Bruckner is really getting to me...

[barry guerrero]

Fine; you can take me on, and pull out your quotes all you want. But I'll pull out my trusty sword - my computer keyboard - right back at you. First off, if Mahler had felt THAT strongly about Bruckner, he would have spent far more time and energy championing Bruckner's symphonies, and less on developing his own music. He didn't. He conducted Bruckner symphonies, but certainly no more than Beethoven or Schumann. In fact, probably far less. Can you point to a single instance of Mahler ever having conducted Bruckner's 8th? Perhaps so, but it would have been very seldom, if at all. I believe that Mahler had enough personal integrity, that if he had felt that strongly about Bruckner as a composer, he would have - to at least some extent - sacrificed his own compositional career for the sake of Bruckner. I truly believe that! That's not a fact - just an opinion. But what I do believe to be a fact - and I could be wrong about this - is that Mahler conducted the 5th symphony the most, which is the one Bruckner symphony that truly has a knock-out finale; far beyond any argument. Am I wrong?

Let's back up a bit and get our facts straight: I never said that I didn't like Bruckner. What I said was, was that I felt that there was something - quote - "fundamentally wrong", after hearing only the revised version of B8. Allow me to alter "fundamentally wrong", to fundamentally flawed. Once I heard the first version, I was dumb-struck: "aha, that explains it!" - I thought to myself. I've already admitted that the first version is a more "up and down", inconsistent work than the revised version. But I also think that it represents the TRUE Bruckner far more than the tired sounding, overly elephantine revised version does (Nowak or Haas - not much difference). You're welcome to disagree with me, but you won't change my mind on this topic. If you don't know the first version, then you have no right to tell me that I'm wrong.  Know it first - then tell me that I'm full of molarchy.

Now let's talk about my second favorite topic, after Mahler: me! Don't like my tone of voice?   .    .   .  neither do I. But I'm just tired of adulating the same-old line of Austro/German composers. Can't we move beyond this? Isn't this - at least, to some small degree - what Mahler was rebelling against? What about French composers? Czech composers? Polish? Russian? Spanish? Japanese? Finnish? Come on folks, it's a big, wide world out there! Nes pas? I'll make a proclamation that I'll bet some of you will just hate: I think that Debussy's "La Mer" is easily as great a work as ANY Austro/German symphony out there. Don't like that?    .     .    .   then you don't like me! Fair enough; we don't know each other.  But I would much rather take De Falla's "Three Cornered Hat" as my "desert isle disc" (other than Mahler), than any Brahms or Bruckner symphony (maybe B9 would be my exception). I'm just being honest here.  Now, let's return back to Bruckner, because I do have a right to clarify my thoughts and position about him.

I have an even/odd theory about Bruckner. I believe that - beginning with the 3rd symphony - Bruckner's odd numbered symphonies are something of a reaction, or correction, to the previous even numbered symphony (symphonies 1 & 2 are pretty much the same thing). Think about it. The even numbered ones are always more experimental; more daring, but also more flawed. The odd numbered ones come closer to perfection, if also a tad more reigned in. To me (hint: this is an opinion, not a fact), the revised version of B8 is an even numbered symphony that tries to behave like an odd numbered one. I feel that the first version of B8 lives up to being a true, even numbered symphony: flawed; crazy; uninhibited; more mysterious - you name it.

I also said that I would take Bruckner 9 over Mahler 9. Excuse me, but I think that that's a pretty strong compliment for Bruckner; especially given just how much most Mahler buffs gush all over M9 (and thank goodness Bruckner never finished that finale!). I also feel that Bruckner's 7th is almost as good as Mahler's 7th. In the case of B6 vs. M6, I think that B6 actually beats M6 for the first three movements. But then Mahler's finale (M6) comes from behind to completely bury B6, in my view. I'm sure few Mahler buffs would argue against that opinion. 

And as far as Mahler making all kinds of proclamations about Bruckner's "Te Deum" after having just performed it, here's the problem: Mahler nearly always spoke highly of ANY given composition that he happened to be working on at the time. Think I'm wrong about that? Read the biographies carefully; he ALWAYS did that. When he put on Wagner's "Rienzi", he called it the greatest opera ever written. That's just an example. Mahler ALWAYS threw himself 100% into any given work that he happened to be doing at the time. That's what I mean about his integrity. Also, in regards to the particular quote that John H. gives about Bruckner's "Te Deum", Mahler seems to be discussing the performance as much - or more - than the composition itself. Granted, those words reflect highly upon the work at hand. But let's not call an apple an orange.

Barry

[Leo K]

Let's back up a bit and get our facts straight: I never said that I didn't like Bruckner. What I said was, was that I felt that there was something - quote - "fundamentally wrong", after hearing only the revised version of B8. Allow me to alter "fundamentally wrong", to fundamentally flawed. Once I heard the first version, I was dumb-struck: "aha, that explains it!" - I thought to myself. I've already admitted that the first version is a more "up and down", inconsistent work than the revised version. But I also think that it represents the TRUE Bruckner far more than the tired sounding, overly elephantine revised version does (Nowak or Haas - not much difference). You're welcome to disagree with me, but you won't change my mind on this topic. If you don't know the first version, then you have no right to tell me that I'm wrong.  Know it first - then tell me that I'm full of molarchy.

Sorry to accuse you of not liking Bruckner Barry...that came out quite wrong. 

Like I said in my previous post, I enjoy this discussion and your thoughts on B8 (I'm not out to change your mind)...I wish there was more discussion on this!  Of course, this is a Mahler board, so within reason of course.  But anyways...now I am eager to hear the 1st version of B8.  I have the Inbal 1887 B8...I was just waiting for the right time to listen.

Now let's talk about my second favorite topic, after Mahler: me! Don't like my tone of voice?   .    .   .  neither do I. But I'm just tired of adulating the same-old line of Austro/German composers. Can't we move beyond this? Isn't this - at least, to some small degree - what Mahler was rebelling against? What about French composers? Czech composers? Polish? Russian? Spanish? Japanese? Finnish? Come on folks, it's a big, wide world out there! Nes pas? I'll make a proclamation that I'll bet some of you will just hate: I think that Debussy's "La Mer" is easily as great a work as ANY Austro/German symphony out there. Don't like that?    .     .    .   then you don't like me! Fair enough; we don't know each other.  But I would much rather take De Falla's "Three Cornered Hat" as my "desert isle disc" (other than Mahler), than any Brahms or Bruckner symphony (maybe B9 would be my exception). I'm just being honest here.  Now, let's return back to Bruckner, because I do have a right to clarify my thoughts and position about him.

LIke I said in my previous post...I also enjoy Debussy, Ives, Stravinsky and others.  I think Debussy's L'Après-midi d'un faune is as valid as any Brahms or Beethoven...and I like it just as much as Mahler's 6th (if not better).  I'll take Ives over Beethoven any day.  It's just that I'm still excited over austro-German stuff as Russian, American and what not...I also listen to Beach Boys more than Mozart...Brian Wilson is amazing.

I have an even/odd theory about Bruckner. I believe that - beginning with the 3rd symphony - Bruckner's odd numbered symphonies are something of a reaction, or correction, to the previous even numbered symphony (symphonies 1 & 2 are pretty much the same thing). Think about it. The even numbered ones are always more experimental; more daring, but also more flawed. The odd numbered ones come closer to perfection, if also a tad more reigned in. To me (hint: this is an opinion, not a fact), the revised version of B8 is an even numbered symphony that tries to behave like an odd numbered one. I feel that the first version of B8 lives up to being a true, even numbered symphony: flawed; crazy; uninhibited; more mysterious - you name it.

I also said that I would take Bruckner 9 over Mahler 9. Excuse me, but I think that that's a pretty strong compliment for Bruckner; especially given just how much most Mahler buffs gush all over M9 (and thank goodness Bruckner never finished that finale!). I also feel that Bruckner's 7th is almost as good as Mahler's 7th. In the case of B6 vs. M6, I think that B6 actually beats M6 for the first three movements. But then Mahler's finale (M6) comes from behind to completely bury B6, in my view. I'm sure few Mahler buffs would argue against that opinion. 

This is great stuff to read...thats why I said "why not discuss Bruckner"? 


--Todd

[Polarius T]

Admittedly, Bruckner for me, too, represents a bit of an anomaly rather than standard fare in my listening patterns. Maybe I should start paying more attention to him, and stop just enjoying those vast works as a guilty pleasure when all I want to do is to be washed away in that big chorale sound of the Bruckner orchestra playing at full throttle. He is actually really fun to listen to, in the same way as Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, and one or two others can be. Although, honestly speaking, the most interesting thing thus far, really, that I've felt to be there about his music is that Boulez (of all people) decided he wanted to do the B8. Still, those openings lines can be so magnificent, the scherzos so tremendous, and the adagios seldom fit under a roof. Maybe I'm a closet Bruckner buff with EI issues?



In any case, Bruckner is great for showpiece purposes and so, besides Sibelius, he was bound to become my choice domain for experimenting with different conductors and orchestras (in Tchaikovsky thou shalt have no other conductors before Mravinsky). Yet, what I've discovered is that perhaps more than any other composer I know, he seems to be conductor-sensitive. I tried most that I could get my hands on (including the famous usual suspects by Jochum, Boehm, Klemperer, Giulini, Karajan, Wand, even Haitink, Ozawa, Harnoncourt, Nagano...), and now only three remain: Sinopoli, Abbado (an excellent 7th btw), and Boulez, in the descending order.

But nowadays I always take the opportunity to advertise what surely must be the greatest of them all : Abbado's new B4 with the Lucerne Festival Orchestra -- the inspiration and execution are out of this earth (http://e.lucernefestival.ch/platform/apps/shop/index.asp?MenuID=2849&Menu=13&ID=127&Item=10.6&page=detail&artId=4627), even if the work itself is perhaps the least appealing to me among all Bruckner symphonies.

PT

[john haueisen]

Darn that Barry--why does he so often turn out to be right, even when we disagree!
I have to admit that, in addition to Mahler's praising Bruckener's Te Deum, he did rave about Rienzi, and come to think of it, Barry said it exactly right when he pointed out that Mahler always threw himself completely into any production on which he was working--that he pretty much fell in love with the production of the moment.

Darn--why is Barry right so much?!  But then, whenever I read an Amazon review, if Barry gives it 5  stars, it's an immediate "must have" for me.    Perhaps we're all a bit at fault, for wanting to hear what he says.

John H

[barry guerrero]

Thanks. Now, let me make something perfectly clear: I didn't mean a single thing that I wrote    except for one: I do greatly prefer the first version to the revised version. That's just a personal preference is all. Say, what do you guys think of my even/odd theory? (and I'm perfectly willing to discuss Bruckner - sort of).

Also, keep on enjoying those "guilty pleasures". That's what it's all about.

B.

[barry guerrero]

Actually, I'll tell you why I get sore on this topic. I really feel that the best overall, completed symphony by Bruckner is the 7th. I like it far better than the 8th. I feel that its melodic invention is far superior, in all four movements. It's also much less long-winded, especially in the finale. It's not Bruckner's greatest finale (the 5th has that distinction, I feel), but it summarizes the work in a far more succinct and tidy fashion than the finale of B8 does. I also think that it has just as grand of an "apotheosis" type ending as B8 has. I love the scherzo, because it's like the "Ride Of The Valkyries" on steroids - or acid. The scherzo to B8 sounds like a wash machine that still has 20 minutes to go. The first movement is gorgeous, and I like the tribute to Wagner that is the second movement. Anyway, those are just some of my ridiculous thoughts.

I think that the next logical step after B7 is the first version of B8. As I said, two fundamentally versions exist of B8. Perhaps what's truly needed is a hybrid version - something along the lines of what the Oesser Edition does for B3.

[John Kim]

Actually, I'll tell you why I get sore on this topic. I really feel that the best overall, completed symphony by Bruckner is the 7th. I like it far better than the 8th. I feel that its melodic invention is far superior, in all four movements. It's also much less long-winded, especially in the finale. It's not Bruckner's greatest finale (the 5th has that distinction, I feel), but it summarizes the work in far more succinct and tidy fashion than the finale of B8 does. I also think that it has just as grand of an "apotheosis" type ending as B8 has. I love the scherzo, because it's like the "Ride Of The Valkyries" on steroids - or acid. The scherzo to B8 sounds like a wash machine that still has 20 minutes to go. The first movement is gorgeous, and I like the tribute to Wagner that is the second movement. Anyway, those are just some of my ridiculous thoughts.

I think that the next logical step after B7 is the first version of B8. As I said, two fundamentally versions exist of B8. Perhaps what's truly needed is a hybrid version - something along the lines of what the Oesser Edition does for B3.

Agreed. Just as I love the Brahms third most, I like the Bruckner seventh best among all Bruckner symphonies. It has plenty of tuneful melodies, great, achingly beautiful moments (especially in II.) and the tight, but well structured Finale. Bruckner didn't have to revise it because it had everything at his first shot. It has quickly become my musical 'Love Affair'

John,

[Polarius T]

Say, what do you guys think of my even/odd theory?

Seems to work for Mahler as well, AFAIK.

(If not in terms of compositional perfection, then at least as far as my aesthetical preference goes.)

But if you ask me in Brahms it's just the other way around.

With Sibelius, it's a mixed bad.

I'm not familiar enough with Tchaikovsky's earliest accomplishments.

I might go with you in Dvorak but again don't know the early ones beyond fragments.

Mendelssohn: a mixed bag.

Schubert: Would work, were it not for his 8th (which is actually the 7th but then we'd have to qualify for the 9th/real 8th).

Schumann: Ultimately doesn't matter.

Haydn: Todd, didn't you just say you're collecting all 103+ of these on LPs? Howzit?

In LvB, works as well.

Mozart: Might work, as a matter of fact.

Kalevi Aho -- anyone?

pt
PT

[barry guerrero]

Hmmmmm   .     .     .   in regards to Mahler, I've always thought that the narrative from one symphony,  pretty much leads straight into the next one. But then again, you're certainly correct in a very obvious way. For example, M4 is obviously Mahler's smallest, most "neo-classical" symphony. That's certainly a reaction to his most gigantic symphony, the 3rd. And after the total victory that is the finale to his 5th symphony, Mahler gives us his most outwardly tragic symphony. So, in a very obvious sense, you're certainly right. I tend to think of Mahler symphonies as being divided into at least three distinct periods, with the 8th being the culmination of his first two periods (the so-called "Wunderhorn" period, and the equally so-called "Ruckert" period of middle symphonies). Interesting.

Barry

[akiralx]

Barry is pretty right about B8 - the finale is too long and has a rather abrupt conclusion, and the scherzo is overlong.  Boulez gets it right when he plays the finale at a cracking pace - very exciting!  Have you tried that one Barry?  My guilty pleasure is playing Sinopoli for I-III and Boulez for IV...

B9 (preferably Barenboim II though I listen to about 6 versions) is my favourite, but I have a penchant for B2 (in the revised version) - much better than B3 I think.

[Polarius T]

in regards to Mahler, I've always thought that the narrative from one symphony,  pretty much leads straight into the next one.... I tend to think of Mahler symphonies as being divided into at least three distinct periods, with the 8th being the culmination of his first two periods.

Agreed. And yes, the 9th is really distinct, representing a very significant qualitative leap forward (if we are still allowed to use this term associated with metahistorical grand narratives..).

Alex, what's your favorite B2, btw?

PT

[barry guerrero]

My guilty pleasure is playing Sinopoli for I-III and Boulez for IV...

Interesting. I thought that Sinopoli's first movement (B8) was outstanding. I don't remember his slow movement making a huge impression on me (but I can imagine him doing it very well). And I certainly agree about Boulez for the finale (Karajan/VPO is pretty, darn strong on the finale as well).

Barry

[Leo K]

Now I'm real curious about the Boulez B8, and taking the Finale faster...perhaps I should get the Klemperer B8 and see what Barry is taking about, by comparing to a cut Finale to an uncut...of course I'm about to hear the 1st version of B8 as well...

--Todd

[barry guerrero]

I think that Klemp's B8 could be very hard to find now, and might cost you pretty penny. There's also the very real risk that you might not like what he does. In fact, I'm almost willing to bet on that. Let's handle it privately: I'll include it in my shipment to you of you know what (more on that later, for the rest of you). So don't go hunting for it. Look for Sinopoli/Dresden or Haitink/VPO instead. Both of those may cost you as well.

B.

[Leo K]

I think that Klemp's B8 could be very hard to find now, and might cost you pretty penny. There's also the very real risk that you might not like what he does. In fact, I'm almost willing to bet on that. Let's handle it privately: I'll include it in my shipment to you of you know what (more on that later, for the rest of you). So don't go hunting for it. Look for Sinopoli/Dresden or Haitink/VPO instead. Both of those may cost you as well.

B.

Thanks Barry...and I look forward to that you now what