gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: John Kim on April 17, 2010, 02:55:38 PM
-
Has anybody heard this recording of B9th with Finale completed?
http://www.abruckner.com/store/cdotherbrucknercds/symphonyno9musical/
Stereophile magazine gave a rave review on this one saying B9th finally sounds complete with this rendition of the Finale.
I have Inbal/FRSO that has another completion of IV and like it very much. I think Bruckner left some truly original writing in this movement, however incomplete it was left.
I am curious to try the new version mentioned above.
John,
-
Here is the article on the Bruckner 9th:Finale.
http://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/bruckners_symphony_no9_finally_a_ifinalei/index2.html
-
Wow. Well, the only intelligent view-point is to reserve all judgment until one actually hears this latest effort. I'm at least five recordings behind on this whole topic, so I need to get caught up.
My problem with his whole B9 business - up until the Teldec recording or so - is that, to me, what there is of the finale sounds more like the start of a 10th symphony, than a finale to the 9th symphony. If only 100 bars of the finale to Mahler's 10th existed, I don't think that anybody would say to themselves, "that doesn't belong to the rest of the symphony". If anything, I think that the general public's interest would be all the more peaked. But what there is of a B9 finale, makes me think that Bruckner suddenly jumped from planet Earth to Jupiter, or Saturn. Further more, keep in mind that the law firm of Samale, Phillips, Cohrs, & Mazzuca have had to compose the coda and final perorations entirely on their own (and I'm not trying to be snarky - I'm trying to be a bit humorous). If anything should have convinced me of the possibility of coming up with a truly satisfying finale, it should have been the Harnoncourt lecture/demo from his VPO recording. While I found Harnoncourt's lecture/demo to be quite interesting, neither was I convinced that the the 9th symphony HAD to be finished. I didn't feel any great sense of urgency - much less need - in getting Bruckner's 9th finished. But as I said above, I'll reserve any final judgment until I actually hear this latest attempt. Just keep in mind that while much of the "grunt work" may be thoroughly convincing, the entire coda was not in the slightest bit penned by Bruckner.
-
It appears that I wasn't entirely correct in my last statement. Some sketches regarding the coda apparently do exist. But I think it's certainly questionable as to just how complete it was left, and what Bruckner actually felt about those sketches. It's my personal opinion that Bruckner struggled with finales in general (and in my opinion, his best finale is the one to B5). Bruckner's own suggestion was to follow the first three movements with his "Te Deum". Personally, I find Bruckner's peaceful ending to his Adagio to be totally satisfying. Therefore, I like the idea of beginning a concert with the Te Deum; then intermission; then play B9 in its well-known three movement version. To me, that would be a perfectly satisfying, Brucknerian experience.
-
I ordered a copy and will get it before Wed. So, I will tell you how 'complete' the Finale sounds in the latest reconstruction. All the scholars involved in the task insist that Bruckner indeed completed the finale in a draft form. Only the coda was not completed but recently some of the missing scores surfaced giving strong hints as to how the work should end. Personally, I like the idea of having BOTH the three movts. and the completed versions. Ultimately, the judgement is upon the listener, and I for one am more than willing to open up my mind to embrace the completed version.
Stay tuned.
John,
P.S. classicstoday.com also gave pretty rating 9/9 for another completed B9th recording available on Naxos.
-
The copy arrived today and I listened to the entire performance once and the Finale twice. I like this version of the Finale VERY much. The conductor - Friedmann Layer - takes it very slowly (a little over 25 min.) revealing many details in Bruckner's original writing. You know, we all agree that any Bruckner symphony Finale could be weak when it comes to structure, e.g., B8th:IV, so it doesn't surprise me that this finale also sounds somewhat lacking cogency. But since I have always taken it for granted, it works just fine the way it is realized here by Samale-Phillips-Cohrs-Mazzuca. The tricky and crossing rhythm in the opening and the following development are perhaps the most original Bruckner ever wrote; they almost sound as if they were composed by someone who was more tuned to modern music. The central fugue is also intriguing and awesome in its polyphony and orchestration. I find only the final coda is less than satisfactory, despite that it was strengthened by inserting new motives and melodies. Perhaps another conductor with deeper insights might come up with a recording that reveals more details and secrets in the score. Or, somebody may even come up with a better version of the Finale someday. But until that day comes I will live with this version and recording happily. It is quite an achievement by all accounts.
John,
-
You just unwittingly talked me out of taking the plunge. If the coda isn't wonderful, then what's the point? I'll just take your word on the matter, and continue to enjoy B9 in its standard three-movement form.
Barry
-
I must clarify things here.
There is a big chorale at the end where all the themes from the previous movts. resurface and make a big hymn-like passage. This is typical of Bruckner, so it just sounds as perfect and solid as I can imagine. But right after this there is the final peroration that continues right through the end. It's sort of the passage in M2nd where the pure orchestra takes it over from the chorus in V. I feel that this part sounds weak compared to what has just gone before. Here, there is no distinct melody, a fraction, or whatever that rings my ears. Perhaps, that's the way it should, but I was slightly disappointed.
John,
-
I listened to it again and this time I liked it even more.
I think I don't have a big issue with the choral passage in the end anymore.
But I wish they had cleaned up some of 'connecting passages' and provided a tighter structure. There seem to be just too many of them in the movt. and I feel sometimes they threaten to destuct the cogency of the movement. Also, I wish the central fugue section were longer because it is so wonderful.
To sum up, I really like
1) the opening theme - it's one of the most inventive, trickiest, and 'modern' that Bruckner ever wrote.
2) the recurring big choral passage in which the whole brass sing out out 8 or 10 note descending melody. It's the most grandiose and awesome passage Bruckner ever wrote.
3) the fugue section
As it is, it's not as great as B8th:IV or even B5th:IV, but it has a POTENTIAL to outclass them all. Honestly, I think this movt. along with the Scherzo, comes closest to Mahler and for that reason alone I love the piece.
Let's hope that someday some scholar may come up with a better version.
Meanwhile, I am fully satisfied with this latest edition.
John,
-
I finally bought Eichhorn/Bruckner Linz Orch./Camerata B9th with the Finale.
I am really impressed with the way Eichhorn takes the whole 30 min. length on the last movt. It seldom sounds dragging nor fragmentary. On the contrary, the movt. now becomes fully valedictory with every bar sounding as meaningful and authoritative as I can imagine. Some critics dismissed the Eichhorn criticizing the slow temp, lack of involvement. But I cannot accept such a verdict. This has become my favorite B9th with a complete Finale.
John,
-
You'd be in great company as Fred Beckman - who has passed away - liked the Eichorn version the best of any as well. F.B. had extremely critical ears, and did ALL of his listening on Quad electrostatic speakers.
-
You'd be in great company as Fred Beckman - who has passed away - liked the Eichorn version the best of any as well. F.B. had extremely critical ears, and did ALL of his listening on Quad electrostatic speakers.
Who's Fred Beckman?? ???
I am glad someone with critical ears would agree with me on the Bruckner 9th Finale. :D ;)
You should try the Eichhon.
You'll not want to hear the B9th w/o the Finale.
John,
-
"Who's Fred Beckman??"
I told you! - someone with critical ears and a pair of Quad electrostatic speakers. Actually, I've mentioned F.B. before, as he's the person who first imported Wuhan tam-tams (Chau Gongs, they're called over there) into the U.S. after the thaw with communist red China. His personal dining room gong was played by Gordon Peters on the Solti/C.S.O. "Das Lied von der Erde" recording. Many of the American orchestras still use Wuhans imported and sold to them by Fred. Pittsburgh S.O. has a 50" one (130 cm) that he sold them. I got to hear that one at the end of "Pictures".
Barry
-
Sorry to plead ignorance over types of tam-tams, more specifically and likely, their sound, which is the apparent focus of attention here. Simply put, I'm not a percussionist.
What is the advantage of a Wuhan tam-tam over a regular one?
Wade
-
I've listened to Eichhorn's B9th Finale three times and I am pretty convinced this is by far the best, the most consistent, and the most convincing treatment of the incomplete (but completed) movt. Believe me, there is lots of good Bruckner stuff here! :o
John,
-
Re: Wuhan tam-tams
At least partly thanks to Fred Beckman's efforts in the 1970s, Wuhans are now "the regular" tam-tams in American, Japanese, Dutch, German, and Scandinavian orchestras. The British and the French still hold on to their Paistes. Wuhans and Paistes are complete polar opposites in sound and playing characterists, and I'm generally in the Wuhan camp.
Paistes use steel in their alloy, which lends a sort of metallic "whang" to the sound. Typically, Paistes are slow to speak, and then want to ring on forever. Wuhans speak immediately (they need no priming, which the Paistes do need), but the tone dies out much quicker than with a Paiste. Generally speaking, Wuhans have a darker tone quality than Paistes. Paistes are good when you want a bright, "splashy" sound that keeps on ringing. If played well, Paistes can be effective in "La Mer" and Mahler 8.
For my money, the L.S.O. (London Symphony) plays their Paiste about as well as one can possibly be played. Wuhans work extremely well in the finale of Mahler 7; Rite Of Spring; Wozzeck; Salome; the end of M3/I and M3/III - any place where you need a gong to speak quickly, and where a deep, profound type of sound is desireable.
The problem with Wuhans is that because they have such a dark and profound type of tone quality, they generally sound much louder back in the percussion section than they do out in the hall. As a result, many percussionists misjudge and under-play them. Some orchestras, such the Vienna Phil., sometimes use mallets that are too light or too soft for such a heavy gong. I no longer own a 40" (100 cm) Wuhan tam-tam, but I still own three different mallets to use on one: a small but very hard mallet for soft strokes; a bigger one for everything between mezzo piano and forte; and a big "bomber" - which has a big playing surface - for fortissimo smashes. Believe it or not, mallets can make a huge difference in the results.
You do see some other makes other than Wuhans and Paistes, but they're greatly in the minority. The Concertgebouw used to use an Italian made tam-tam called a Uffip (or some such thing). They weren't bad, but they were much lighter sounding than the Wuhans they use now. You'll still see the occassional Zildjian, which was the type of tam-tam that Shostakovch liked for his symphonies. They're generally very bright and very "crashy" sounding - almost like a giant cymbal. Zildjians are good for the type of terror that Shostakovish was trying to evoke or convey.
Sabian - an excellent manufacturer of cymbals - makes tam-tams that sound and act very much like Paistes. But they also have a line that are copies of Wuhans. In fact, I think that what those really are, are Wuhan's rejects sold cheaper to Sabian, and then with the Sabian name stenciled on the front. In other words, they sound like poor cousins to the very best Wuhans.
Well, all of this is a lot more than you probably ever wanted to know. To further complicate things, the Wuhan people do not refer to their instruments - available in every possible diameter imaginable, by the way - as tam-tams. The Chinese instrument people I've spoken with aren't even familiar with that term. Instead, they call them "Chau Gongs". This gets some people all flustered because in western orchestral nomenclature, a "gong" is an instrument with a specific pitch - a tuned gong, or "nipple" gong as they're often times refered to. Some people call them Burmese gongs, but tuned gongs can be found all over southeast Asia and Indonesia.
Anyway, the bottom line is this: if you're seeing/hearing an orchestra from the U.S., Canada, Japan, Holland, Germany, or somewhere in Scandinavia, there's about a 90 or 95 percent chance that you're hearing a Wuhan. If it's a British, French, or Italian orchestra, there's probably an 85 to 90% chance that it's a Paiste. In Russia, they use whatever they can get their hands on.
-
Quite a bit of information here! The one thing I might take away from this is that musicians would have to decide what type of sound from a tam-tam a particular composer might prefer in a given work. That would necessitate knowing what sort of tam-tams were in use back at the time a work was composed, and how those tam-tams sounded. The works you cite for a particular sound (dark or bright) make sense.
2 humorous tam-tam stories: The first one was from a now-deceased musician I knew who one time was involved in helping move instruments from the parking garage at the Kennedy Center up to the Concert Hall. While waiting for the elevator, the tam-tam sitting in the glass-enclosed elevator waiting area got whacked numerous times during the wait, producing quite a racket in the parking garage, not to mention the elevator waiting area. The second was years ago, which involved conductor Fritz Reiner in a rehearsal for a Wagner concert, when the tam-tam itself fell off its stand, producing quite a ruckus. Reiner kept on conducting, as if nothing had happened. At the rehearsal break, Reiner said to the percussionist: "Vas very good! Can you do that at the concert tonight?"
Thanks for all the tam-tam information.
Wade
-
What you say in your first paragraph would make good musical sense, but rarely is that much thought and/or effort put into tam-tams. Most percussionists - even the pros! - like to stick with what they're most comfortable with, and don't like schlepping around more heavy equipment than they need to. There's also the consideration of space out on the stage. I have, on occasion, seen both a Paiste and Wuhan out on the stage at the same time. But that's more the exception than the norm. What I do think is true, is that really good players know to use different mallets, and know where different "sweet spots" are located on their gongs. That way, they can good results regardless of what instrument they're using. That's why I own three mallets. But in general, I find the Paistes to be more difficult to deal with than the Wuhans. You have to really, REALLY warm up (prime) a Paiste if you want to try to get it to speak quickly. l don't like the "whangy" metallic overtones either.
-
I have been listening with interest to the Layer, Harnoncourt and Eichhorn recordings. I've heard the complete performance of the Layer four times, and have heard Eichhorn once.
I have to say, hearing the music to the Bruckner 9 finale is an absolute revelation. To my mind, the music fits into the sound world of the B9, and is as important to the history of music as the M10 music. Attempts to perform it make sense. In some ways, the Harnoncourt disk is the best way to hear this fragment. The music is pretty powerful without an editor to shape it, for a performance. ON the other hand, I can't deny the majesty, and heartbreaking power of the Friedmann Layer recording. This is because the finale is heard in the proper context, so I experienced a "WOW" factor during my first and subsequent hearings.
Between the Layer and Eichhorn, I prefer the edition Layer uses.
-
Todd,
I am glad you appreciate the Finale movt. of B9th. For me the Eichhorn recording works better because of conductor's broad view, his daring decision to make the whole symphony sound like the Finale driven. It's the grandest Bruckner Finale I can imagine.