How did you discover Bruckner's music?

[audiophilia]

Originally Posted by Mirror Image

The 6th is very underrated

Not by me.

[Mirror Image]

Originally Posted by audiophilia

Not by me.

Well it's underrated amongst people who haven't even heard a good version of it or cared enough about Bruckner's music to give a chance. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Which versions have you heard of Bruckner's 6th? This symphony is lighter in approach, but it doesn't make any less wonderful.

[lirica]

4 th - could shakes any person.
Even I download notes of the score for understanding : how some musical ideas are created, what role plays a timbre of tools, and what - a melody and a rhythm.

It seems to me , that 4 - whole story about love: in the beginning - it inspires, and after - disappointment. And a unique conclusion : the terrestrial love - is full of sufferings, and it is possible to love only ... God.
Though, I think , Bruckner is not right. The terrestrial love is possible, but....for such high relations are necessary two perfect ( in sense - are capable for high level of consious) persons.

[Mirror Image]

Originally Posted by lirica

4 th - could shakes any person.
Even I download notes of the score for understanding : how some musical ideas are created, what role plays a timbre of tools, and what - a melody and a rhythm.

It seems to me , that 4 - whole story about love: in the beginning - it inspires, and after - disappointment. And a unique conclusion : the terrestrial love - is full of sufferings, and it is possible to love only ... God.
Though, I think , Bruckner is not right. The terrestrial love is possible, but....for such high relations are necessary two perfect ( in sense - are capable for high level of consious) persons.

Interesting interpretation, lirica. I, for one, don't view "Symphony No. 4" in quite the same light as you do. I think one of the main things to understand about Bruckner was everything he wrote was about transcendence, the understanding God, and what he thought God wanted him to do in this life. His music stands in stark contrast to Mahler's music, which dealt with things on a more humanly level like life and death.

Bruckner was a deeply devoted man of faith. I'm sure he was not a perfect person by any means, but I read that he was a very humble man and would give you "the shirt off his back" so to speak. I think God gave Bruckner the inspriation he truly needed, but his music also reflects nature and Creationism. Never does Bruckner's music touch on the human existance, because I believe it was his belief that we're all just apart of a greater plan.

All of this, of course, is just my own personal opinion.

[Stlukesguild]

As a long-term lover of vocal and choral music I believe I first came across Bruckner's music via the masses, the Te Deum, the motets, and other choral music performed by Eugene Jochum. This led me to want to explore his symphonies. I ended up selecting his 7th symphony in the recording by Herbert von Karajan and I was blown away... and hooked.

[marek]

I discovered Bruckner 36 years ago, when I was 16, on an LP with the 3rd Symphony conducted by Gennady Rozhdestvensky. It was one of a series of ultra-compressed recordings that the communists made - probably in an attempt to make classical music more accessible to the proletarians. I had bought that LP on special for $2 in Geneva, Switzerland, where I used to live back then.

With that recording, you would hear a ppp solo flute almost at the same level as an orchestral tutti fff... It was a bit similar to the compression ratio found on Youtube's recordings. A bit frustrating to listen on a good audio system, but it did allow me to discover every sound of Bruckner's mystical 3rd symphony.

I was only starting my journey into classical music back then. No musical background at all.

But from the first notes I heard, the 3rd symphony had something mysterious that placed it on a different level than any other music I knew. There was music; and there was Bruckner.

I kept exploring Bruckner's symphonies and the passion grew. I realised that d minor (the tonality of the 3rd) is probably one of the reasons why that symphony appeared so mysterious to me; d minor is said to be the tonality of the Eternal.

Now aged 52, I still see Bruckner as well apart from all the others. He is part of me. So much that, when listening the the 6th (Youtube link posted above, with Celibidache), I still have goose bumps.

The interesting thing is that he still remains a mystery. N.B. "mystery" is almost a religious term. I still cannot figure out what exactly makes his music so close to my heart. But he is an intrinsic part of me. I even happen to hear Bruckner's entire symphonies in my dreams. No, my audio is not on; it is purely a dream, but so accurate, that I could probably transcribe it on music paper (had I learned musical notation) and it would be identical to his score.

One thing I realised only recently is that Bruckner was a catholic. Having myself been raised in catholic schools, maybe I have in me a seed that gives me this extraordinary connection with Bruckner - one that I do not have with non catholic composers. Go figure out why - I am not a devout church goer at all, and I have not been raised in a musical environment.

But placing Bruckner on one religious level would be minimizing his supernatural heritage, which is universal. Everybody, regardless of religion, should learn grandeur and humility just by listening to his works.

BTW thank you for asking this interesting question "How did you discover Bruckner's music?"

[Mirror Image]

Originally Posted by marek

Everybody, regardless of religion, should learn grandeur and humility just by listening to his [Bruckner] works.

I absolutely agree. Bruckner can be enjoyed by any willing to make the effort, which can be said for a lot of composer's music. I think once you get past some of the roadblocks in his music, which for me the roadblocks were the length of his symphonies and some of the repetitiveness of his melodies, then you can enjoy his music without distractions.

As I said earlier, Bruckner was a very difficult composer for me to get into, but the point is I never stopped trying. The same applies for me with Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. I was repulsed upon first hearing now I can't get enough, especially Berg. My entry into Berg was his "Violin Concerto." My entry into Bruckner was his "Symphony No. 9," which as far as I'm concerned is one of the finest examples of symphonic writing I've ever heard.

[James C. Fretz]

This is a fascinating thread for me to read because, at the age of 59, I've struggled most of my life trying to come to terms with Bruckner. Much of the time I was privately convinced that the man to a handful of chord sequences and cadences and created all of his symphonies. They always seemed so fragmented; the composer was never bothered letting one theme come to a complete halt before moving onto the B section. This was in strong contrast (or so it seemed to me) with the seamless cloth which Mahler wove in his symphonies.

Through the years, I would know a number of good friends who felt as strongly and as enthusiastically about Bruckner as I felt about Mahler. And, oddly enough, it seemed as though there was no middle road: once side of the fence or the other.

Lately, though, something's changed and my interest in Bruckner's symphonies has blossomed shamelessly (and not to the detriment of Mahler, either). I'm happy about that, of course; but I can't help thinking it the change was quite unexpected.

[Tarantella]

I've read all these very interesting posts about Bruckner - so varied and obviously coming from the heart and head. But I have to agree with the very first one about loud and brassy and "full of sound and fury". Sorry.

[James C. Fretz]

Indeed, unless one wishes to discuss musical structure and harmony, items which lend themselves to unequivocal analysis and agreement, the sharing of musical tastes and impressions will hardly accomplish much and must be deemed 'non-transferable'.

Within the English language we can fairly expect there to be agreement in spelling of the words (barring, of course, those known specific differences between British and American rules); but, though Music is a universal language, there's no reason to believe that its effect will be the some from individual to individual.

http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/..._elephant.html

Like the Blind Men describing the Elephant. The impressions of each have some individual validity. But the difference is that, with Music nothing is tactile...and that things only become murkier and murkier.