What I meant when Bob Draper wrote:

>>Beethoven's 9th is one of the few works of his that I can say I don't like.
>>It is over long IMO and that final movement is tedious.

and I made the snide remark:

>Now why doesn't that comment (as regards both content and form) surprise
>me?  ...

is that it looked as if he was having another stab at a 'great name'; and
to me, the comment 'that final movement is tedious' was such an off-hand
and confident assertion that it was almost comical - I couldn't resist.
I know Beethoven's 9th is very long, but I don't think it's over-long
because to me everything 'fits' - there is nothing redundant in it.  Also,
the length itself has a symbolic function given the elevated and universal
theme of the work.  You couldn't express that sort of thing in a pithy 20
minutes.  With Bruckner I'd be more inclined to agree with you - but not
necessarily because of the length itself - rather his symphonies don't seem
to me as tightly and dynamically argued as Beethoven's - you've got sort
of static 'blocks' which are placed next to each other, with no real
transition or transformation.  That can make his symphonies sound
over-monumental and rather static.

>Last week I achieved a major feat. I sat through Brucker's 8th start
>to finish with only minor waivers in concentration, and enjoyed it.

Not bad - to get through Beethoven's 9th is much easier than that.
However, both are child's play when Furtwangler is at the podium.

Felix Delbruck
[log in to unmask]