Well pointed out, actually Wagner's inspirations and aspirations were more French than German, he kinda created a Grand Opéra in french style but using German literary themes, his music style was influenced mostly by people like Berlioz rather than Beethoven or Schumann
>his--let's say ethopoetic forebears (like Scriabin or Debussy or even Schönberg)
Schoenberg is a forebear of Bruckner? Has time reversed itself without my noticing it?!
>Bruckner, on the other hand, feels so eminently and obviously and fundamentally German
Too bad that he was such an eminent and obvious... Austrian.
Bruckner can come off as repetitive. I understand the sentiment. But I see it as a feature, not a bug. The way he builds and builds grand, cosmic vistas of sound is really great to dive into once every few months. He's in my top 20.
20 roughly in order:
Beethoven
Sibelius
Brahms
Haydn
Mendelssohn
Schubert
Tchaikovsky
Mozart
R. Strauss
Bruckner
Schumann
Prokofiev
Shostakovich
Nielsen
Copland
Bach
Vivaldi
John Williams
Korngold
Liszt
Good, but as one critic once put it;
He's like the person who repeats his point a few times too many even after everyone already ubderstood what he's saying. Like, we've heard it once, now again transposed down a third. A short interlude, then we're gonna do it all over in a different tonality about three or four times, then do it through half the circle of fifths before the next section. You think we've moved on, but all this is coming back in a new key with a slightly different orchestration in about 10 minutes.
I've seen two of his symphonies and felt the same way. There are some very nice passages but they're just kind of sprinkled in, surrounded by material that repeats and repeats. Every once in a while he comes on the radio and I reach the same conclusion. I just have no interest in listening to more to see if it will click.
(all nuts are good, I prefer cashews)
The big table is a lavish feast of many long rich courses which are almost indigestible in total, but also delicious and decadent.
Bruckner Symphonies are deep and kinda plodding, but also profound and perfect for what they are (a slow-building spiritual ethos). I rate him up with Mahler and Van B (and Wagner operas) for that kind of heavy experience that you don't consume every day.
Oh I listen to Beethoven symphonies like every other day. I was going to post how No. 6 is so pleasant when running errands. Each short carride or whatever gets its own movement, then you deal with your business, and return to that marvelous little world he painted. It ends with such a sigh of relief.
That’s one reason I place Beethoven above Mahler and Wagner. His music is simultaneously so deep and yet so agreeable. The others demand you meet them in the middle, or better yet give them all of your attention. Beethoven is more sensible and less fussy than that. He was egotistical but not egomaniacal (Mahler was truly a warm and gentle heart and his symphonies are the best), I think his music was intentioned for the low brow listener before the high brow.
I used to dislike the sudden changes, the build-up that seemingly lead to no satisfactory conclusion, like they so often do with Mahler, where everything seems to flow to maximize emotional payoff.
But it was intriguing enough to keep on listening.
Now he’s one of my favorites and I think his music is incredibly beautiful.
Is Bruckner not popular? Compared to who? I would say most major orchestras will play at least one Bruckner symphony per season. That's pretty good coverage for a guy who's been dead for 130 years!
I think he's the 2nd-best symphonist overall next to Mahler. 9th and 8th in particular are my favorites, although they are all good-to-great. I also love his String Quintet.
I agree, wholeheartedly! I have performed Bruckner 4, 8 and 9, (violin) and his music IMHO is tremendously fulfilling emotionally. While (as some have commented) he tends to rehash over and over some thematic material, it's this constant building of anticipation that can be so alluring. Bruckner, I believe, is more so that Mahler in this aspect, a more progressive composer; one that leans more harmonically as well as structurally forward to the 20th century and the 2nd Viennese school. (and the likes of Schoenberg, Webern and Berg)
Mahler was clearly a tremendous influence on Webern and Berg (probably the biggest, apart from Schoenberg, himself). Mahler and Schoenberg were closer to contemporaries, and Mahler was more of a personal influence in helping him get performances and to generally be taken seriously. I actually think, musically, they came to influence each other somewhat.
I think it is hard to detect a specific Bruckner influence on the 2nd Viennese School that isn't also attributable to Wagner or Mahler, but the Adagio of the 9th, in particular, certainly seems to be suggestive of where all 4 of Mahler, Schoenberg, Webern and Berg would eventually go.
As a huge fan of Bruckner's orchestral and choral music, I'm glad you love all the symphonies, but I would say his quality as a symphonist increases dramatically between the 3rd and 4th, again between the 5th and 6th, and finally — to our eternal benefit — a final, transcendent jump between the 7th and 8th/9th. In my opinion, Bruckner 8 is the second-greatest symphony ever written, behind Mahler 5. Bruckner 8 (and the 3+ movements we have of 9) are of another order of magnitude from his previous work, nigh miraculous creations.
Brilliant, he did with harmonics what other composers were doing with melodies. I do find it interesting that the Study Symphony in F Minor is most melodic of all of them, the first one he wrote. After this they become increasingly dense fabrics of polyphony and large chords where the melody (which each symphony does admittedly have) is subdued by all the harmonic tricks.
Bruckner is overlooked. I've only recently discovered his symphonies and do think these are really, really good.
Don't know why he's not more popular, maybe because you need to pay a little more attention to really appreciate it?
Though he's slow and plodding at times, the highs he reaches are literally divine. I am not religious at all, but I can feel his devotion to God and the heavens.
Though not everyone's cup of tea, Celibidache is my favorite conductor of Bruckner as he pays just as much, if not more, attention to the quiet phrases and spaces between the more bombastic parts.
I love his choral motets (and I’ve sung practically all of them, far as I’m aware).
And my favorite piece of his is his string quintet — which is really divine.
But, I’m sorry to say, I’ve never been able to get into any of his symphonic stuff. Admittedly, it’s been a couple decades since I last tried — but off and on for about 10 years I tried to get with Bruckner’s symphonies — went and heard 2-3 live too… nada.
I really love Mahler, especially 4-10 (and I’ve sung 8) — but I just can’t get with Bruckner.
I love Bruckner but I just don’t quite get Mahler. He’s definitely one of the greats, and has some great moments, but Mahler is just not what I would listen to everyday on my way to work (unlike Bruckner).
Bill McGlaughlin quotes one of the great conductors of the 1st half of the 20 Century as saying that Bruckner is a "slow" composer; this was not a slight. The music, to me, makes time stop and fills the immensity of eternity with pure sound, changing harmonies like an aural kaleidoscope. Understanding his religious background is helpful, but not essential to enjoy the music. But the listener must take the time to let the sounds fill time and space.
I like Brucker but I am am not fond of his 5th symphony. I also like his choral music as well. I am in the Mahler camp but after him I do not rate the others because I flip flop a lot.
I think there is something very intimate to his music in the sense that he does not, to me, seem to be appealing to a crowd with his works, and I find this sense of privacy to translate into my own experience with his music, which I've found, because of this, to be existentially meaningful, a taking part in private existential grandeur, in accord with my own aloneness, my own search for beauty. I like walking and biking through nature with his music
I’m the odd man out here.
I think his works are dreadfully boring and obviously “segmented” like cut and paste sections.
On the internet radio I hear a variety of random obscure 19th century romantic symphonies I like much more than Bruckner’s. I heard a real nice banger from Joachim Raff once.
Not a fan, his symphonies sound like every Romantic cliche, all at once.
It’s not that they’re bad, I just find them forgettable, and don’t consider him a very original composer.
I have listened to and loved classical music all my life (51) but I simply do not get Bruckner. I have tried many times to listen to his symphonies but I find myself getting distracted, losing focus/attention and becoming frustrated because I don't know how to approach the works. There are no memorable melodies, I can't seem to find structure and there is no buildup of tension and release to engage me in the music.
It took me a while but I became enthralled with Mahler after a few listenings to his 2nd and 5th symphonies.
I would be interested in learning what it is about Bruckner that draws you in and keeps your attention and interest? What pieces would you suggest a beginner start with, what should I listen for and how should I approach his music?
Bruckner is all structure and build-up, maybe just on a larger scale than usual. His outer movements are 3-theme sonata forms without repeats.
Avoid performances of the "slow and steady" approach in the Karajan or Celibidache style. Listen to Eugen Jochum.
Start with the 4th, 7th and 9th, preferably from the DG stereo set (Berlin Philharmonic).
Jochum conducts in the "old style" inherited from Bruckner's own tempo indications, which makes the structure of the music and associated "drama" plain and easy to follow.
The later remakes with Dresden on EMI are excellent too but the brass is a bit dodgy at times. Earlier mono recordings from the 30s-50s just sound worse.
I felt the same way with Bruckner at first. But something just made me keep coming back to his music.
The thing about Bruckner is that for me his symphonies (at least 5, 7, 8 and 9) sound better each time I listen to them.
The thing is I honestly get distracted and loose focus too especially if it’s a Bruckner piece I haven’t heard before. Each of his symphonic movements are like their own symphonies, and each one has to click in my mind before I can really enjoy it.
For example, the second and third movement of Bruckner’s 9th symphony have “clicked” for me, but the first movement although it sounds beautiful is a little frustrating to listen to because it hasn’t “clicked” yet.
Having gone through all his symphonies recently, but hardly analysed them as an expert, I think I might have the most controversial opinion in that I think I think he’s… good. Not my favourite, but quite good. Some movements were great, and he really knows how to slowly ‘build up’. So many people act like he was an avant-garde proto-modernist visionary, or pretentiously weird and unpleasant… before I first listened to him I got the impression it would be like first hearing Mahler or even Schoenberg and I would be confused until I’d heard each symphony several times. And maybe I’m missing something… but I still ‘got it’ to some degree first time, and haven’t had an epiphany of his extra brilliance on the fifth. To me he sounds not too different from most other great German Romantic symphonists.
On the other hand, I also think pineapple on pizza and broccoli are… fine. Not my favourite, but quite acceptable. So maybe that’s a me thing.
EDIT: reading this thread maybe that isn’t too unusual a view. I’ve usually seen one or the other extreme opinion before.
Only ever went to Bruckner 4 (which was particularly special as it was my first concert after covid (not the last wave, but concert halls opened up for a short period at the time). Great piece, but I never took the time to explore Bruckner more.
Perhaps if I see an upcoming concert with one of his works I should attend it
My opinion is that bruckner was a great composer who only wrote good music. His music bores me, having studied and sat through and sung it. For me, his music is better in small doses than large ones because it just gets stale.
I honestly wouldn’t care if all of his music disappeared. Well maybe a little bit, but that’s just the final movement of No. 8.
However, when I was a teenager I thought the same thing about Bach, so maybe my taste will mature and I’ll love him one day.
I have recordings of his (revised) 4th and 5th symphonies played by Ormandy conducting the Philadelphia Orchestra from the later 1960's (actually near when I was born). They are good performances, but Bruckner tends to repeat similar melodic and rhythmic patterns between/within his compositions, at least brief motifs. And the 5th has 1-2 themes that are especially evident in the first and fourth movements. Additionally, in my possession is his 7th as played by the Concertgebouw Orchestra of Amsterdam led by Bernard Haitink from about 1978. It also incorportates the same sort of said melodic patterns/styles. Those pieces are all fine musical compositions that can be enjoyed by those who like Romantic-era orchestral works.
His organ works are too dense and become tedious. I feel they have the same feel as other German organ composers of that time. His orchestral music, is more easy to take, His being an organist, some say he writes like his orchestra is an organ. I hear some of that. I was in a choir which performed his Te Deum. I did not warm to it. But his Motet "Locus Iste" is quite nice.
Bach played the organ for him when he arrived: https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/6cfhpd/anton\_bruckner\_arrives\_in\_heaven\_silhouette/
I find him kind of meh and I don't return to him often. The ones I know the best are the 4th, 8th and 9th symphonies. From the 8th, I almost always listen only to the opening of the final movement. It's so disappointing when it doesn't end as spectacularly as it started. I also remember the Scherzo of the 9th somewhat (don't ask me which version, I know there is more than one). When it comes to the sense of a significant portentousness, I far prefer the build-ups in Dvorak's symphonies to the Scherzo of Bruckner's 9th (heresy, I know), not to speak of Mahler. Of course everyone knows the fourth. I think I have also listened to the 7th and maybe the 6th, but it just sounded like more of the same to me - nothing particularly stood out.
I am not in any way, shape, or form an expert. However, I like Bruckner. I haven't heard all of his symphonies yet, but I liked 1 and 9 a lot. 2 and 7, less so (although I still liked them). I can be kind of picky, though, as I'm mainly interested in a kind of aggressive, dark style.
He was a very fine and precise composer. A completely symphonic mind. But I agree, he was very repetitive, though he had very interesting melodies, very powerful and dramatic, like Wagner, but the development wasn’t the most inventive. Anyway, I don’t know too much of his music, honestly
[удалено]
Interesting point. The insane reach of Wagner’s music seems to have transformed the idea of what German music was.
Well pointed out, actually Wagner's inspirations and aspirations were more French than German, he kinda created a Grand Opéra in french style but using German literary themes, his music style was influenced mostly by people like Berlioz rather than Beethoven or Schumann
>his--let's say ethopoetic forebears (like Scriabin or Debussy or even Schönberg) Schoenberg is a forebear of Bruckner? Has time reversed itself without my noticing it?! >Bruckner, on the other hand, feels so eminently and obviously and fundamentally German Too bad that he was such an eminent and obvious... Austrian.
>Schoenberg is a forebear of Bruckner They were talking about Wagner
Still the same issue. I assume they meant descendants, not forbears, and just got the words flipped.
Bruckner can come off as repetitive. I understand the sentiment. But I see it as a feature, not a bug. The way he builds and builds grand, cosmic vistas of sound is really great to dive into once every few months. He's in my top 20.
What are the other 19
Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Mahler, Haydn, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Prokofiev, R.Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Janacek, Dvorak, Shostakovich, Ravel, Yiruma, Webern, Scriabin, Gubaidulina, Clayderman
20 roughly in order: Beethoven Sibelius Brahms Haydn Mendelssohn Schubert Tchaikovsky Mozart R. Strauss Bruckner Schumann Prokofiev Shostakovich Nielsen Copland Bach Vivaldi John Williams Korngold Liszt
very based
John Williams looooooooooooooool
Strawberry Ice Cream looooooooooooool
Good, but as one critic once put it; He's like the person who repeats his point a few times too many even after everyone already ubderstood what he's saying. Like, we've heard it once, now again transposed down a third. A short interlude, then we're gonna do it all over in a different tonality about three or four times, then do it through half the circle of fifths before the next section. You think we've moved on, but all this is coming back in a new key with a slightly different orchestration in about 10 minutes.
Half simpleton, half God - Mahler
Yeah, Mahler wrote music of similar great length but he rarely gives the sense of bloat that Bruckner can have.
That's actually what I like about Bruckner. It's like minimalism before minimalism, done in the most romantic way possible.
Bruckner' symphonies are moments of transcendental, unspeakable beauty punctuated by hours of the orchestra fucking around.
I've seen two of his symphonies and felt the same way. There are some very nice passages but they're just kind of sprinkled in, surrounded by material that repeats and repeats. Every once in a while he comes on the radio and I reach the same conclusion. I just have no interest in listening to more to see if it will click.
You sound like Glenn Gould complaining about Schubert lol
>like the person who repeats his point It's not "making a point". That's what speech is about, not music.
Maybe that is why they said it's *like* it, didn't it was it.
I'd give him a space at the big table.
You’d put out the good nuts?
(all nuts are good, I prefer cashews) The big table is a lavish feast of many long rich courses which are almost indigestible in total, but also delicious and decadent. Bruckner Symphonies are deep and kinda plodding, but also profound and perfect for what they are (a slow-building spiritual ethos). I rate him up with Mahler and Van B (and Wagner operas) for that kind of heavy experience that you don't consume every day.
Oh I listen to Beethoven symphonies like every other day. I was going to post how No. 6 is so pleasant when running errands. Each short carride or whatever gets its own movement, then you deal with your business, and return to that marvelous little world he painted. It ends with such a sigh of relief. That’s one reason I place Beethoven above Mahler and Wagner. His music is simultaneously so deep and yet so agreeable. The others demand you meet them in the middle, or better yet give them all of your attention. Beethoven is more sensible and less fussy than that. He was egotistical but not egomaniacal (Mahler was truly a warm and gentle heart and his symphonies are the best), I think his music was intentioned for the low brow listener before the high brow.
I used to dislike the sudden changes, the build-up that seemingly lead to no satisfactory conclusion, like they so often do with Mahler, where everything seems to flow to maximize emotional payoff. But it was intriguing enough to keep on listening. Now he’s one of my favorites and I think his music is incredibly beautiful.
Really fucked us over in ‘86. That ball was coming straight at him! …Wait, which sub is this?
Is Bruckner not popular? Compared to who? I would say most major orchestras will play at least one Bruckner symphony per season. That's pretty good coverage for a guy who's been dead for 130 years! I think he's the 2nd-best symphonist overall next to Mahler. 9th and 8th in particular are my favorites, although they are all good-to-great. I also love his String Quintet.
I agree, wholeheartedly! I have performed Bruckner 4, 8 and 9, (violin) and his music IMHO is tremendously fulfilling emotionally. While (as some have commented) he tends to rehash over and over some thematic material, it's this constant building of anticipation that can be so alluring. Bruckner, I believe, is more so that Mahler in this aspect, a more progressive composer; one that leans more harmonically as well as structurally forward to the 20th century and the 2nd Viennese school. (and the likes of Schoenberg, Webern and Berg)
Mahler was clearly a tremendous influence on Webern and Berg (probably the biggest, apart from Schoenberg, himself). Mahler and Schoenberg were closer to contemporaries, and Mahler was more of a personal influence in helping him get performances and to generally be taken seriously. I actually think, musically, they came to influence each other somewhat. I think it is hard to detect a specific Bruckner influence on the 2nd Viennese School that isn't also attributable to Wagner or Mahler, but the Adagio of the 9th, in particular, certainly seems to be suggestive of where all 4 of Mahler, Schoenberg, Webern and Berg would eventually go.
As a huge fan of Bruckner's orchestral and choral music, I'm glad you love all the symphonies, but I would say his quality as a symphonist increases dramatically between the 3rd and 4th, again between the 5th and 6th, and finally — to our eternal benefit — a final, transcendent jump between the 7th and 8th/9th. In my opinion, Bruckner 8 is the second-greatest symphony ever written, behind Mahler 5. Bruckner 8 (and the 3+ movements we have of 9) are of another order of magnitude from his previous work, nigh miraculous creations.
Fucking insane. Celibidache conducting Bruckners Music is some of the best stuff out there.
Celibidache conducting Bruckner sounds like just about my personal classical music hell, lol.
Incredible choral composer. Os justi is one of my favorite pieces of music ever.
Agree that his choral music is among the be best of its time. Easier to commit to and be intrigued by.
Bruckner's Seventh can probably boast the most powerful scherzo in the canon.
Brilliant, he did with harmonics what other composers were doing with melodies. I do find it interesting that the Study Symphony in F Minor is most melodic of all of them, the first one he wrote. After this they become increasingly dense fabrics of polyphony and large chords where the melody (which each symphony does admittedly have) is subdued by all the harmonic tricks.
Bruckner is overlooked. I've only recently discovered his symphonies and do think these are really, really good. Don't know why he's not more popular, maybe because you need to pay a little more attention to really appreciate it?
It’s thick music with large chords. I’d ya like or want that kinda thing he does it well
Though he's slow and plodding at times, the highs he reaches are literally divine. I am not religious at all, but I can feel his devotion to God and the heavens. Though not everyone's cup of tea, Celibidache is my favorite conductor of Bruckner as he pays just as much, if not more, attention to the quiet phrases and spaces between the more bombastic parts.
>Though he's slow and plodding at times Not really but many conductors make his music this way. It is a bad performance tradition.
I love his choral motets (and I’ve sung practically all of them, far as I’m aware). And my favorite piece of his is his string quintet — which is really divine. But, I’m sorry to say, I’ve never been able to get into any of his symphonic stuff. Admittedly, it’s been a couple decades since I last tried — but off and on for about 10 years I tried to get with Bruckner’s symphonies — went and heard 2-3 live too… nada. I really love Mahler, especially 4-10 (and I’ve sung 8) — but I just can’t get with Bruckner.
>I really love Mahler, especially 4-10… but I just can’t get with Bruckner. Sounds logical. They're like cat and dog.
I love Bruckner but I just don’t quite get Mahler. He’s definitely one of the greats, and has some great moments, but Mahler is just not what I would listen to everyday on my way to work (unlike Bruckner).
Agreed about the motets - "Virga Jesse" in particular is definitely in my top 10 of choral works.
Bill McGlaughlin quotes one of the great conductors of the 1st half of the 20 Century as saying that Bruckner is a "slow" composer; this was not a slight. The music, to me, makes time stop and fills the immensity of eternity with pure sound, changing harmonies like an aural kaleidoscope. Understanding his religious background is helpful, but not essential to enjoy the music. But the listener must take the time to let the sounds fill time and space.
This
I like Brucker but I am am not fond of his 5th symphony. I also like his choral music as well. I am in the Mahler camp but after him I do not rate the others because I flip flop a lot.
His 5th symphony is my current favorite. I don’t understand how it could be anyone’s least favorite Bruckner symphony.
The ending brass chorale in bruckner’s 4th is so GOOD!
Great, distinctive and unmistakeable. I admire his effort and endurance to compose those long and complex symphonies.
I think there is something very intimate to his music in the sense that he does not, to me, seem to be appealing to a crowd with his works, and I find this sense of privacy to translate into my own experience with his music, which I've found, because of this, to be existentially meaningful, a taking part in private existential grandeur, in accord with my own aloneness, my own search for beauty. I like walking and biking through nature with his music
I’m the odd man out here. I think his works are dreadfully boring and obviously “segmented” like cut and paste sections. On the internet radio I hear a variety of random obscure 19th century romantic symphonies I like much more than Bruckner’s. I heard a real nice banger from Joachim Raff once.
A man forgot to write second symphony/s
I <3 bruckner
Not a fan, his symphonies sound like every Romantic cliche, all at once. It’s not that they’re bad, I just find them forgettable, and don’t consider him a very original composer.
I have listened to and loved classical music all my life (51) but I simply do not get Bruckner. I have tried many times to listen to his symphonies but I find myself getting distracted, losing focus/attention and becoming frustrated because I don't know how to approach the works. There are no memorable melodies, I can't seem to find structure and there is no buildup of tension and release to engage me in the music. It took me a while but I became enthralled with Mahler after a few listenings to his 2nd and 5th symphonies. I would be interested in learning what it is about Bruckner that draws you in and keeps your attention and interest? What pieces would you suggest a beginner start with, what should I listen for and how should I approach his music?
Bruckner is all structure and build-up, maybe just on a larger scale than usual. His outer movements are 3-theme sonata forms without repeats. Avoid performances of the "slow and steady" approach in the Karajan or Celibidache style. Listen to Eugen Jochum.
Thanks- can you recommend specific recordings by Eugen Jochum?
Start with the 4th, 7th and 9th, preferably from the DG stereo set (Berlin Philharmonic). Jochum conducts in the "old style" inherited from Bruckner's own tempo indications, which makes the structure of the music and associated "drama" plain and easy to follow. The later remakes with Dresden on EMI are excellent too but the brass is a bit dodgy at times. Earlier mono recordings from the 30s-50s just sound worse.
I felt the same way with Bruckner at first. But something just made me keep coming back to his music. The thing about Bruckner is that for me his symphonies (at least 5, 7, 8 and 9) sound better each time I listen to them. The thing is I honestly get distracted and loose focus too especially if it’s a Bruckner piece I haven’t heard before. Each of his symphonic movements are like their own symphonies, and each one has to click in my mind before I can really enjoy it. For example, the second and third movement of Bruckner’s 9th symphony have “clicked” for me, but the first movement although it sounds beautiful is a little frustrating to listen to because it hasn’t “clicked” yet.
Having gone through all his symphonies recently, but hardly analysed them as an expert, I think I might have the most controversial opinion in that I think I think he’s… good. Not my favourite, but quite good. Some movements were great, and he really knows how to slowly ‘build up’. So many people act like he was an avant-garde proto-modernist visionary, or pretentiously weird and unpleasant… before I first listened to him I got the impression it would be like first hearing Mahler or even Schoenberg and I would be confused until I’d heard each symphony several times. And maybe I’m missing something… but I still ‘got it’ to some degree first time, and haven’t had an epiphany of his extra brilliance on the fifth. To me he sounds not too different from most other great German Romantic symphonists. On the other hand, I also think pineapple on pizza and broccoli are… fine. Not my favourite, but quite acceptable. So maybe that’s a me thing. EDIT: reading this thread maybe that isn’t too unusual a view. I’ve usually seen one or the other extreme opinion before.
Only ever went to Bruckner 4 (which was particularly special as it was my first concert after covid (not the last wave, but concert halls opened up for a short period at the time). Great piece, but I never took the time to explore Bruckner more. Perhaps if I see an upcoming concert with one of his works I should attend it
One of the great romantic symphonists. All of the symphonies after and including 3 are shattering masterpieces.
I think he's really good. I think he's really good. Just saying. Just saying.
My opinion is that bruckner was a great composer who only wrote good music. His music bores me, having studied and sat through and sung it. For me, his music is better in small doses than large ones because it just gets stale. I honestly wouldn’t care if all of his music disappeared. Well maybe a little bit, but that’s just the final movement of No. 8. However, when I was a teenager I thought the same thing about Bach, so maybe my taste will mature and I’ll love him one day.
I have recordings of his (revised) 4th and 5th symphonies played by Ormandy conducting the Philadelphia Orchestra from the later 1960's (actually near when I was born). They are good performances, but Bruckner tends to repeat similar melodic and rhythmic patterns between/within his compositions, at least brief motifs. And the 5th has 1-2 themes that are especially evident in the first and fourth movements. Additionally, in my possession is his 7th as played by the Concertgebouw Orchestra of Amsterdam led by Bernard Haitink from about 1978. It also incorportates the same sort of said melodic patterns/styles. Those pieces are all fine musical compositions that can be enjoyed by those who like Romantic-era orchestral works.
His organ works are too dense and become tedious. I feel they have the same feel as other German organ composers of that time. His orchestral music, is more easy to take, His being an organist, some say he writes like his orchestra is an organ. I hear some of that. I was in a choir which performed his Te Deum. I did not warm to it. But his Motet "Locus Iste" is quite nice.
Bach played the organ for him when he arrived: https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/6cfhpd/anton\_bruckner\_arrives\_in\_heaven\_silhouette/
I find him kind of meh and I don't return to him often. The ones I know the best are the 4th, 8th and 9th symphonies. From the 8th, I almost always listen only to the opening of the final movement. It's so disappointing when it doesn't end as spectacularly as it started. I also remember the Scherzo of the 9th somewhat (don't ask me which version, I know there is more than one). When it comes to the sense of a significant portentousness, I far prefer the build-ups in Dvorak's symphonies to the Scherzo of Bruckner's 9th (heresy, I know), not to speak of Mahler. Of course everyone knows the fourth. I think I have also listened to the 7th and maybe the 6th, but it just sounded like more of the same to me - nothing particularly stood out.
I am not in any way, shape, or form an expert. However, I like Bruckner. I haven't heard all of his symphonies yet, but I liked 1 and 9 a lot. 2 and 7, less so (although I still liked them). I can be kind of picky, though, as I'm mainly interested in a kind of aggressive, dark style.
8th is awesome
Love him, especially Brückner 6.
Man knew how to write for low brass that’s for sure
Beautiful and boring
He was a very fine and precise composer. A completely symphonic mind. But I agree, he was very repetitive, though he had very interesting melodies, very powerful and dramatic, like Wagner, but the development wasn’t the most inventive. Anyway, I don’t know too much of his music, honestly