Leaderboard

I love Bruckner, particularly his earlier symphonies. But he definitely is an acquired taste. Mahler is all around awesome, just at another level.

Totally agreed. Bruckner remains a tough pill to swallow for me, since I still tend to find his symphonies quite boring. The commonplace comparison with Mahler drives me up a wall in fact, since they have virtually nothing in common except for being Austrian and writing nine mega-symphonies plus an unfinished one. I became a Mahlerian rather easily, starting from his First Symphony and finding him upping his game on the Second and Fourth. I ultimately got to love all of his symphonies except the Third, which still puzzles me a bit. On the other hand, Bruckner just turns me off as easily - his Third Symphony being perhaps the only production of his that I find at least somewhat interesting.

Nah, there's so much music I've never heard, just that no one's writing it :)

I was not aware that he was making such statements. I'm not exactly holding my ear to the ground listening for this stuff, so I'm largely oblivious to it all. But man! That IS a radical statement. And also one I disagree with. I mean I know I tend to think that music shouldn't rely too much on sheer emotion to appeal to people, but this is much more extreme. You know what I've been taught about people who are that extreme? That they're spiritually out of balance. He clearly needs a hug. Someone send him a box of feels with a teddy bear and good Belgian chocolate.

Bruckner is/has been/was a challenge for me. It took me some time to get really into Mahler symphonies, but the real challenge there was just the length, I feel, just getting my head around an 80-90 minute symphony, especially as early in my 'learn about classical music' efforts as it was, but I really love his stuff now. While he certainly has an overall style, each piece is so strikingly individual, each symphony very much has its own personality and identity, for better or for worse (I love them all, but I can see how some wouldn't). I say this being far less familiar with Bruckner than I should be (far less familiar with him than Mahler for sure), but my overall impression is that he wrote the same symphony nine times (or like... 10 and 3/4 times if you count the study symphony and the retracted one, and 9 being incomplete). I say that knowing full well that they're not ​the same, but my impression is that they're much more the same than Mahler's output, which isn't to say that the latter's are better or right, but that it's why they were captivating and easy to identify and remember. It took lots and lots and lots of effort last year to really begin to 'get' his fourth, but it was suggested (along with the seventh) as a good place to start. I listened to recording after recording after recording over and over and over again to start to get it, and it only got to feel emotionally significant when I was already quite familiar with it. It's puzzling to me what doesn't 'click' with me for Bruckner. I love the scherzos of his first and third symphonies, and the first movement of no. 1 is quite captivating, at least the opening. I'm familiar-ish with the ninth, and it's enjoyable, but it is taking me a long time to warm up to him, and I have been trying really hard. That all being said, I bought a ticket last night to hear his eighth here at the end of may and am looking very forward to it.

I just kind of love all of this that you said.... While I'm really starting to get into Bruckner and LOVE Mahler (but can definitely see what you're saying), I do like the swathes of sweeping generalization that kind of quite accurately characterize the overall listening experience of some of these folks. Well said.

Today, we live in times where everything has to be instant. It has also infected many composers: no more patience to write music for several months (thank God for copy paste, right?), no more patience to create music which would last 20 minutes or more (thank God for minimalism, right?), also lack of interest to deploy good exisiting material into something fresh. The composers are either living in the world of pop or cross-over music or still believing they can invent something. Still, there are some great composers which live up to classical standards: Kalevi Aho (not always but quite frequently), Erkki Sven Tüür, Magnus Lindberg, perhaps also John Adams in his best music, Mark Andre Dalbavie. My personal wish is to attempt to come close as possible to these names.