Secondary to his Bruckner? (the recordings of Eugen Jochum)
Posted by: Tam on 13 May 2006
The title, for me, says it all. It is motivated by the liner notes of several sets of mine, all of which seem to start off by excusing the conductor "he may have been known for his Bruckner but his Beethoven/Brahms/Haydn (delete as appropriate) is very good too". And, on most of these sets I come away wondering what on earth there is to excuse.
Actually, my first encounter with Jochum was not through Bruckner at all, but rather with his Brahms in the form of the piano concertos with Gilels. Indeed, I don't think those liner notes do make the Bruckner comment. However, I wasn't entirely bowled over by those readings and, though I do love the orchestral playing, I am not entirely convinced by Gilels (as has been discussed on other threads); however, the second in particular has grown on me.
My next encounter with Jochum was accidental: coming across his Beethoven symphony cycle for under £10 was not something I was about to pass up. And here I met the 'Bruckner comment' for the first time. Indeed, the very first sentence of the notes says it "represents an interpretation by a conductor who was not necessarily regarded as a 'classic' Beethovenian but who enjoyed a reputation as the ultimate authority on Bruckner". Indeed the whole note amounts to something of an excuse "Even so, we should not dismiss his Beethoven as less successful than, or secondary to, his Bruckner". Quite why they feel the need to go on like this is beyond me since this set more than stands on its own and is one of the most satisfying cycles I have (and one of the very few I would be genuinely happy living with were I only allowed one - though that would be terribly unfair). The set has been wronged by its bridging of the mono and stereo eras (though the sound is, in fact, superb throughout) and hasn't always had the place in the catalogue it deserves (it also leaves me convinced that people should not be allowed to use the word 'Beethovenian'). This is a shame.
At the same time, I also picked up, at budget price, Jochum's EMI/Dresden Bruckner cycle. And, to some extent, this does explain the constant references to his Bruckner, because it is so very fine (indeed, it is much the most satisfying of the Bruckner cycles I own, but I will not discuss it here as I have done so at length on other threads).
Recently, partly because I felt a lack of 'big orchestra' Brahms, and partly because of several penguin guide rosettes, I went on something of a Jochum spending spree picking up both his Brahms cycles and his Haydn London symphonies.
The DG BPO Brahms notes again make the Bruckner comment, though in this case it is more justified. In the first place because the finale of the first, in particular, has a very Brucknerian feel to it. I have discussed this set in the Brahms thread and will say only that they are the only Jochum discs so far that have seriously disappointed me (because they are rather too rushed). The same cannot be said, so far, of the later EMI/LPO stereo set. I've only listened to the 1st and the two overtures, but it has been wonderful. The readings seem slightly slower (and timings support that), but not so much so as to cause problems and the result would seem to be just right.
Finally, this morning, the London symphonies turned up. Until now my guiding light has been Bernstein. I love the joy he brings to his Haydn readings. Jochum is not quite the same, but involving and exciting in a different way, and I am enjoying these very much indeed. Number 94 'the surprise' was wonderfully, well, surprising and fresh. Given Amazon are currently doing this set for just shy of £15 (and given the fillers of 88 and 98 with the BPO and 91 with the BRSO) there's little excuse not to pick it up.
So, what is the point of this thread? Well, firstly that Jochum did a lot more than Bruckner, and much of it is very good indeed. Secondly, it makes me wonder what other gems there may be out there. It strikes me that Jochum lacks the critical or popular following of many of his peers and I wonder whether some of his recordings languish unreleased (since a search online doesn't seem to turn up so many as I would expect) or simply unnoticed. But, really, I just wanted to celebrate a great conductor and some of his great recordings.
regards, Tam
Actually, my first encounter with Jochum was not through Bruckner at all, but rather with his Brahms in the form of the piano concertos with Gilels. Indeed, I don't think those liner notes do make the Bruckner comment. However, I wasn't entirely bowled over by those readings and, though I do love the orchestral playing, I am not entirely convinced by Gilels (as has been discussed on other threads); however, the second in particular has grown on me.
My next encounter with Jochum was accidental: coming across his Beethoven symphony cycle for under £10 was not something I was about to pass up. And here I met the 'Bruckner comment' for the first time. Indeed, the very first sentence of the notes says it "represents an interpretation by a conductor who was not necessarily regarded as a 'classic' Beethovenian but who enjoyed a reputation as the ultimate authority on Bruckner". Indeed the whole note amounts to something of an excuse "Even so, we should not dismiss his Beethoven as less successful than, or secondary to, his Bruckner". Quite why they feel the need to go on like this is beyond me since this set more than stands on its own and is one of the most satisfying cycles I have (and one of the very few I would be genuinely happy living with were I only allowed one - though that would be terribly unfair). The set has been wronged by its bridging of the mono and stereo eras (though the sound is, in fact, superb throughout) and hasn't always had the place in the catalogue it deserves (it also leaves me convinced that people should not be allowed to use the word 'Beethovenian'). This is a shame.
At the same time, I also picked up, at budget price, Jochum's EMI/Dresden Bruckner cycle. And, to some extent, this does explain the constant references to his Bruckner, because it is so very fine (indeed, it is much the most satisfying of the Bruckner cycles I own, but I will not discuss it here as I have done so at length on other threads).
Recently, partly because I felt a lack of 'big orchestra' Brahms, and partly because of several penguin guide rosettes, I went on something of a Jochum spending spree picking up both his Brahms cycles and his Haydn London symphonies.
The DG BPO Brahms notes again make the Bruckner comment, though in this case it is more justified. In the first place because the finale of the first, in particular, has a very Brucknerian feel to it. I have discussed this set in the Brahms thread and will say only that they are the only Jochum discs so far that have seriously disappointed me (because they are rather too rushed). The same cannot be said, so far, of the later EMI/LPO stereo set. I've only listened to the 1st and the two overtures, but it has been wonderful. The readings seem slightly slower (and timings support that), but not so much so as to cause problems and the result would seem to be just right.
Finally, this morning, the London symphonies turned up. Until now my guiding light has been Bernstein. I love the joy he brings to his Haydn readings. Jochum is not quite the same, but involving and exciting in a different way, and I am enjoying these very much indeed. Number 94 'the surprise' was wonderfully, well, surprising and fresh. Given Amazon are currently doing this set for just shy of £15 (and given the fillers of 88 and 98 with the BPO and 91 with the BRSO) there's little excuse not to pick it up.
So, what is the point of this thread? Well, firstly that Jochum did a lot more than Bruckner, and much of it is very good indeed. Secondly, it makes me wonder what other gems there may be out there. It strikes me that Jochum lacks the critical or popular following of many of his peers and I wonder whether some of his recordings languish unreleased (since a search online doesn't seem to turn up so many as I would expect) or simply unnoticed. But, really, I just wanted to celebrate a great conductor and some of his great recordings.
regards, Tam