Remember though that I was talking about stylistic unequivocality in the context of no.9, which is certainly often equivocal, not to say turbulent, in expression. Although I would say this feature is in particularly strong focus in the last symphony, it is surely a constant thread through the others, even as the style undergoes a clear but very gradual evolution. The affirmative quality with which his symphonies end is always hard-won in the course of an expressive dialectic filtered through a rather insistently symphonic structural concept - the opening movement has to be in sonata form, the scherzo in ABA form etc. - again something that begins to break down in the first movement of no.9, the opening of a new level of uncertainty which (I would say) can no longer be convincingly closed.
Bruckner
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Brassbandmaestro View PostWhat conductor has recorded the best 9th?
(But I still think that my favourites are Karajan with the BPO in the '60s - not just because this was the first Bruckner recording I ever owned, changing my life - or with the VPO in the '70s. I'm sincerely hoping that Dausgaard gets to record the "completed" Ninth, though.)[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Bryn View PostI take it you mean for commercial release. He has, after all, recorded it at least twice (Glasgow and Edinburgh), as broadcast on Ao3.[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by jayne lee wilson View PostBut Daniel, what did you think of my comments (from #108) here? How do you react to those earlier symphonies....? I always feel Bruckner's "ambiguities" are still less often perceived...
This doesn't imply a lack of depth/richness/drama to B's music in case it seems to, I don't feel that at all. And it's just an intuition so whether it's just my listener's contribution to the score or if I'm looking under empirical stones placed there by Bruckner I don't know. I have to add I'm so glad I dusted off the first two symphonies, I can't think why I put them to one side, another occasion to add to the numerous where I've been inspired to listen afresh by your inspiring writing.
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostRemember though that I was talking about stylistic unequivocality in the context of no.9, which is certainly often equivocal, not to say turbulent, in expression. Although I would say this feature is in particularly strong focus in the last symphony, it is surely a constant thread through the others, even as the style undergoes a clear but very gradual evolution. The affirmative quality with which his symphonies end is always hard-won in the course of an expressive dialectic filtered through a rather insistently symphonic structural concept - the opening movement has to be in sonata form, the scherzo in ABA form etc. - again something that begins to break down in the first movement of no.9, the opening of a new level of uncertainty which (I would say) can no longer be convincingly closed.
Visible turbulence can suggest stillness elsewhere in the same entity I think. Perhaps much as one can detect something of a person's inner thoughts from their tone of voice, that contradicts the actual words they use. It works the other way round too I think, stillness can imply an inner unrest, Schubertian irony often seems to operate like this.
With Bruckner I suppose I hear it as almost an emotional counterpoint, an inner belief battling with outer uncertainty, two different voices, one audible, one perceived magic-eye like. The 'tone of voice' of the music suggesting the more hidden psychology. One could say B's eye seems to rarely completely lose sight of a horizon where things will make sense, whereas in Mahler, Shostakovich etc the ambiguity seems to ring right to its core, and the counterpoint of a suggested inner certainty seems a defining characteristic by its absence.
Comment
-
-
The New York Times doesn’t like Hillary Clinton, nor Anton Bruckner. The Staatskapelle Berlin came to New York with conductor Daniel Baremboim to play the nine numbered Symphonies of the Austrian composer in eleven days, a major landmark in American...
Interesting, not just the headline but the absolute guff that is still said about Bruckner, well over a century after his death, and which the writer is clearly so annoyed about ?.
Poor old Anton ... the 'Nazi' promotion of his music is still trotted out (in that case why never Beethoven ?) and now he appears to be even compared to Donald Trump, for goodness sake !.
The late Robert Simpson, who was a lifelong pacifist, described the composer's music as a 'peace-movement in itself'. I'm not a pacifist but I think I know exactly what Simpson was trying to convey.
There is not the slightest evidence that Bruckner had any interest in the politics of his time or even understood any of it.
The composer's mind was on rather higher things, so evident in much of his music, and thank goodness for that!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View PostPoor old Anton ... the 'Nazi' promotion of his music is still trotted out
Coopting a composer and his/her work to one's own ideas and prejudices is always a simplification. And that is just as true of the article you linked to as anything else. It makes a mockery of the opinions expressed in the NYT interview it refers to. Have you actually read that? I quote:
"The immersive aspect of this cycle did make an impact on me — particularly with a composer like Bruckner, whose symphonies all feel, in a way, so alike, digging deeper rather than spreading over more territory... And yet the later symphonies integrate moods and material more powerfully... I was so struck in the first movement of the Ninth by the coexistence of milky winds, spiraling strings, roaring brasses and the slightest shudder of timpani; so many colors and textures, in perfect balance....that unfinished Ninth finally produced the heart-in-your-throat emotional identification that I had been waiting for. The Adagio is built on a gesture of a minor ninth, a huge upward scooping interval that seems to express both hubris and hope."
It's written by two people who aren't in sympathy with the music but are still committed to finding something in it and trying to explain their reactions. I don't agree with them any more than you do but I don't think their opinions deserve to be caricatured.Last edited by Richard Barrett; 19-04-17, 10:08.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostYes, poor old Anton. But he was one of AH's favourite composers, or at least that person thought it appropriate to say so, and that does say something about the music (including its supposed concentration on "higher things" which is always "trotted out" as a getout clause), which (as in the case of Wagner) one understands less about by ignoring. What Bruckner's knowledge or interests might have been is completely irrelevant in this context.
Coopting a composer and his/her work to one's own ideas and prejudices is always a simplification. And that is just as true of the article you linked to as anything else. It makes a mockery of the opinions expressed in the NYT interview it refers to. Have you actually read that? I quote:
"The immersive aspect of this cycle did make an impact on me — particularly with a composer like Bruckner, whose symphonies all feel, in a way, so alike, digging deeper rather than spreading over more territory... And yet the later symphonies integrate moods and material more powerfullyI was so struck in the first movement of the Ninth by the coexistence of milky winds, spiraling strings, roaring brasses and the slightest shudder of timpani; so many colors and textures, in perfect balance....that unfinished Ninth finally produced the heart-in-your-throat emotional identification that I had been waiting for. The Adagio is built on a gesture of a minor ninth, a huge upward scooping interval that seems to express both hubris and hope."
It's written by two people who aren't in sympathy with the music but are still committed to finding something in it and trying to explain their reactions. I don't agree with them any more than you do but I don't think their opinions deserve to be caricatured.
You say Bruckner's 'knowledge or interests are completely irrelevant in this context' but apparently you think that the fact that AH ( I assume you don't mean ahinton!) liked his music is relevant. As I said, the Nazis also heavily promoted Beethoven so why is this composer never 'caricatured' in this way?. My own feeling is that this could be the unfortunate coincidence of Bruckner having being born in Linz just like the Fuehrer, and/or he is simply an easier target for those who simply don't like or, in some cases, positively hate the music
The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm also loved Bruckner's music. So does Pope Benedict XVI. Whatever one's beliefs the music does have a spiritual dimension which can be appreciated by those of quite different and no particular persuasion.
Like others, I am simply sick and tired of this constant 'Nazi' reference to the composer which had absolutely nothing to do with him or the music, unlike, it has to be said, his Catholicism and the examples of Beethoven, Schubert & Wagner who are all clearly very 'relevant' when discussing this composer.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View PostWell, we can read into the music anything we wish but it appears to me that it is rather more the composer who has been caricatured by the critics ? I did not say I agreed with the writer any more than the two critics mentioned only that I understood his annoyance.
You say Bruckner's 'knowledge or interests are completely irrelevant in this context' but apparently you think that the fact that AH ( I assume you don't mean ahinton!) liked his music is relevant. As I said, the Nazis also heavily promoted Beethoven so why is this composer never 'caricatured' in this way?. My own feeling is that this could be the unfortunate coincidence of Bruckner having being born in Linz just like the Fuehrer, and/or he is simply an easier target for those who simply don't like or, in some cases, positively hate the music
The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm also loved Bruckner's music. So does Pope Benedict XVI. Whatever one's beliefs the music does have a spiritual dimension which can be appreciated by those of quite different and no particular persuasion.
Like others, I am simply sick and tired of this constant 'Nazi' reference to the composer which had absolutely nothing to do with him or the music, unlike, it has to be said, his Catholicism and the examples of Beethoven, Schubert & Wagner who are all clearly very 'relevant' when discussing this composer.
So yes, RB's assertion of the relevance of AH's liking of Bruckner's music is undoubtedly correct, but that relevance appears to me to be more to the matter of AH's musical tastes rather than to that of Bruckner and his music.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Barbirollians View PostI regard Hitler's apparent liking for Bruckner about as relevant to the worth of his music as is his vegetarianism to the merits of that i.e completely and utterly irrelevant .
But while it has nothing to do with the "worth" of his music it does have to do with the reception history of his music, which we are still part of, however much we might imagine our tastes and preferences are unrelated to anyone else's. And there must have been a reason why Bruckner's music was favoured by AH, just as there must have been a reason why vegetarianism was favoured by him, whatever that might be, and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Personally I love Bruckner's music, and Wagner's too, and I accept that both of them were complex characters, like all of us, whose music involves many often contradictory levels, which don't cease to evolve upon the composer's death but whose meaning keeps changing and ramifying as time goes on.
Comment
-
Comment