Favorite Bruckner
Posted by: herm on 05 September 2002
"Next time, we'll take it slower yet," Eugen Jochum is reported to have said to Concertgebouw members after a wonderful, blazing Bruckner Seventh Symphony in the summer of 1986.
Next time was on his last tour, to Japan in september of that year (in the first week of december 1986 he conducted a shattering Bruckner 5 at the Concertgebouw and three months later he died, 85 years old, as I recall).
This week I got a cd with a recording (from a live broadcast) of the Bruckner 7 in Japan. In effect I can now dispense with the three recordings of this work that I used to have. This is the one.
Is it slower? I guess so. The timings for the four mvts are 22:49 / 27:56 / 11:20 / 13:15. However the funny thing is, it never sounds slow. It feels completely right, and that's the magic of Jochum's conducting, which is never fancy, or quasi deep, or attention grabbing. The musical flow is completely natural.
Another funny thing is, in some respects the orchestra doesn't seem to be on top form. There's a bunch of minor glitches (early starts in the strings etc); yet this orchestra so completely inhabits this music that the overall experience - certainly after the marvellous finale - is one of complete command and amazing beauty. And I mean the kind of beauty Bruckner calls for. The Concertgebouw can play with great finesse, but in some ways the brass is a little huffy here, and that's the way it should. After all, this is Bruckner.
What I'm hearing, too, is an unique orchestra - conductor rapport. Quite possibly Jochum was the RCO's favorite conductor, and it shows. I have vivid memories of the 1986 concert in Amsterdam. Jochum was the orchestra's link to the past: after Van Beinum died suddenly, Haitink was too young to direct the orchestra ll by himself, and Jochum stepped in - that's basically the story.
Last point. I suspect the recording (put on CD by "The Bells of Saint Florian" - a Bruckner only label) was not made from the mastertape, but from the compressed broadcast. The upper strings miss a little bloom - though the double basses have great body. The brass and woodwinds are, as always, the envy of the world. So it's like listening to the radio. Nonetheless the performance makes the lack of recording finesse good.
Anyone else care to talk about a favorite Bruckner recording?
Herman
Next time was on his last tour, to Japan in september of that year (in the first week of december 1986 he conducted a shattering Bruckner 5 at the Concertgebouw and three months later he died, 85 years old, as I recall).
This week I got a cd with a recording (from a live broadcast) of the Bruckner 7 in Japan. In effect I can now dispense with the three recordings of this work that I used to have. This is the one.
Is it slower? I guess so. The timings for the four mvts are 22:49 / 27:56 / 11:20 / 13:15. However the funny thing is, it never sounds slow. It feels completely right, and that's the magic of Jochum's conducting, which is never fancy, or quasi deep, or attention grabbing. The musical flow is completely natural.
Another funny thing is, in some respects the orchestra doesn't seem to be on top form. There's a bunch of minor glitches (early starts in the strings etc); yet this orchestra so completely inhabits this music that the overall experience - certainly after the marvellous finale - is one of complete command and amazing beauty. And I mean the kind of beauty Bruckner calls for. The Concertgebouw can play with great finesse, but in some ways the brass is a little huffy here, and that's the way it should. After all, this is Bruckner.
What I'm hearing, too, is an unique orchestra - conductor rapport. Quite possibly Jochum was the RCO's favorite conductor, and it shows. I have vivid memories of the 1986 concert in Amsterdam. Jochum was the orchestra's link to the past: after Van Beinum died suddenly, Haitink was too young to direct the orchestra ll by himself, and Jochum stepped in - that's basically the story.
Last point. I suspect the recording (put on CD by "The Bells of Saint Florian" - a Bruckner only label) was not made from the mastertape, but from the compressed broadcast. The upper strings miss a little bloom - though the double basses have great body. The brass and woodwinds are, as always, the envy of the world. So it's like listening to the radio. Nonetheless the performance makes the lack of recording finesse good.
Anyone else care to talk about a favorite Bruckner recording?
Herman
Posted on: 05 September 2002 by Thorsten
i still have the full celibidache-box waiting for my attention.
which one to listen to first? i am playing the trombone but are always a bit set back by its massive use in bruckner's symphonies. i always feel insulted that bruckner thought brass only to be good to blow things up and make it loud. am i wrong here??? does he use brass for subtle nuances, colours and shades??? if so, in which one of the symphonies? btw celi should be even slower, but then right at the same time.
i'd always prefer the live-recording with minor mistakes to a clean studio-recording. in general.
<i>The most important upgrade: Forget about your system. </i>
which one to listen to first? i am playing the trombone but are always a bit set back by its massive use in bruckner's symphonies. i always feel insulted that bruckner thought brass only to be good to blow things up and make it loud. am i wrong here??? does he use brass for subtle nuances, colours and shades??? if so, in which one of the symphonies? btw celi should be even slower, but then right at the same time.
i'd always prefer the live-recording with minor mistakes to a clean studio-recording. in general.
<i>The most important upgrade: Forget about your system. </i>
Posted on: 05 September 2002 by herm
"i'd always prefer the live-recording with minor mistakes to a clean studio-recording."
That's what I meant. The imperfections don't matter in a performance like this.
Sure Bruckner uses brass for deep coloring, Thorsten. You're thinking of those big chorales at the end - those are huge soaring real-life organs, absolutely. But perhaps you should get a mini score of 7 or 4, spin the record and see / hear how intricate the writing for particularly the horns is.
Of course the Fourth starts with soft horn calls, but possibly the most spellbinding moment for brass in Bruckner occurs in the epic adagio of the Eighth, a beautiful melody in c flat minor (methinks) smack in the middle of the mvt, introduced in a solo for one the of socalled Wagner tubas - a sort of mix of horn and tuba. Listen - and keep breathing!
Herman
That's what I meant. The imperfections don't matter in a performance like this.
Sure Bruckner uses brass for deep coloring, Thorsten. You're thinking of those big chorales at the end - those are huge soaring real-life organs, absolutely. But perhaps you should get a mini score of 7 or 4, spin the record and see / hear how intricate the writing for particularly the horns is.
Of course the Fourth starts with soft horn calls, but possibly the most spellbinding moment for brass in Bruckner occurs in the epic adagio of the Eighth, a beautiful melody in c flat minor (methinks) smack in the middle of the mvt, introduced in a solo for one the of socalled Wagner tubas - a sort of mix of horn and tuba. Listen - and keep breathing!
Herman
Posted on: 05 September 2002 by Todd A
I'll be brief, since this is such a big question. My favorite Bruckner performances, at the present time, are as follows:
1 - Tintner on Naxos
2 - Tintner on Naxos
3 - Tintner on Naxos
4 - Celibidache (Munich PO) on EMI
5 - Celibidache (Munich PO) on EMI
6 - Klemperer and the Philharmonia on EMI
7 - Giulini and Vienna Philharmonic on DG
8 - Celibidache (Munich PO) on EMI; or
8 - Giulini and Vienna Philharmonic on DG; or
8 - Boulez and Vienna Philharmonic on DG or
8 - Furtwangler and Berlin Philharmonic (March 14, 1949)
9 - Wand and Berlin Philharmonic on RCA (newest one); or
9 - Furtwangler and Berlin Philharmonic from 1944
As I look at the list I have reservations, sort of, but this will have to do. Celibidache, in the EMI set, is indeed long; his rendition of 8 runs to 104 minutes. Occassionally, in the finale, it seems to run a bit long, but the rest of the work is sublime. The Adagio, in particular, is remarkable and simply makes time melt away. Sound is quite good, too. His Fifth is much the same, and ends quite emphatically.
How could I include Boulez? Well, his Bruckner 8 is shorn of excess emotion (Furtwangler) and mysticism (Celibidache), and so the score is left to fend for itself. It succeeds marvelously. I was quite surprised at how much I liked (and still like) this performance. In fact, I just listened to it a couple of days ago.
In the 9, I think Wand and Furtwangler represent opposite ends of the spectrum, and both are wonderful, the Furtwangler decidedly more intense.
As for Giulini, well, what can I write. He makes the music sound beautiful and profound.
1 - Tintner on Naxos
2 - Tintner on Naxos
3 - Tintner on Naxos
4 - Celibidache (Munich PO) on EMI
5 - Celibidache (Munich PO) on EMI
6 - Klemperer and the Philharmonia on EMI
7 - Giulini and Vienna Philharmonic on DG
8 - Celibidache (Munich PO) on EMI; or
8 - Giulini and Vienna Philharmonic on DG; or
8 - Boulez and Vienna Philharmonic on DG or
8 - Furtwangler and Berlin Philharmonic (March 14, 1949)
9 - Wand and Berlin Philharmonic on RCA (newest one); or
9 - Furtwangler and Berlin Philharmonic from 1944
As I look at the list I have reservations, sort of, but this will have to do. Celibidache, in the EMI set, is indeed long; his rendition of 8 runs to 104 minutes. Occassionally, in the finale, it seems to run a bit long, but the rest of the work is sublime. The Adagio, in particular, is remarkable and simply makes time melt away. Sound is quite good, too. His Fifth is much the same, and ends quite emphatically.
How could I include Boulez? Well, his Bruckner 8 is shorn of excess emotion (Furtwangler) and mysticism (Celibidache), and so the score is left to fend for itself. It succeeds marvelously. I was quite surprised at how much I liked (and still like) this performance. In fact, I just listened to it a couple of days ago.
In the 9, I think Wand and Furtwangler represent opposite ends of the spectrum, and both are wonderful, the Furtwangler decidedly more intense.
As for Giulini, well, what can I write. He makes the music sound beautiful and profound.
Posted on: 05 September 2002 by herm
quote:
Originally posted by Todd Arola:
As for Giulini, well, what can I write. He makes the music sound beautiful and profound.
Sorry for butting in again. Todd, how come you missed out on the B 9 with Giulini? I'd say that is the peak of his Bruckner project with DG. (Giulini's 7 is one of those that currently take a back seat to Jochum.) Giulini recorded the Ninth with the Vienna Philharmonic. It's a great recording.
However not long after Karajan died and Giulini got to perform the Ninth with Berlin PO as a tribute to Von K. Love him or hate him, Von K. was not to be sneezed at, after all.
That performance (it was live broadcast on radio; I taped it) was at times unbearably intense and occasionally lugubrious. The official recording paled beside this performance.
Incidentally, after Jochum's death Haitink conducted a stellar Bruckner 7 with the Concertgebouw in his memory, after an intorductory piece of Bach.
Anyone else listening to Bruckner these days?
Herman
Posted on: 05 September 2002 by Thorsten
i'll immediately switch of the computer and go for bruckner. tell you what i think tomorrow. thanks for the introduction.
<i>The most important upgrade: Forget about your system. </i>
<i>The most important upgrade: Forget about your system. </i>
Posted on: 05 September 2002 by Todd A
I didn't miss Giulini in the Ninth, I just listed those performances I listen to the most. Don't get me wrong, Giulini's Bruckner is incredible and the Ninth comes very highly recommended, indeed. Wand and Furtwangler just come more highly recommended.
As for Jochum superceding Giulini in the Seventh, well, my taste leans toward the Italian. That's not to say that I am slighting Jochum. In fact, were I to suggest a complete Bruckner cycle to a Bruckner newbie, I'd suggest Jochum (either the EMI or DG set).
Now, as for Fluffy - HvK, that is: his Bruckner is variable. His last recordings from 1988 and 1989 just don't do it for, the Seventh in particular. His earlier recordings are more to my taste. Take the 1958 recording with the Berlin Philharmonic on EMI. The sound is not the best, and the performance may be a tad too analytical for some, but I rather like it. I have not yet heard all of the recordings from his complete DG cycle (70s-80s), but I intend to over time.
Ah man, now I got a hankerin' for some more Bruckner recordings. See what you did, Herman?
As for Jochum superceding Giulini in the Seventh, well, my taste leans toward the Italian. That's not to say that I am slighting Jochum. In fact, were I to suggest a complete Bruckner cycle to a Bruckner newbie, I'd suggest Jochum (either the EMI or DG set).
Now, as for Fluffy - HvK, that is: his Bruckner is variable. His last recordings from 1988 and 1989 just don't do it for, the Seventh in particular. His earlier recordings are more to my taste. Take the 1958 recording with the Berlin Philharmonic on EMI. The sound is not the best, and the performance may be a tad too analytical for some, but I rather like it. I have not yet heard all of the recordings from his complete DG cycle (70s-80s), but I intend to over time.
Ah man, now I got a hankerin' for some more Bruckner recordings. See what you did, Herman?
Posted on: 06 September 2002 by David Hobbs-Mallyon
Herman,
That Jochum disc sounds well worth seekinig out. For sheer breadth, I doubt he can compare with Celibidache - the Adagio of his 8th lasts for 35 minutes, although this is too much for me.
While talking about Jochum, the set of recordings of the masses, and in particular the F minor mass is high on my list. For those that struggle with Bruckner's symphonies, these are often the best place to start.
On the Eighth, there are some wonderful recordings out there - even Karajan's last studio recording of this is worth having. Wand recorded the work several times, never quite catching what I remember of his live performances of a decade ago. His recent 'live' Berlin Philharmonic is wonderful, although, I'd agree with Ross that it doesn't supercede previous recordings, and doesn't quite have that feeling of occasion about it. Of course versions are a problem with the eighth, which is why I couldn't live with Giulini's account (Novak edition), although his love for the work is obvious. If you want occasion, Furtwangler's 1949 account certainly has it, with added coughs and planes flying overhead - the sound is appalling (although personally I prefer this to his 1944 account which is in better sound), and the interpretation is too tragic for my tastes, but certainly worth a listen. I would also highly recommend van Beinum's recording with the Concertgebouw from the 50s - I'd agree with the notes about the orchestra having a sound like 'antique gold'. Another live recording that has come out recently is the one of the BBC releases of Barbirolli - not a name that would immediately spring to mind with Bruckner, but this is well worth having.
I must admit to a slightly perverse pleasure in listening to the Karajan's 'last' Bruckner 7th. Unlike Todd, I prefer it to the earlier Berlin PO which usually gets the plaudits, but that focusses too much on the beauty of the work for my liking and the recording is horribly muddy. His early BPO recordings are not for me, and the recorded sound is generally awful - in terms of technical trickery, the 5th has to be one of the worst recordings I own.
Of recent live recording releases, my favourite would have to be the BBC's release of Horenstein's Prom performance of the 5th. The sound is much better than the previous release of his 8th/9th. Horenstein really knew these symphonies, and he seems to extract more detail than just about anyone else. Another 5th of completely different nature, is Furtwangler's Salzburg performance (EMI - 1944 I think, although currently deleted) - an absolutely incandescent performance that I cannot imagine being bettered.
David
[This message was edited by David Hobbs-Mallyon on FRIDAY 06 September 2002 at 10:46.]
That Jochum disc sounds well worth seekinig out. For sheer breadth, I doubt he can compare with Celibidache - the Adagio of his 8th lasts for 35 minutes, although this is too much for me.
While talking about Jochum, the set of recordings of the masses, and in particular the F minor mass is high on my list. For those that struggle with Bruckner's symphonies, these are often the best place to start.
On the Eighth, there are some wonderful recordings out there - even Karajan's last studio recording of this is worth having. Wand recorded the work several times, never quite catching what I remember of his live performances of a decade ago. His recent 'live' Berlin Philharmonic is wonderful, although, I'd agree with Ross that it doesn't supercede previous recordings, and doesn't quite have that feeling of occasion about it. Of course versions are a problem with the eighth, which is why I couldn't live with Giulini's account (Novak edition), although his love for the work is obvious. If you want occasion, Furtwangler's 1949 account certainly has it, with added coughs and planes flying overhead - the sound is appalling (although personally I prefer this to his 1944 account which is in better sound), and the interpretation is too tragic for my tastes, but certainly worth a listen. I would also highly recommend van Beinum's recording with the Concertgebouw from the 50s - I'd agree with the notes about the orchestra having a sound like 'antique gold'. Another live recording that has come out recently is the one of the BBC releases of Barbirolli - not a name that would immediately spring to mind with Bruckner, but this is well worth having.
I must admit to a slightly perverse pleasure in listening to the Karajan's 'last' Bruckner 7th. Unlike Todd, I prefer it to the earlier Berlin PO which usually gets the plaudits, but that focusses too much on the beauty of the work for my liking and the recording is horribly muddy. His early BPO recordings are not for me, and the recorded sound is generally awful - in terms of technical trickery, the 5th has to be one of the worst recordings I own.
Of recent live recording releases, my favourite would have to be the BBC's release of Horenstein's Prom performance of the 5th. The sound is much better than the previous release of his 8th/9th. Horenstein really knew these symphonies, and he seems to extract more detail than just about anyone else. Another 5th of completely different nature, is Furtwangler's Salzburg performance (EMI - 1944 I think, although currently deleted) - an absolutely incandescent performance that I cannot imagine being bettered.
David
[This message was edited by David Hobbs-Mallyon on FRIDAY 06 September 2002 at 10:46.]
Posted on: 06 September 2002 by Thorsten
well, i've done like promised. first of all: i am glad that i already posess that much nice music in my shelf which i had not yet the opportunity to listen to.
on the issue of brass. yes, he has a different use for it. still, mostly it seems to be the french horns which get the "different" parts. there's lots of hefty fortissimo going on in the last rows of the orchestra.
well, i like it. despite its rather mellow athmosphere. to be honest. the second set i particularly liked. maybe this is too far off but i considered it being symphonic music that swings. or rocks, whatever you like.
unfortunately i can't comment that much on the latter part of the third and the fourth part. i fell fast asleep only to be awakened by the hurting headphone. there's only one excuse: our second son is no four weeks old and this takes its toll. but i will stick with bruckner.
david,
for someone like me who has no knowledge of the different interpretations of the 8th the third movement by celibidache (35 min) does not seem to be too slow. imo it's okay. but then - i fell asleep. but not because it was boring. :-)
celibidaches tempi always help me to explore details, coulours i was not aware of before. though this is not only a question of speed.
<i>The most important upgrade: Forget about your system. </i>
on the issue of brass. yes, he has a different use for it. still, mostly it seems to be the french horns which get the "different" parts. there's lots of hefty fortissimo going on in the last rows of the orchestra.
well, i like it. despite its rather mellow athmosphere. to be honest. the second set i particularly liked. maybe this is too far off but i considered it being symphonic music that swings. or rocks, whatever you like.
unfortunately i can't comment that much on the latter part of the third and the fourth part. i fell fast asleep only to be awakened by the hurting headphone. there's only one excuse: our second son is no four weeks old and this takes its toll. but i will stick with bruckner.
david,
for someone like me who has no knowledge of the different interpretations of the 8th the third movement by celibidache (35 min) does not seem to be too slow. imo it's okay. but then - i fell asleep. but not because it was boring. :-)
celibidaches tempi always help me to explore details, coulours i was not aware of before. though this is not only a question of speed.
<i>The most important upgrade: Forget about your system. </i>
Posted on: 06 September 2002 by David Hobbs-Mallyon
Thorsten,
The coda to the 8th is IMHO one of the very greatest moments in music, so you've got a very special moment ahead - when you can stay awake.
I never saw Celibidache live, and certainly would have liked to - he conjured this myth of not being able to appreciate his approach unless you heard it live, so whose to say whether my view would be different had I heard his performance in the flesh. I have his 4th and 6th, both are excellent. The 8th takes his approach to an extreme which for me moves it from the top rank of performances and may be why you can't get to the end....
David
The coda to the 8th is IMHO one of the very greatest moments in music, so you've got a very special moment ahead - when you can stay awake.
I never saw Celibidache live, and certainly would have liked to - he conjured this myth of not being able to appreciate his approach unless you heard it live, so whose to say whether my view would be different had I heard his performance in the flesh. I have his 4th and 6th, both are excellent. The 8th takes his approach to an extreme which for me moves it from the top rank of performances and may be why you can't get to the end....
David
Posted on: 06 September 2002 by Thorsten
david,
i am looking forward for some quiet time to listen to it. my advantage: i have yet no comparison so really can't say it's either too slow or fast. but i will get other interpretations and afterwards come back on this issue.
this celi-thing. yes. i guess he was right. but still i am awfully glad that emi decided to publish the stuff. i am fan but not blind though. i prefer kleiber to celi when it comes to beethoven. celis stuttgart stuff (brahms) ain't hot either. even bernstein is better. kleiber beats celi with brahms too.
no honestly. it could have been korn on the headphone or any gorgeous naked supermodel sitting in front of me. we are tired (my wife even more so. she went to bed an hour earlier). children are great but babies do not give a ... about nighttime.
The most important upgrade: Forget about your system.
i am looking forward for some quiet time to listen to it. my advantage: i have yet no comparison so really can't say it's either too slow or fast. but i will get other interpretations and afterwards come back on this issue.
this celi-thing. yes. i guess he was right. but still i am awfully glad that emi decided to publish the stuff. i am fan but not blind though. i prefer kleiber to celi when it comes to beethoven. celis stuttgart stuff (brahms) ain't hot either. even bernstein is better. kleiber beats celi with brahms too.
no honestly. it could have been korn on the headphone or any gorgeous naked supermodel sitting in front of me. we are tired (my wife even more so. she went to bed an hour earlier). children are great but babies do not give a ... about nighttime.
The most important upgrade: Forget about your system.
Posted on: 06 September 2002 by David Hobbs-Mallyon
Thorsten,
I almost believed you until you mentioned the gorgeous super-model. If you're struggling to stay awake for a whole symphony, I'd stick to the collected works of Webern for the next couple of years
David
I almost believed you until you mentioned the gorgeous super-model. If you're struggling to stay awake for a whole symphony, I'd stick to the collected works of Webern for the next couple of years
David
Posted on: 06 September 2002 by herm
Thorsten: your wife is not a supermodel? So how did you get in? The moderators are very keen on this. I'm glad you liked the first half of the mammoth Eighth. It's not the most obvious symphony to start, so clearly you're well disposed towards B.
Ross: like you I had not sat out an entire Bruckner symphony for quite a while (I mean at home), and that's what's so good about this Jochum. It is expansive, but it does have the rethoric flow of a live perfomance. This is what's so good about Jochum: he appreciates the mystery and the jollyness of this composer.
Those eighties performances of Jochum are really something else. It's one of those conductors' Indian summers, comparable to early seventies Böhm. These conductors came a long way, and really let their hair down at the end.
David: are you referring to the 1951 Salzburg Bruckner 5 by Furtwängler? This one I have. The scherzo is great. However I just found out that the dec 1986 perfomance of Bruckner 5 by Jochum and the RCO has been put on CD by a label called Tahra, which obviously is now in the process of folding or restructuring, just so as to make things a little more difficult. It's going to be tough, dirty and expensive, bit I will get this disc.
Karajan's "last recording" I have. I would say the Seventh is the best place to start Bruckner, but not this recording. Somehow HvK succeeds in making the score sound a hell of lot more complicated than necessary. Great picture though. That's the only reason I've been keeping it.
So did anyone even take the trouble of listening to the brandnew Chailly Eight? I guess not. (Neither did I.)
Herman
Ross: like you I had not sat out an entire Bruckner symphony for quite a while (I mean at home), and that's what's so good about this Jochum. It is expansive, but it does have the rethoric flow of a live perfomance. This is what's so good about Jochum: he appreciates the mystery and the jollyness of this composer.
Those eighties performances of Jochum are really something else. It's one of those conductors' Indian summers, comparable to early seventies Böhm. These conductors came a long way, and really let their hair down at the end.
David: are you referring to the 1951 Salzburg Bruckner 5 by Furtwängler? This one I have. The scherzo is great. However I just found out that the dec 1986 perfomance of Bruckner 5 by Jochum and the RCO has been put on CD by a label called Tahra, which obviously is now in the process of folding or restructuring, just so as to make things a little more difficult. It's going to be tough, dirty and expensive, bit I will get this disc.
Karajan's "last recording" I have. I would say the Seventh is the best place to start Bruckner, but not this recording. Somehow HvK succeeds in making the score sound a hell of lot more complicated than necessary. Great picture though. That's the only reason I've been keeping it.
So did anyone even take the trouble of listening to the brandnew Chailly Eight? I guess not. (Neither did I.)
Herman
Posted on: 06 September 2002 by Thorsten
my wife is the best wife of the world. :-))) and she's 1,60.
<i>The most important upgrade: Forget about your system. </i>
<i>The most important upgrade: Forget about your system. </i>
Posted on: 08 September 2002 by David Hobbs-Mallyon
herm,
Yes you are right, it is the 1951 Salzburg. I get the feeling that you're not that impressed....
I've not heard the new Chailly 8th - I saw him do the 8th a couple of years ago, and wasn't that impressed by the performance - he chose Novak as well, so probably not worth adding to the list. Chailly's Decca 5th and old 7th are both good.
I shall dig out some of my Jochum recordings to listen to over the next week or so.
David
Yes you are right, it is the 1951 Salzburg. I get the feeling that you're not that impressed....
I've not heard the new Chailly 8th - I saw him do the 8th a couple of years ago, and wasn't that impressed by the performance - he chose Novak as well, so probably not worth adding to the list. Chailly's Decca 5th and old 7th are both good.
I shall dig out some of my Jochum recordings to listen to over the next week or so.
David
Posted on: 08 September 2002 by herm
Hi David,
the Furtwängler 1951 Bruckner 5 is fine. Particularly the trio is spellbinding. The Fifth is very tough piece to perform, I imagine, with its episodic structure, fast, slow, loud, soft and on and on.
I have to say especially in the first mvt it sounds as if Furtwängler reads the f for forte as f for fast. His tendency to slow down in piano paragraphs and accelerate as soon as the music gets louder becomes a bit of mannerism. So I would say this performance can definitely be bettered. But we're very lucky the recording is there.
Oh, and of course the standard Jochum recordings (DG) predate the live performances I was talking about by twenty years or more. They're much more sober and robust.
(Interesting to note, BTW, that the IMO least succesful symphony in the set, the Eighth, is VV's favorite - but why worry, this is a list that wants to unpublish the lovely Third.)
Herman
the Furtwängler 1951 Bruckner 5 is fine. Particularly the trio is spellbinding. The Fifth is very tough piece to perform, I imagine, with its episodic structure, fast, slow, loud, soft and on and on.
I have to say especially in the first mvt it sounds as if Furtwängler reads the f for forte as f for fast. His tendency to slow down in piano paragraphs and accelerate as soon as the music gets louder becomes a bit of mannerism. So I would say this performance can definitely be bettered. But we're very lucky the recording is there.
Oh, and of course the standard Jochum recordings (DG) predate the live performances I was talking about by twenty years or more. They're much more sober and robust.
(Interesting to note, BTW, that the IMO least succesful symphony in the set, the Eighth, is VV's favorite - but why worry, this is a list that wants to unpublish the lovely Third.)
Herman
Posted on: 08 September 2002 by herm
Hi Vuk,
You post your favorites as the definitive list and you're complaining about someone else's arrogance? Please.
Let me add I'm not that interested in definitive lists. I read yours (and others') as personal preferences, and I have to say that's a lot more interesting.
Please remember, too, this is the classical subdivision of the Naim Music Room. It's the least appropriate place to look for a fight.
Most of us who are contributing to this thread have quite a bit of familiarity with Bruckner, and are perfectly able to deal with your (and anyone else's) input just as such, rather than as Moses' Laws. OK?
Am I to understand there are no post 1970 favorites of the Fifth Symphony? And how about the Third? (My handicap is all my favorites are live performances, some stored in my head, some on rapidly deteriorating tapes.)
Herman
You post your favorites as the definitive list and you're complaining about someone else's arrogance? Please.
Let me add I'm not that interested in definitive lists. I read yours (and others') as personal preferences, and I have to say that's a lot more interesting.
Please remember, too, this is the classical subdivision of the Naim Music Room. It's the least appropriate place to look for a fight.
Most of us who are contributing to this thread have quite a bit of familiarity with Bruckner, and are perfectly able to deal with your (and anyone else's) input just as such, rather than as Moses' Laws. OK?
Am I to understand there are no post 1970 favorites of the Fifth Symphony? And how about the Third? (My handicap is all my favorites are live performances, some stored in my head, some on rapidly deteriorating tapes.)
Herman
Posted on: 08 September 2002 by herm
Hi Ross,
A lot of people confuse Wagner with opera, and opera is no classical music. It's fight music. Check the opera forums...
Herman
A lot of people confuse Wagner with opera, and opera is no classical music. It's fight music. Check the opera forums...
Herman
Posted on: 08 September 2002 by herm
Vuk,
Have you been taking your medicine lately? I noticed you've been making a fool of yourself on the Flat Earth forum at the same time, ignorantly bullying Ed & Sue, who are about the nicest folk around.
As I said before, you're about the last person to accuse anyone of arrogance, but I'll answer your questions just the same.
First, I am a lover of both French (chamber) music and Bruckner symphonies. Out in the civilized world this is not an unusual thing. In fact one could say this is the signature of the Concertgebouw Orchestra and some of its best conductors over time (e.g. Van Beinum, Haitink).
Secondly I was not advising Furtwängler in any way. The man is dead and doesn't need any advise. I was just discussing his work, which, again, is quite a customary thing to do in the free world, and it's actually what I'm inviting people to do on this li'l thread.
Your list was interesting, but it was just a list, and if you can't take free, kind and intelligent discussion at the moment, I'd say come back when and if you can.
So hopefully we're ready now to get Back On Topic, and I'm asking if there are any people who have an interesting recording or recollection of the Bruckner Third, or in fact any Bruckner?
Herman
Have you been taking your medicine lately? I noticed you've been making a fool of yourself on the Flat Earth forum at the same time, ignorantly bullying Ed & Sue, who are about the nicest folk around.
As I said before, you're about the last person to accuse anyone of arrogance, but I'll answer your questions just the same.
First, I am a lover of both French (chamber) music and Bruckner symphonies. Out in the civilized world this is not an unusual thing. In fact one could say this is the signature of the Concertgebouw Orchestra and some of its best conductors over time (e.g. Van Beinum, Haitink).
Secondly I was not advising Furtwängler in any way. The man is dead and doesn't need any advise. I was just discussing his work, which, again, is quite a customary thing to do in the free world, and it's actually what I'm inviting people to do on this li'l thread.
Your list was interesting, but it was just a list, and if you can't take free, kind and intelligent discussion at the moment, I'd say come back when and if you can.
So hopefully we're ready now to get Back On Topic, and I'm asking if there are any people who have an interesting recording or recollection of the Bruckner Third, or in fact any Bruckner?
Herman
Posted on: 08 September 2002 by herm
OK, very interesting, now run along.
This is a thread about Bruckner, rather than about you. Your piece of infantile self-idolation above will do for quite a while.
Herman
This is a thread about Bruckner, rather than about you. Your piece of infantile self-idolation above will do for quite a while.
Herman
Posted on: 08 September 2002 by herm
quote:
Is there any chance you recently vacationed in Germany and left your sense of humour behind? You know, when in Rome...
Vuk.
Last time I checked Rome was in Italy, Vuk, rather than Germany.
However, have you checked the latest Wand Eighth, the one from 2000 or 2001, with the Berlin? I'm wondering if I should give it a shot, though Wand often strangely fails to move me.
Herman
Posted on: 08 September 2002 by Thorsten
CONFIRMED
Rome is not in Germany. I checked that with several experts on that matter.
<i>The most important upgrade: Forget about your system. </i>
Rome is not in Germany. I checked that with several experts on that matter.
<i>The most important upgrade: Forget about your system. </i>
Posted on: 08 September 2002 by Thorsten
tried it a second time. rested on my sofa, put on celibidache's version of the eighth, jumped straigth to the third movement - fell asleep. all i seem to remember is more shining of the brass, massive sounds. i start to believe david. maybe celibidache is tiresome? next attempt will before 11 pm. but now i'm off to switzerland and some nice alphorn-music.
<i>The most important upgrade: Forget about your system. </i>
<i>The most important upgrade: Forget about your system. </i>
Posted on: 09 September 2002 by David Hobbs-Mallyon
Looks like you guys have been having fun.
2nd Symphony
------------
Chailly gets my vote on this symphony. Personally I think it is seriously underrated and has some wonderful music even if it is a bit long.
3rd Symphony
------------
The 3rd symphony is plagued more than any by the different versions, although, I think all are worth listening to. It's a shame that the original (1873) version hasn't attracted the attention of more of the established Bruckner conductors. I have the Inbal, but I think there's a lot more to be gleaned from this version. I've not heard the Tintner - anyone? Anyway for the moment my top recommendation for this symphony in any version would be Haitink's with the VPO with Bohm a close second.
4th Symphony
------------
Perhaps we can all contribute to a definitive list. The current omission of Wand is scandalous and Bohm criminal.
I like Bruckner and and I like Furtwangler - but the two together make an uncomfortable mix. The 4th Vuk mentions is awe-inspiring in terms of the way the orchestra plays - is it Bruckner? I'm not really sure.
Ross I think you should check out Celibidache's 4th Symphony. Perhaps given a movement a day, you might get to like this version. Certainly it's rated by Robert Simpson in the last version of his book 'The Essence of Bruckner' - highly recommended for anyone interested in an analysis of the symphonies.
5th symphony
------------
Probably not a popular choice by all the forum members with refined taste, but for a modern Bruckner 5th, I'm very partial to the Dohnanyi/Cleveland recording. In terms of 'tingle factor' this version really delivers with the chorale in the finale.
6th Symphony
------------
Klemperer - will a better version ever be released? The only one that seems to have come close is Celibidache.
7th Symphony
------------
Rattle - Yes I think this version is creditable as well. Somehow I get the feeling that this will not be a popular choice.
8th Symphony
------------
The latest Wand 8th is wonderful, but as mentioned before doesn't supercede what has come before. Well worth having, I just wish the sound was a little bit less analytical and had a bit more ambience.
9th Symphony
------------
I'd add Daniel Barenboim's 9th with the Berlin Phil to the list. This was the first release in the series, and to my ears is the only real success. The performance is excellent as is the sound.
Vuk said
Now I know why you don't like chamber music.
David
2nd Symphony
------------
Chailly gets my vote on this symphony. Personally I think it is seriously underrated and has some wonderful music even if it is a bit long.
3rd Symphony
------------
The 3rd symphony is plagued more than any by the different versions, although, I think all are worth listening to. It's a shame that the original (1873) version hasn't attracted the attention of more of the established Bruckner conductors. I have the Inbal, but I think there's a lot more to be gleaned from this version. I've not heard the Tintner - anyone? Anyway for the moment my top recommendation for this symphony in any version would be Haitink's with the VPO with Bohm a close second.
4th Symphony
------------
Perhaps we can all contribute to a definitive list. The current omission of Wand is scandalous and Bohm criminal.
I like Bruckner and and I like Furtwangler - but the two together make an uncomfortable mix. The 4th Vuk mentions is awe-inspiring in terms of the way the orchestra plays - is it Bruckner? I'm not really sure.
Ross I think you should check out Celibidache's 4th Symphony. Perhaps given a movement a day, you might get to like this version. Certainly it's rated by Robert Simpson in the last version of his book 'The Essence of Bruckner' - highly recommended for anyone interested in an analysis of the symphonies.
5th symphony
------------
Probably not a popular choice by all the forum members with refined taste, but for a modern Bruckner 5th, I'm very partial to the Dohnanyi/Cleveland recording. In terms of 'tingle factor' this version really delivers with the chorale in the finale.
6th Symphony
------------
Klemperer - will a better version ever be released? The only one that seems to have come close is Celibidache.
7th Symphony
------------
Rattle - Yes I think this version is creditable as well. Somehow I get the feeling that this will not be a popular choice.
8th Symphony
------------
The latest Wand 8th is wonderful, but as mentioned before doesn't supercede what has come before. Well worth having, I just wish the sound was a little bit less analytical and had a bit more ambience.
9th Symphony
------------
I'd add Daniel Barenboim's 9th with the Berlin Phil to the list. This was the first release in the series, and to my ears is the only real success. The performance is excellent as is the sound.
Vuk said
quote:
I built my hi-fi around the Bruckner 8th
Now I know why you don't like chamber music.
David
Posted on: 09 September 2002 by herm
Hi David,
Third: without a doubt it's the hardest symphony. Only once in my adult life have I returned a CD to the store and that was Haitink's VPO Bruckner Third. I just didn't get it. I have owned the Sinopoli Third with the Dresden too, and a Chailly live recording with the RCO. In the end I find Bohm and the VPO works best, though I suspect it's because he's just shading the complexities.
Sixth: Two things. This is an amazing piece of music. My favorite. Secondly, how about my taking a stand for Herbert Blomstedt? I have his 6 with the SFS (and a 4 and 7 with the Dresden). The downside is this combo makes Bruckner sound a bit like Sibelius with that luminous Bay Area brass. The upside is Blomstedt is a structure guy. It doesn't matter how loud the tutti are, everything is lucidly delineated, down to the 16s or 32s in the upper strings. Everything fits.
Sometime in the 1980s Blomstedt performed the Sixth with Concertgebouw and of course this performance had a lot of soul (and a little bit of rhythm too). One just collectively ached for the Coda of the Adagio, with the violas and celli ascending at the end to go on forever. (I recall a great early nineties performance by the Berlin Phil and Riccardo Muti, too.)
Seventh: "Rattle - Yes I think this version is creditable as well." OK, David, very funny. You're putting on el Nuño, aren't you?
Eighth: After the Third this is probably the most problematic symphony, and yet it seems a lot of us are very attached to it. In college I had a minor Eighth obsession, especially with weird things like the tail end at measure 208 of the Adagio, a half measure for strings only where it seems B. just didn't have any material to fill the canvas, and so there's just a bit of rumble before the pastorale leading up to the climax and Coda starts.
I once took a girlfriend to the Eighth in the Concertgebouw, by the Dresden and Blomstedt, and it looked like she needed oxygen at the end. So I can confidently say Bruckner is definitely not a date composer.
And Thorsten, my guess is you should start Bruckner with Four or Seven. I'm not saying you're a girl, but the Eighth is a rather tough piece towards the end.
Herman
[This message was edited by herm on MONDAY 09 September 2002 at 21:33.]
Third: without a doubt it's the hardest symphony. Only once in my adult life have I returned a CD to the store and that was Haitink's VPO Bruckner Third. I just didn't get it. I have owned the Sinopoli Third with the Dresden too, and a Chailly live recording with the RCO. In the end I find Bohm and the VPO works best, though I suspect it's because he's just shading the complexities.
Sixth: Two things. This is an amazing piece of music. My favorite. Secondly, how about my taking a stand for Herbert Blomstedt? I have his 6 with the SFS (and a 4 and 7 with the Dresden). The downside is this combo makes Bruckner sound a bit like Sibelius with that luminous Bay Area brass. The upside is Blomstedt is a structure guy. It doesn't matter how loud the tutti are, everything is lucidly delineated, down to the 16s or 32s in the upper strings. Everything fits.
Sometime in the 1980s Blomstedt performed the Sixth with Concertgebouw and of course this performance had a lot of soul (and a little bit of rhythm too). One just collectively ached for the Coda of the Adagio, with the violas and celli ascending at the end to go on forever. (I recall a great early nineties performance by the Berlin Phil and Riccardo Muti, too.)
Seventh: "Rattle - Yes I think this version is creditable as well." OK, David, very funny. You're putting on el Nuño, aren't you?
Eighth: After the Third this is probably the most problematic symphony, and yet it seems a lot of us are very attached to it. In college I had a minor Eighth obsession, especially with weird things like the tail end at measure 208 of the Adagio, a half measure for strings only where it seems B. just didn't have any material to fill the canvas, and so there's just a bit of rumble before the pastorale leading up to the climax and Coda starts.
I once took a girlfriend to the Eighth in the Concertgebouw, by the Dresden and Blomstedt, and it looked like she needed oxygen at the end. So I can confidently say Bruckner is definitely not a date composer.
And Thorsten, my guess is you should start Bruckner with Four or Seven. I'm not saying you're a girl, but the Eighth is a rather tough piece towards the end.
Herman
[This message was edited by herm on MONDAY 09 September 2002 at 21:33.]
Posted on: 09 September 2002 by herm
"Are you suggesting the resolution of the fuge is anything short of sublime?"
Vuk, it really looks like this thread is just a little too enervating for you. No matter what one says you fly off the handle as if Bruckner and his music are affected in any way by what we say about it.
I do think, incidentally, this we-are-not-worthy attitude towards classical music would affect the life chances of the art form in the long run.
Herman
[This message was edited by herm on TUESDAY 10 September 2002 at 07:33.]
Vuk, it really looks like this thread is just a little too enervating for you. No matter what one says you fly off the handle as if Bruckner and his music are affected in any way by what we say about it.
I do think, incidentally, this we-are-not-worthy attitude towards classical music would affect the life chances of the art form in the long run.
Herman
[This message was edited by herm on TUESDAY 10 September 2002 at 07:33.]