesson? And she compounds her sins by supporting THAT football club?

Ye Gods!

Seriously guys, I might as well pack it in now!

Mario

[Ein Heldenleben]

I’m sorry but I must jump in here, as I’m getting more and more frustrated by what I read.

So here I am, approaching my 70th year, determined to complete my Music Theory course (currently at Grade 5) and REALLY struggling with cadences, and I read that one of the most erudite, accomplished, knowledgeable contributors with an enviable command of the English language, while another, who just happens to be a professional composer, have either of them not had serious music training? And one didn’t start till he’s 58, and another has not had a single lesson? And she compounds her sins by supporting THAT football club?

Ye Gods!

Seriously guys, I might as well pack it in now!

Mario

I would keep going : knowledge is always worth acquiring. I haven’t done it for years but even just doing simple four part harmonisation is , I think good exercise for the brain - particularly if you try and stick to the rules .But the truth is you don’t need academic training to be a composer and you certainly don’t need it to be a Paul McCartney ..