gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: barry guerrero on January 21, 2007, 04:25:09 PM
-
Is Bruckner no longer a front-line composer, or slowly becoming less of one? There seem to be less Bruckner performances happening, and less recordings being made. If Bruckner was still considered a box office draw, wouldn't the Vienna Phil. - or some orchestra like the VPO - have announced that they were recording their own Bruckner cycle by this point? Are the early Bruckner symphonies too weak in quality? Doesn't it seem that Bruckner is being completely overshadowed by both Mahler and Shostakovitch now? Is Bruckner's message of faith not being heard, or are the fairthful simply not picking up on his music? As the world becomes smaller and more global, is his music simply too antiquated, and out of step with the times?
-
I'm very new to Bruckner. I just bought my first Bruckner CD last November (8th Symphony/Karajan/BPO) and it was all I hoped it would be...very epic and sublime, with subtle, sophisticated use of musical form. It's going to take some time to comprehend and assimulate each work, but I'm happy to be getting started.
It would be sad to see him fade into the background. Perhaps his composition style is too sophisticated, or too formal for various concertgoers in this shrinking world. On first hearing, his message of faith may not be as obvious or as dramatic as Mahler or Shostakovich? These are all thoughts of a newbie though.
-
Barry, I don't know the answer to all those questions. I can only answer from what I perceive.
I think only a few of Bruckner's symphonies have ever generated much real interest - the 4th, 7th, 8th, and 9th. They've never been played in concert constantly. By which I mean, most orchestras that I keep up with only program a Bruckner symphony every 2 or 3 years.
I think part of the reason for that is because the name just doesn't resonate with most audiences. Most people don't know who he is, haven't heard much of his music.
But another reason is because a lot of people just find Bruckner really boring. His soundscapes are pretty stolid, his lines very simple, his primary form involving lots of repetition. Your average concert goer is not looking for a "transcendent experience." There is not a lot of action and drama in Bruckner. In this age of short attention span, subtlety doesn't sell very well.
I've never really figured out why Mahler and Bruckner get lumped together. To me, they are at opposite ends of the composing spectrum. Mahler is in your face, brazen, irreverent, vulgar, syrupy, everything including mandolins and cowbells, women and children, marching and crying, all thrown together in the pot. In comparison, Bruckner is the monk - polite, subtle, contemplative, holy, austere, the beauty of simplicity.
I also think Shostakovich benefits from the anniversary interest. It is a hook for orchestras to play him. But I don't think most audiences really like Shostakovich very much. Some of his writing is inspired, but some of it is just plain trite, and much of it is such a downer. Fact is, most people don't mind a good cry if the music is beautiful, but they don't want to cry at ugly. There's too much that is horrifying in Shostakovich for your general listening audience.
What I'm getting to is that I think the interest in Shostakovich that we've seen the past couple of seasons will wane pretty quickly over the next couple of years.
I turn to Bruckner for a much different kind of experience than I do any other composer. I enjoy his music for what it is. But I don't reach for it as often as I do some other composers.
As for the VPO - I don't really care if they record Bruckner or anyone else. I'm fed up with them. I will not buy any recording made by VPO and will speak out against them with every breath. I'm not looking to hijack your thread on Bruckner, so I'll just link to a different discussion of this issue.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/messages/146542.html (http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/messages/146542.html)
-
An interesting question. I suspect there are many reasons for the relative lack of enthusiasm for Bruckner these days, at least as measured by number of new CD/SACD releases compared to other composers, e.g., Mahler & Shostakovitch, and apparent frequency of performances by many orchestras.
The first three Bruckner symphonies do strike me as relatively weak, and if he had stopped at B3, I doubt he would be much played today. But numbers 4 through 9 are as great as anybody's (excepting Beethoven's), in my view.
Another possible reason is the lack of a compelling biography. Composers with dramatic life stories intrigue performers and audiences. Mahler, Beethoven, Mozart, Shostakovitch, etc. all experienced drama or one sort or another -- anti-Semitism/loss of child/adultery/early death, deafness, child prodigy/early death, political persecution, etc. Bruckner's life story, from what I know of it, is not comparable, and he seems to have been a decidedly unheroic figure in life.
This shouldn't matter, but probably does. Witness the amazing amount of attention given to Shostakovitch, and the large number of recordings of what many people (e.g., Pierre Boulez) think is his mostly third- or fourth-rate music. If Bruckner had a life story as interesting as Shostakovitch's, I'd guess we would be awash in Bruckner even more than we are in Shostakovitch, because (at least in my view) Bruckner's music is much better.
Another possible reason may have to do with our own 21st century zeitgeist. Someone (can't remember who) has observed that Mahler's symphonies are about striving, seeking God, or transcendence -- about becoming, in other words. Bruckner has already found God (or something); his music is about being. In our unsettled world, we can, by and large, relate better to becoming than to being. Another way of putting this is that Mahler's mood swings more accurately mirror our contemporary inner life; Bruckner, less neurotic, speaks not of our world, but of another.
-
I think Bruckner is more problematic than many music scholars would care to admit. I don't care for the first few symphonies (including the "zero" and "double zero"), but I do like the scherzo from the first symphony. The problem with the third symphony, is that there are three distinct different versions.
To my ears, the first version of B3 is way too long (rambles a lot, like me), while the final version is too truncated. I like the middle version, which is sometimes referred to as the Oeser Edition. B4 used to be wildly popular, but it's problematic as well. The slow movement to B4 is kind of a dog, and the finale really isn't very interesting either, until you get to the coda. Of course, B4 has that marvellous "hunting horns" scherzo. However, that was the second scherzo that Bruckner composed for his 4th, and it really has very little to do with the rest of the symphony, thematically speaking. In some ways, I think that the first version is a truer picture of what Bruckner really had in mind with this symphony. Eugen Jochum said that the 4th should be subtitled, "the mystical", and not "the romantic".
I think that Bruckner's 5th is a marvellous symphony, with a very fine Adagio and an outstanding finale. However, I can sure see how most listeners could lose patience with it. There's a lot of mechanical, J.S. Bach-like, grinding out of short thematic material (cells, really), which appear to be going no place. However, they do, infact, arrive upon huge musical vistas. It has, by far, the greatest ending of any of his symphonies - going back to the start of the big brass chorales. I also think that the ending of Mahler's first sounds a bit like the ending to B5.
For the first three movements, the sixth is easily Bruckner's most progressive symphony - both harmonically and rhythmically. However, the sixth is somewhat let down by its finale. Jochum stated that he often times put cuts in the finale; in places where he thought that Bruckner's improvising skills on the organ, got the best of him.
For me, the seventh may be the least flawed of all his completed symphonies. The first two movements are melodically rich, while the scherzo is like a kaleidoscopic rehash of Wagner's "Ride Of The Valkaries". Again, the finale is a bit of a let down - in spots - but has a terrific coda to end it. I really like the 7th.
Most Bruckner buffs will tell you that the 8th is his greatest, but I find it a bit problematic as well. Again, there are two distinctly different versions of it. Most people will say that the first version is too flawed, musically speaking. But I think it's actually a far truer representation of where Bruckner's head was at, when he began composing this piece. It's far more raw, fiery, unfiltered, youthful, and optimistic sounding. It seems to relate much more to Bruckner's more youthful composing. The revised version is a filtered and highly polished product. But it's also a bit more elephantine, staid, marmoreal, and downright old sounding. It was as though Bruckner had been forced to grow up, after Hanslick (or whoever it was) had rejected his first version. But I think that Bruckner, to some degree, overshot his mark. I like it, but I find it hard to love. I prefer the first version, especially in the Arte Nova recording conducted by Dennis Russell Davies.
For me, the 9th - without the conjectural finale - is one of the greatest orchestral compositions ever! In fact, I prefer it to the Mahler 9th (and conversely, I feel that M10 had/has the potential to be an even greater work). Die-hard Bruckner scholars will try to sell you on the necessity of including a finale. I think that's a fine idea, in theory. In reality - to my ears, anyway - what pages do exist, sound more like the beginning of a 10th symphony than a finale to the 9th. Those pages are harmonically far more wild; as though Bruckner suddenly realized that he had to get more in step with the times (or try to anticipate them, a bit). They're interesting, but I just don't find the argument convincing. Anyway, one can decide for themselves by getting any of the three recordings that include a conjectural finale (Tintner/Naxos, Talmi/Chandos, and Inbal/Teldec), or picking up Harnoncourt's excellent Vienna Phil. recording, where he chooses to do a lecture/demonstation on the finale - something that I feel is much more helpful.
By the way, I think you guys made excellent observations! I'd like to read more thoughts on Bruckner. Why does he seem to be slipping out of sight, to some degree?
-
i visit sites that have bruckner fans. he still seems alive to me.
dj
-
Barry, your brief overview is really helpful, as I have not yet ventured though symphonies 1-3 and 5. I'm especially curious to hear the original score to the 4th now.
Not too long ago I purchased a used copy of the 1st version of the 8th (Inbal's account), but I have not heard it yet. I am intrigued to hear that originally the 1st movement ends in the major, rather than the c minor (as in the 2nd edition). Mahler also ends in the major key in the 1st movement of his 6th, but I doubt he used Bruckner's 8th as a model, or is it possible he saw the original score? Whatever the case may be, finishing a minor key 1st movement in the major is a great way to move the symphony onward. I know it has not been done too often in the symphonic literature.
Tchaikovsky ends his 1st movement of his 6th in Bb major. I don't know where I'm going with this, I just find it interesting. :)
-
I don't think that Mahler ever conducted Bruckner's 8th. I know that he did the 5th several times, which has only one version by Bruckner. Between the Haas and Nowak editions of B5, there's very little difference. My understanding is that Mahler paid for the first printing of Bruckner's scores. If that's true, I don't know which versions or editions those would have been. My guess is that some of those would have been the highly messed around with, Schalk versions. My understanding is that the corrected editions of the revised versions - as we know the Bruckner symphonies today - didn't happen until Haas and Nowak did their restoration work after WWII. Before then, performances of the various Schalk versions were quite common, as were other corrupted versions made by Loewe and others. It's all terribly convoluted. And, all of this is outside the issue of Bruckner's own first versions on several of the symphonies. Therefore, I have no idea if Mahler got a look at Bruckner's original, first version of his 8th symphony. I highly doubt it, and here's why: Bruckner was deeply disturbed by Loewe's rejection (Schalk? Nickish? I don't know - somebody's rejection) of his 8th symphony. Apparently, they all but spat upon it. If Mahler had seen it, he undoubtedly would have been very encouraging of it. Instead, Bruckner was so devated, that he completely revised it.
My question to die-hard Mahler scholars - the ones who know what Mahler ate on such and such day, etc. (let's see how smart these guys really are) is this: what version of B5 would Mahler have been conducting? My bet is that he was using the Schalk version, which has a major cut in the finale; leaves out a repeat in the scherzo, and adds lots of percussion to the big brass chorale near the end: cymbals, triangle (I think), and a second set of timpani. Mahler would have gone for that sort of thing, unless he had some animosity towards Schalk.
So, perhaps also ritarding Bruckner's fame, is just the existence of all these different versions and editions. It's too much!
-
If you think that you might want to get into the incredibly convoluted world of Bruckner versions and editions, here you go: http://www.abruckner.com/discography/
Have fun!
-
For me, the 9th - without the conjectural finale - is one of the greatest orchestral compositions ever! In fact, I prefer it to the Mahler 9th (and conversely, I feel that M10 had/has the potential to be an even greater work). Die-hard Bruckner scholars will try to sell you on the necessity of including a finale. I think that's a fine idea, in theory. In reality - to my ears, anyway - what pages do exist, sound more like the beginning of a 10th symphony, than a finale to the 9th. Those pages are harmonically far more wild; as though Bruckner suddenly realized that he had to get more in step with the times (or try to anticipate them, a bit). They're interesting, but I just don't find the argument convincing. Anyway, one can decide for themselves by getting any of the three recordings that include a conjectural finale (Tintner/Naxos, Talmi/Chandos, and Inbal/Teldec), or picking up Harnoncourt's excellent Vienna Phil. recording, where he chooses to do a lecture/demonstation on the finale - something that I feel is much more helpful.
By the way, I think you guys made excellent observations! I'd like to read more thoughts on Bruckner. Why does he seem to be slipping out of sight, to some degree?
Barry,
You may be mistaken about Tintner doing a B9 4th mvmt, I have the recording on Naxos it only has 3.
The Talmi/Chandos does have a 4th mvmt completed by William Carragan, but I agree with you it doesn't really work.
As for the 8th I have to go for the revised Haas version, especially because of the ending to the 1st mvmt I love the big brass chorale, the original version (Nowak 1887) which is heard on Tintner's Naxos recording has a decent brass chorale but then just peters out at the end of the 1st mvmt, it does have a very good adagio though, although it may be a little too long. My favorite B8 is Boulez/VPO (Haas) recorded live at Bruckner's beloved St. Florian.
I would think it will be a great shame if Bruckner's music faded in obscurity. Even though our modern society may find Bruckner's message of simple faith naive, it still has a lot of spiritual power which can be heard in his music. I find an ecstacy in his music that cannot be heard anywhere else, especially in his brass chorales, even as early as the 2nd symphony, no wonder Giulini went out of his way to record it.The Tintner/Naxos original version may be even better. The 3rd symphony is also wonderfull in the brass, I like the way Szell plays it fast, with the Staatskapelle Dresden, and with the Cleveland Orch, twofer with the 8th sym, He creates a feeling of a spiritual orgasm of some kind, that's what I mean by ecstacy, sort of like building up to a sneeze (don't laugh, I know how it sounds :)) and then release. Then there are the sublime adagios, yes there are some very boring moments in Bruckner's music but he more than makes up for it. And don't forget the 3 Masses, especially the 2nd for 8 part choir and winds, the Te Deum also has very ecstatic music. Even the Motets on a smaller scale are gorgeous.
Bruckner's music is timeless and you don't need to be catholic or religious to fully appriciate it.
Vatz
-
"Bruckner's music is timeless and you don't need to be catholic or religious to fully appriciate it".
I completely agree. And trust me, I'm not advocating that we ignore Bruckner. It's just that I've noticed that there far fewer new recordings of Bruckner, than there are of either Mahler or Shostakovich (among others). Here in S.F., we got to hear Bruckner more often when De Waart and Blomstedt were here. MTT does the 6th and 9th. I can't imagine him ever doing B8, but you never know. I'm pretty much boycotting all MTT concerts at this point. The last time I heard the SFSO under him (M7, actually), they sounded like a Broadway pit band. If I'm going to go listen to a broadway pit band, I want the musical that goes with it. I think he's getting worse and worse. Actually, the M7 sounded like a concerto for trumpets, with Broadway pit band accompaniment. I can't imagine how he managed to make such a huge symphony orchestra, sound so small and screechy. I think there's a real danger when any conductor has the same orchestra for too long, and the local press just loves everything he/she does with it. I like to go hear the SFSO when he's not here. They sounded like a totally different orchestra under Rostroprovich, for example. Zinman is always great, when he guest conducts.
I'll have to try harder with the earlier Bruckner symphonies. They really tax my patience, but I'll try. Also, I do share your enthusiasm for the Boulez/VPO B8. That's one that doesn't sound too "old" or stodgy. I just happen to like the first version even more; especially the Russell Davies.
By the way, you're right: the conductor on the Naxos B9 - with finale - is Johannes Wildner.
-
I could never warm up to Bruckner. His music sounds to me "horizontal": big orchestral forces to forward a mere religious message, with no tension, nothing to look for, nothing to hope, nothing to dream. The opposite of Mahler, whose music is a seek for answers.
-
I could never warm up to Bruckner. His music sounds to me "horizontal": big orchestral forces to forward a mere religious message, with no tension, nothing to look for, nothing to hope, nothing to dream. The opposite of Mahler, whose music is a seek for answers.
That's funny you feel it's "horizontal." To me, Bruckner's music is some of the most "vertical" sounding music out there. The way his chord structures work with the flow of music make it very vertical; hence, that is why conductors can get away with such slow tempos and it doesn't sound bad (usually).
As for no tension, I can't relate. There are big build-ups of tension with huge releases scattered throughout all the symphonies. One of Bruckner's main techniques of building tension is his use of repetition, and of course the harmony. You don't hear any tension in the Adagio movements from his 7th, 8th and 9th Symphonies?
I think applying one extramusical idea to Bruckner's music is dangerous, i. e. only saying it was written to forward a mere religious message. I think there is much more to his music than that, not least of which is listening to it for purely musical reasons. Certainly one can enjoy his music without really knowing what Bruckner was thinking, and the same with Mahler. Besides, their basis for writing their works is one opinion; conductors, musicians and audience members can infuse the music with their own thoughts and what it means to them.
Of course you can have your own opinion, but I think you're selling Bruckner's music a little short by damning it as forwarding a "mere religious message."
-
I could never warm up to Bruckner. His music sounds to me "horizontal": big orchestral forces to forward a mere religious message, with no tension, nothing to look for, nothing to hope, nothing to dream. The opposite of Mahler, whose music is a seek for answers.
That's funny you feel it's "horizontal." To me, Bruckner's music is some of the most "vertical" sounding music out there. The way his chord structures work with the flow of music make it very vertical; hence, that is why conductors can get away with such slow tempos and it doesn't sound bad (usually).
As for no tension, I can't relate. There are big build-ups of tension with huge releases scattered throughout all the symphonies. One of Bruckner's main techniques of building tension is his use of repetition, and of course the harmony. You don't hear any tension in the Adagio movements from his 7th, 8th and 9th Symphonies?
I think applying one extramusical idea to Bruckner's music is dangerous, i. e. only saying it was written to forward a mere religious message. I think there is much more to his music than that, not least of which is listening to it for purely musical reasons. Certainly one can enjoy his music without really knowing what Bruckner was thinking, and the same with Mahler. Besides, their basis for writing their works is one opinion; conductors, musicians and audience members can infuse the music with their own thoughts and what it means to them.
Of course you can have your own opinion, but I think you're selling Bruckner's music a little short by damning it as forwarding a "mere religious message."
I couldn't agree more.
-
For one thing, the Bruckner Yahoo Group, that I'm a member of, gets far more activity then the Mahler Club. If you would look at how many great musicians have shown loyalty to Bruckner, it is hard to see him as descending into obscurity. His 8th is considered the 'Crown of the 19th century'. Harnocourt as well as Barenboim, perhaps the two very prominent conductors of there generations, have shown vast attention to Bruckner. Haitink has come out with a 8th on Concertgebouw's independent label which has gotten rave reviews. Harmonia Mundi label, (French NONE-THE-LESS!) has many releases of Bruckner from recent years. Bruckner could be declining for only one reason, the rise of impatient listeners. Everyone wishes 'fire' in their music, as Thielemann said, Bruckner's 'fire' is always beneath the suface.
-
Again, great points - thanks! That said, I really don't feel that there's any lack of fire in Bruckner's music. I also don't feel that he's "searching" any less than Mahler is either. I just feel that the two composers are very different in a purely musical sense. When Bruckner is great, he's fabulous. But to me, he's a less consistant composer than Mahler, even though Mahler used a far wider range of symphonic and hybrid forms.
I've heard that comment before, about B8 being the crown jewel of 19th century symphonies. I wish I felt that way. To me (and thus, just an opinion), it's nowhere as great as his own 9th symphony. I also prefer his 7th, which I feel is somewhat less flawed. I also feel that the finale of B5 beats the pants of the finale to his 8th. Look, I'm not saying that B8 is a bad symphony in any way! I'm just saying that - for me - his first version is a truer picture of where his head was really at, when he approached his 8th one. I think that something was truly lost when he revised the work. Truthfully, I get more enjoyment out of Dvorak's 7th and 9th symphonies (for some reason, I'm not that wild about D8).
If I had to make some kind of blanket statement about some symphony being the, "jewel of 19th century music" - pre-Mahler - I would have to toss that laurel to the Dvorak 7th. That doesn't mean that I think poorly of the Bruckner 8th. It just means that I have a very high opinion of Tony D's 7th symphony.
Barry
-
Again, great points - thanks! That said, I really don't feel that there's any lack of fire in Bruckner's music. I also don't feel that he's "searching" any less than Mahler is either. I just feel that the two composers are very different in a purely musical sense. When Bruckner is great, he's fabulous. But to me, he's a less consistant composer than Mahler, even though Mahler used a far wider range of symphonic and hybrid forms.
I've heard that comment before, about B8 being the crown jewel of 19th century symphonies. I wish I felt that way. To me (and thus, just an opinion), it's nowhere as great as his own 9th symphony. I also prefer his 7th, which I feel is somewhat less flawed. I also feel that the finale of B5 beats the pants of the finale to his 8th. Look, I'm not saying that B8 is a bad symphony in any way! I'm just saying that - for me - his first version is a truer picture of where his head was really at, when he approached his 8th one. I think that something was truly lost when he revised the work. Truthfully, I get more enjoyment out of Dvorak's 7th and 9th symphonies (for some reason, I'm not that wild about D8).
If I had to make some kind of blanket statement about some symphony being the, "jewel of 19th century music" - pre-Mahler - I would have to toss that laurel to the Dvorak 7th. That doesn't mean that I think poorly of the Bruckner 8th. It just means that I have a very high opinion of Tony D's 7th symphony.
Barry
Tony Duggan's 7th?
-
Good one! :D
-
I did my bit for the Bruckner cause by voting for his 7th in this years Classic fm(UK) hall of Fame top 300. And it got in.
Bruckner's my 3rd favourite composer,partly because he so often 'does it for me',partly some wonderful melodies,partly for some majestic music,etc.etc.
the 7th opens with a wonderful,and long,tune;the 3rd with a memorable and simple trumpet affair;the 2nd begins with heart-warming,gorgeous music;the 5th with wonderfully pregnant and suspenseful pizzicato chords. And boy does he produce some awe-inspiring climaxes in most of his symphonies.
The pleasures overwhelm the flaws. The lack of a dramatic biography doesn't affect what I get from the music one scintilla of an iota. That just shows that the inner life of a composer can trump their in-the-world life with sublime ease. (That might even be true of most of us anyway.)
IMO.
Ivor
-
It isn't possible that Bruckner would die out. For starters, he has all the key points of a Great Master, that being vast skill, unique style, and brilliance of ideas. I still can't realize why anyone would dislike Bruckner, even though so many do. I suppose I'll never get over my assumption that the abuse comes from either the dislike of Austro-Germanic music, and the so called picking on who they think the weakest link, or that they simply do not have the patience to grasp his music.
I personally am beginning not to care for collecting recordings anymore; This is why I haven't visited this site in a while. I have noticed many famous conductors ignore Bruckner, but I believe it is for the reasons I stated. Remember, it wasn't so long ago we had Wand. Mark my word, within the next decade we will have another vast figure record on a major label a Bruckner boxset; It will spark something grand!
-
I'd like to believe what you say, Wunderhorn, but I'm not so sure. I've got to go, but I'll add more to my reply later on tonight.
-
the dislike of Austro-Germanic music
I hardly think it is that. Aren't the most popular composers of the Austro-German variety? Wouldn't that include Mozart and Beethoven?
I just don't dig Bruckner's music much. I like Sumphony #s 4, 5, 7 and 8. That's about it for me. and I only have one recording of each.
-
It isn't possible that Bruckner would die out. For starters, he has all the key points of a Great Master, that being vast skill, unique style, and brilliance of ideas. I still can't realize why anyone would dislike Bruckner, even though so many do. I suppose I'll never get over my assumption that the abuse comes from either the dislike of Austro-Germanic music, and the so called picking on who they think the weakest link, or that they simply do not have the patience to grasp his music.
I personally am beginning not to care for collecting recordings anymore; This is why I haven't visited this site in a while. I have noticed many famous conductors ignore Bruckner, but I believe it is for the reasons I stated. Remember, it wasn't so long ago we had Wand. Mark my word, within the next decade we will have another vast figure record on a major label a Bruckner boxset; It will spark something grand!
ok...i'll do it...but we're using piston-valved trumpets.
...& i think a new sports illustrated swimsuit chick on each cd cover....yep, that'll sell. anton pursued young chicks anyway...but none married him.
dj
dj
-
ok...i'll do it...but we're using piston-valved trumpets.
...& i think a new sports illustrated swimsuit chick on each cd cover....yep, that'll sell. anton pursued young chicks anyway...but none married him.
dj
dj
Mr. Johnson, you're being absolutely absurd. As far as seeking younger women; Some men simply have vices. The fact of the matter, that no one can dispute, is that at least Bruckner had command of very influential counterpoint. And his 8th, surely everyone knows, will stand the test of time.
(http://www.eunike.gmxhome.de/ringstrasse/images/02_parkring_14_bruckner_02.jpg)
-
Yes, I think that it many respects, Bruckner is a top notch composer. He reaches back to medieval and baroque musical ideas, as well as displaying the strong influence of Schubert and Wagner. But his works aren't virtuoso show pieces for the modern symphony orchestra, except for perhaps the brass. I feel that there are some problems in the way that Bruckner orchestrates. Woodwind lines are often times obscured, particularly the bassoons. To me, it's little wonder that Schalk, Levi, and others, tinkered with his works. The problem is, those folks only made it worse in the long run.
I recently watched the DVD of B5 from St. Florian Cathedral with Welser-Most/Cleveland Orch. Unfortanately, that performance falls flat as a pancake. In his greatly altered edition, Schalk doubles the timpani part at the end of the symphony. To be truthful, it really badly needs that (I don't think that his gratuitous cymbals and triangle hurt any either). Unfortunately, American brass sections just can't play the 5th properly, with perhaps the exception of Chicago. Using just four modern F/Bb double horns, just isn't enough to get the horn parts across during the closing brass chorale passages. If you're going to use those acoustically dead sounding double horns, you need to bring the number up to six or eight. Also, the big 6/4 CC tuba - like the one that the young Japanese tuba player uses in Cleveland - is completely wrong sounding for that tuba part. In the fifth, the tuba is much more like a fourth trombone than a super-bass to the entire orchestra. A smaller tuba with a more driving sound is what's required. At least Cleveland used German rotary valve trumpets, with their longer and wider bell sections; that much they truly got right. In the fifth, Bruckner writes completely independent bassoon parts, and you never hear a single note that they ever play. I don't think it would help to bring the number of bassons up to six or eight either - there's just too much other loud stuff to compete with. Those parts need to be divided up to other instruments that can cut through (the bassoons are often times playing counter rhythms that no one else in the orchestra has)
So, what I'm bringing up here, isn't to say that Bruckner is a poor composer by any means. It's just that the way he orchestrates his music doesn't provide enough clarity and/or coloristic "ear candy" to compete with the likes of Mahler, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Bartok; and many, many others. For many modern listeners, his music comes off as both repetitive and blustery. That's why I'm fearful that his music will slide down the pantheon a bit. By the way, I really liked the fact that Herbert Blomstedt did a fair amount of Bruckner here in S.F. Unfortunately, his B5 performances fell flat for the same exact reasons. In essence, there just isn't enough "oomph" at the climax of the brass chorale to balance out the length and weight of the previous 65 minutes of music. Mahler could have fixed all that very easily.
-
Interestingly,on BBc 3's Private Passions this week,Vernon Bogdanor (Prof of Gov.? at Oxford) said he met Solti,and referred to "the greatest symphony since Beethoven".
Solti smiled and said,"Ah,Bruckner's 7th."
Bogdanor said," No. His 8th."
Either way .................
(The prog can be listened to as a podcast via bbc website tilll sat)
Apart from the tunefulness,and the climaxes, he has a (musical) way and tone of speaking all his own, very romantic and mysterious, and gets tremendous power out of pounding rhythms.
Bruckner provides me with my favourite overstatement.
Hugo Wolf,the composer , said 'the cymbal clash at the climax of the 7th's slow movement, was worth all four Brahms symphonies,with the two serenades thrown in !!'
They don't m,ake comments like that any more.
-
Hugo Wolf,the composer , said 'the cymbal clash at the climax of the 7th's slow movement, was worth all four Brahms symphonies,with the two serenades thrown in !!'
They don't m,ake comments like that any more.
No they don't - and thankfully neither does Hugo Wolf.
-
Interestingly,on BBc 3's Private Passions this week,Vernon Bogdanor (Prof of Gov.? at Oxford) said he met Solti,and referred to "the greatest symphony since Beethoven".
Solti smiled and said,"Ah,Bruckner's 7th."
Bogdanor said," No. His 8th."
Either way .................
(The prog can be listened to as a podcast via bbc website tilll sat)
Apart from the tunefulness,and the climaxes, he has a (musical) way and tone of speaking all his own, very romantic and mysterious, and gets tremendous power out of pounding rhythms.
Bruckner provides me with my favourite overstatement.
Hugo Wolf,the composer , said 'the cymbal clash at the climax of the 7th's slow movement, was worth all four Brahms symphonies,with the two serenades thrown in !!'
They don't m,ake comments like that any more.
That's quite funny since Buckner never intended for that cymbal crash to be there, it was only after Schalk, or Nikisch persuaded him that he included it, along with the triangle and tympani.
Vatz
-
There are few composers who are recorded by everybody.
meanwhile Bruckner has received attention from many quite good conductors.
Furtwangler,Jochum,Haitink,Wand,Masur,Barenboim,Inbal,Barbirolli,Horenstein,Kertesz,Matacic,Walter,Maazel,Harnoncourt,ColinD.,KlempererGiulini,Beinum,Boulez,Karajan,Bohm,SzellKeilberth,Chailly,Tennstedt,Mehta,Tate,Kabasta,Muti.
So,on the one hand,a lot of musical people have found something.
On the other hand, composers can be just not your cup of tea.
Ivor
-
There are few composers who are recorded by everybody.
meanwhile Bruckner has received attention from many quite good conductors.
Furtwangler,Jochum,Haitink,Wand,Masur,Barenboim,Inbal,Barbirolli,Horenstein,Kertesz,Matacic,Walter,Maazel,Harnoncourt,ColinD.,KlempererGiulini,Beinum,Boulez,Karajan,Bohm,SzellKeilberth,Chailly,Tennstedt,Mehta,Tate,Kabasta,Muti.
So,on the one hand,a lot of musical people have found something.
On the other hand, composers can be just not your cup of tea.
Ivor
Ivor,
Not sure who your response was aimed at but, Bruckner is my "cup of tea" and has been for many years.
Vatz
-
Vatz,
I was partly responding to Wunderhorn saying many famous conductors ignore Bruckner - I'm sure that's true - and to those who have written that,in effect,they 'don't get' Bruckner.
It's an interesting question for me whether I was "aiming" or "responding". Since a felow-cricketer has recently suggested I show more aggression with the bat, I think "aiming" doesn't come second nature to me. I might just have passive-aggressive down to a fine art. I dunno.
I do know from my psychotherapeutic experience that objective observations about other people is at least up for debate.
Best wishes,
Ivor
-
I always see Bruckner and Mahler tied together, and I realy dont know why. Both wrote huge symphonies and both being influenced by Wagner, and Mahler was Bruckner's student once. Other than that I dont see anything in common. Can anyone explain that? I'd appreciate it.
To my limited knowledge this doesn't make too much sense.
-
I agree with you. Other than the fact that they both large large symphonies, I don't hear a lot of similarities either - more differences, if anything. They both use Laendler, and that's about it. Their approaches to orchestration couldn't possibily be more different.
-
I'm jumping into this discussion late, but here's some of my thoughts...
I've always loved Bruckner, probably as much as Mahler. I think author Jim Svejda (of the Record Shelf Guide) has a point when he says that for a Bruckner performance to work, all things have to work well. A second or third rank orchestra with an average conductor can deliver a pretty tolerable Beethoven performance. That usually won't work for Bruckner.
But more importantly, I think many don't find themselves drawn to Bruckner because of the epic expanses of his works. In this microwaved, drive thru, instant downloadable world we live in, it's tough for many to listen to an 80 min symphony unfold.
It may sound unusual, but I adore the early numbered symphonies. To me, his 1st is remarkable: dark, mysterious, even angry in spots. The second is ethereal, but kinda sweetly naive, too.
That various texts confuse matters, but for me most things are resolved today.
I see Mahler and Bruckner as descendants of the Beethoven and late Schubert line of symphonies, rather than the Schumann/Mendelssohn. Mahler was more of an innovator, but sometimes I'll stand back in awe of certain things Bruckner did. The Ninth is remarkably modern to me. Its scherzo reminds me of Shostakovich. There's a string passage in the last movement that sounds like Bruckner stole it from Vaughan Williams, even though Bruckner obviously wrote it first. I think minimalism, which I love, is indebted to Bruckner.
I guess in conclusion, I'll say that orchestras are probably better equipped to play Bruckner today than in the alleged "good old days." But I don't think audiences are. So perhaps Barry has a point. But the last time I heard Bruckner live, it was with Skrowaczewski leading the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra in Bruckner's 4th. Going into that concert, I was kinda falling away from the Fourth. But at the concert's conclusion, I found my faith in it reawakened, so to speak. I think the audience realized they just heard Something Special, and I heard one of the best rounds of applause for anyone in my 16 years of concert attendancer. Somehow, the conviction of the performance locked everyone on to Bruckner, if only for a night.
Thanks for putting up with my thoughts...
Cheers,
Steve
-
Steve,
What you say about Skrowaczewski and B4 is very interesting because the very same thing happened here in S.F., only with Celibidache/Munich Phil. performing on tour instead. I do think that the 4th is one of Celi's more successful Bruckner recordings, as well.
Barry
-
By the way Barry, about the Sixth: I only heard the first minutes of the Sixth years ago, and never heard it again since. But it's hard for me to imagine that Bruckner wrote more modern stuff than the Scherzo of the Ninth! That sinister shit doesn't sound like coming from Bruckner to my ears(in a good way)!
Speaking of the NInth, I think there's something in common between Mahler and Bruckner: The Adagio of both Ninths. Both movements sound very similar at the opening but never heard people pointing that out. But among the 2 adagios Bruckner sounds more otherwordly, I think.
-
I think the reason for the M/B linkage is partly that Mahler followed Bruckner in the same lineage,partly that the younger man was a pupil of the older, and partly that they were dismissed together in the UK at least between the wars as an acquired Teutonic taste. ('Between the wars',btw,for my generation, means '1918 - 1939').
Eric Blom,the notable English critic,said at the time about mahler,"We don't want his sort here."
Thank goodness that attitude is no longer the leading one.
Ivor
-
By the way, yesterday I saw a Eighth recording by Solti and VPO on Decca. I may get it as my first Bruck 8 because its single disc. But I would like to know if any one have heard it. Any opinions?
-
Yes, I think that it many respects, Bruckner is a top notch composer. He reaches back to medieval and baroque musical ideas, as well as displaying the strong influence of Schubert and Wagner. But his works aren't virtuoso show pieces for the modern symphony orchestra, except for perhaps the brass. I feel that there are some problems in the way that Bruckner orchestrates. Woodwind lines are often times obscured, particularly the bassoons. To me, it's little wonder that Schalk, Levi, and others, tinkered with his works. The problem is, those folks only made it worse in the long run.
I recently watched the DVD of B5 from St. Florian Cathedral with Welser-Most/Cleveland Orch. Unfortanately, that performance falls flat as a pancake. In his greatly altered edition, Schalk doubles the timpani part at the end of the symphony. To be truthful, it really badly needs that (I don't think that his gratuitous cymbals and triangle hurt any either). Unfortunately, American brass sections just can't play the 5th properly, with perhaps the exception of Chicago. Using just four modern F/Bb double horns, just isn't enough to get the horn parts across during the closing brass chorale passages. If you're going to use those acoustically dead sounding double horns, you need to bring the number up to six or eight. Also, the big 6/4 CC tuba - like the one that the young Japanese tuba player uses in Cleveland - is completely wrong sounding for that tuba part. In the fifth, the tuba is much more like a fourth trombone than a super-bass to the entire orchestra. A smaller tuba with a more driving sound is what's required. At least Cleveland used German rotary valve trumpets, with their longer and wider bell sections; that much they truly got right. In the fifth, Bruckner writes completely independent bassoon parts, and you never hear a single note that they ever play. I don't think it would help to bring the number of bassons up to six or eight either - there's just too much other loud stuff to compete with. Those parts need to be divided up to other instruments that can cut through (the bassoons are often times playing counter rhythms that no one else in the orchestra has)
So, what I'm bringing up here, isn't to say that Bruckner is a poor composer by any means. It's just that the way he orchestrates his music doesn't provide enough clarity and/or coloristic "ear candy" to compete with the likes of Mahler, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Bartok; and many, many others. For many modern listeners, his music comes off as both repetitive and blustery. That's why I'm fearful that his music will slide down the pantheon a bit. By the way, I really liked the fact that Herbert Blomstedt did a fair amount of Bruckner here in S.F. Unfortunately, his B5 performances fell flat for the same exact reasons. In essence, there just isn't enough "oomph" at the climax of the brass chorale to balance out the length and weight of the previous 65 minutes of music. Mahler could have fixed all that very easily.
You're forgetting tone Barry, TONE!!! It doesn't matter what he 'did' say, but what he was 'trying' to say that matters; In other words, simply assumed Bruckner thought beyond modern orchestral instruments, 'Period'!, (A S I N D E F I N I T E ! ! ! ) ! ! !
-
Scream at me all you want. You and I may understand what Bruckner was trying to get at, but not everyone will. I'm not saying that Bruckner will ever go away altogether. But what I am saying, is that it seems that his ship has already come and gone in Austria and Germany; and that he was never been that popular in the U.S., except for maybe Chicago. So, I feel that his music will slide down the pantheon of highly popular composers a fair bit. I'm also saying that a big reason for that happening is the way that he orchestrates his music - so I don't care if his music is just one great, long TONE. I suppose the final chord of Mahler 3 isn't about TONE!!! - Period! (AS IN DEFINITE!!!)! ! !
-
Scream at me all you want. You and I may understand what Bruckner was trying to get at, but not everyone will. I'm not saying that Bruckner will ever go away altogether. But what I am saying, is that it seems that his ship has already come and gone in Austria and Germany; and that he was never been that popular in the U.S., except for maybe Chicago. So, I feel that his music will slide down the pantheon of highly popular composers a fair bit. I'm also saying that a big reason for that happening is the way that he orchestrates his music - so I don't care if his music is just one great, long TONE. I suppose the final chord of Mahler 3 isn't about TONE!!! - Period! (AS IN DEFINITE!!!)! ! !
Barry it was not an angry scream, but a join my cult scream. All these symphonists, every last one of them, I would love to work in the subway, assuming they'd come once a week merely for the opportunity of shining their shoes. Yes, call it buffoonery, but I don't think it is my place to ask why Bruckner had issues with his music; Nor any mastercraftmen's critic, as I am not a master craftsmen, but a master of someone else's craft! See what I'm saying? For those who choose to be a master at someone else's craft, like all us Mahlerites, I ask the question, 'Do our own personalities interfear?' Bruckner in monumental ways reminds me of a young adults infinite imagination, yet being forced into the reality of tangible. Many others were more exceptional, but only at staying in the dotted lines; This is perhaps caused they didn't demand as many lengths and breaths sonically as Bruckner did. I completely agree with you in saying Mahler was better at Orchestration. Bruckner brass obscures everything else, but it doesn't matter because they usually only interfear with synchronized moments only, so what's the difference?
-
"Bruckner brass obscures everything else, but it doesn't matter because they usually only interfear with synchronized moments only, so what's the difference?"
I'm not sure that I would agree with that, but I do see your point. Good points - all of them.
-
By the way, yesterday I saw a Eighth recording by Solti and VPO on Decca. I may get it as my first Bruck 8 because its single disc. But I would like to know if any one have heard it. Any opinions?
Did anyone see my question above?
-
By the way, yesterday I saw a Eighth recording by Solti and VPO on Decca. I may get it as my first Bruck 8 because its single disc. But I would like to know if any one have heard it. Any opinions?
Did anyone see my question above?
Bluesbreaker,
I haven't heard the Solti B8 you mention but, if you want a very good B8 with the VPO on a single disc get the Boulez recorded live at St. Florian in Austria, excellent performance and sound, you won't be dissapointed.
Vatz
-
By the way, yesterday I saw a Eighth recording by Solti and VPO on Decca. I may get it as my first Bruck 8 because its single disc. But I would like to know if any one have heard it. Any opinions?
Did anyone see my question above?
I'm afraid I haven't heard either, so I'm just going on an educated guess. While I'm no big fan of Solti in anything, much less Bruckner, I' could say "stay away." But the Vienna Phil essentially recorded an entire Bruckner cycle under various conductors from the 60's through the early 70's. Everyone I've encountered has been at the very least good. (The Horst Stein 2nd and 6th are probably best, although the Mehta 9th is pretty darn good, too.)
The only two I don't know are Solti's two contributions, the 7th and 8th. Perhaps Solti will be less punchy with the VPO than his later Chicago accounts. By the way...avoid his CSO 8th at all costs. I'll have to dig out my old Penguin guide and see how they rate, if you like.
-
Thankx guys. Since Bruckner doesn't seem to belong to Solti's territory, so I guess his CSO cycle is something I won't touch at all. But His earlier stuff with LSO and VPO seems to be better than latter years in the Midwest so I may try it. After all I havent heard any bad comments on his Beethoven symphonies with VPO recorded in the late 50s.
But The same day I saw the Solti recording I also saw the B8 by Tennstedt /LPO on Toshiba EMI. It's slightly cheaper and the seller said it's very good. Unfortunately with Toshiba EMI, the liner note is in Japanese.............
Hopefully, I may get either one in the next few days. I will report back after I hear it.
-
If you're looking for a good one disc B8, you might want to keep an eye out for Bohm's VPO account, which doesn't get much press. He also did a pretty good one with the Cologne Radio Symphony that was in one of those two-fer Great Conductors of the Century series.
Barenboim did a good one with the BPO which some like. My friend thinks it has the best finale of any. I think it's a great performance, but the sonics don't blow me away.
Someone else mentioned Boulez's, and that one is superb, too.
-
Yeah, those are all really good. I really like the first version, and Dennis Russel Davies has made a really good recording of it for Arte Nova.
-
Bruckner 7 under Masur atBBC Proms tonight, and more Antoin to come.
He's still in the frame.
Ivor
-
it was a marvellous performance, with the ending never played more clearly. Included a long-held final chord.
And the Prommers ovation went on and on.
Ivor
-
I bought Tensstedt's EMI twofer with Br8 and Br4, and another twofer with Jochum (also EMI) with Br8 and 9.
I only heard complete 8ths by both and I really like both recordings. Tennstedt sounds pretty refind while Jochum sounds pretty raw and emotional. I think his bruckner is like Lenny's Mahler. 8)
-
Jochum is definitely "inteventionist" Bruckner. I like it, but it's certainly not the only way to go with Bruckner. The Tennstedt two-fer (B4 and B8) has been selling pretty well, relatively speaking. There must be many others who have discovered it for themselves, just as you have.
Barry
-
Hey Barry, do you happen to know what DH thinks about Tennstedt's Br8 & 4?
I just wish he would be more explosive but this is his studio recording, so...........
-
I used to belong to furt-l and mahler-l back in the 90s, this is my first time posting on this forum, i apologize for resurrecting a 4 year old thread.... BUT... I love bruckner. I heard his 9th symphony before I even discovered Mahler, I was a teen and a friend of mine told me about Mahler and Bruckner being great. It was the Horenstein VoxBox recording with the VSO, real cheap also, it was a double CD set for like $9.99 back when Tower Records was the king of Classical and it was coupled with Mahler1, but I mainly listened to the B9 over the years. Up to that point I had a symphonic listening education consisting of only the normal classics - so listening to Bruckner, and Bruckner9 at that, was a truly life transforming experience. I know that sounds a bit exaggerated, but it literally started a lifetime obsession with the music of Bruckner and later Mahler, 20 years later still listening to these two.
You look at the rise in popularity of Mahler and others of others, but Bruckner has always been a rather niche composer with a cult following, especially with the rise of recordings. I still like Furt's 1944 recording. I think the OP may be onto something with regards to the decline in Bruckner programming, and that is rather unfortunate. Of my musician friends very few do like Bruckner, but everyone at the very least can tolerate Mahler, that's not a good sign either. I don't agree that it's due to the orchestration, I think the style and wide scope (euphemism for 60+ minutes playing length) of the music is a barrier for most, even devoted classical fans. I do agree with many in this thread that the attention span of today's audience is a huge factor.
-
Like many that have commented on this thread, I too, have liked Bruckner for many years. I started learning to know him and his symphonies back in the 1970's, both on record (mainly through Haitink/Concertgebouw, which is still a good, evenly-played complete cycle) and in live performances by the National Symphony Orchestra of Washington, DC under Antal Dorati. Of the then-four FM stations that broadcasted classical music back at that time here in DC, most of Bruckner's symphonies were generally played late at night, after the mainstream composers and live recorded performances had been broadcast earlier in the evening. I will say that nowadays, virtually no Bruckner is played on the one classical FM station left here in DC, WETA Public Radio, and that is because its program approach has been for quite some time, and will continue to be, Classical Music 101, with a thorough immersion in Beethoven's Fifth, Ninth, and the Dvorak New World Symphony, with an occasional Mahler symphony thrown in.
Bruckner is the type of composer who requires much thought, concentration, and introspection whenever he's listened to, regardless of whether it's one of his symphonies in a version by either Haas or Nowak. He is the type of composer that does not listen well via an iPod on a subway, but at home in an easy chair with regular stereo headphones. What plagued Bruckner's acceptance by many during his life was his acknowledged lack of self-confidence of his worth as a composer. Though probably the most thoroughly-schooled composer in composition ever, I would put forth the supposition that in addition to the self-confidence factor, his thorough musical education worked against him in helping him achieve his own unique voice as a composer until late in his career, whereas it happens early for most composers. Conductors such as Richter, Furtwängler, Knappertsbusch (I'm surprised no one's mentioned him) Jochum, and Böhm contributed much to bringing Bruckner before the public considerably earlier than did many other conductors for Mahler. The anti-semitic factor also worked against Mahler, whereas Bruckner didn't have that to worry about.
Bruckner as a composer, already had his mindset established before he ever put down a note on paper, and it never changed until his dying day. He is probably the one major composer to go through life without ever having had a crisis to change his outlook on composition. Mahler's mindset as a composer was constantly subjected to upheaval and change, and as we all know, it showed in whatever he put to paper.
Wade
-
The relative popularity of various composers seems to ebb back-and-forth like the tide. With so much over-exposure to Mahler over the last few years, Mahler may well recede a bit. If so, I don't think that that's necessarily a bad thing. I really feel that any major professional orchestra should perform only one or two Mahler symphonies per season. Otherwise, the music loses its 'specialness'. I think Bruckner will pick up a bit, but his music will remain mostly for a 'niche' market, as you suggest. But then again, ALL classical music is a 'niche market' in relation to so-called popular culture.
Aside from the length of his symphonies, I think Bruckner suffers a tad in the consistency department. Regardless of which versions are used, I don't think B-zero, B1 or B2 are nearly as strong as those from B3 on. Mahler captures people's imagination from his earliest works onward (with the possible exception of "DKL"). Bruckner 8 is clearly a great symphony, but it's also very reliant on receiving a truly great performance. Otherwise, it can come across as elephantine and dated. I also wonder if B9 would be anywhere as popular if Bruckner had finished the finale (?). Just based on the material that exists, I wouldn't like it nearly as much. It used to be somewhat popular to use the Te Deum as a substitute finale. I think a better solution is to perform the Te Deum first; have an intermission (get the chorus off the stage) and then perform B9 in its current three movement version. That wonderful Adagio needs no finale to follow it. That's just my opinion.
Bruckner 6 is sort of a special case. The first three movements are as great as anything Bruckner ever composed (with the possible exception of B9), but the finale is a wee bit of a let-down. Jochum used to place a cut in the finale, stating that Bruckner had allowed the organ improviser in him to run amok. I agree. The finale to B7 is somewhat the same, but can be very effective if it's performed really well. That finale actually needs a sense of humor in spots.
I don't think that Bruckner will ever go away. I do think, however, that American orchestras - in general - do not perform Bruckner very well, regardless of how strong their brass sections may be. Even more than Mahler, Bruckner needs a slight sense of outdoor rusticity. That doesn't mean that people should play sloppy and out-of-tune. But the super-slick performances that American orchestras routinely turn in helps to make the music sound dated. The big exception to this rule, of course, is the Chicago Symphony. They have tons of experience in Bruckner, and I actually think they sound better in Bruckner than they often times do in Mahler. Go figure. To some degree, that may be a bi-product of Orchestra Hall. But I've yet to hear performances of Bruckner from N.Y. or Philly that struck me as being fully idiomatic. Cleveland comes closer. To me. S.F. now sounds too slick for anything except modern and American music. It that regard alone, it's better when MTT is out-of-town.
-
"Hey Barry, do you happen to know what DH thinks about Tennstedt's Br8 & 4?
I just wish he would be more explosive but this is his studio recording, so........... "
Just guessing, I would bet that DH's opinion would be rather close to mine: The B4 is better because Tennstedt was standing in front of the Berlin Phil. The LPO isn't nearly as idiomatic sounding for Bruckner, and their EMI recording of B8 doesn't sound so great either. A thumbs up to the B4, and a thumbs down to the B8 in relation to the best recordings of it that already exist. I would bet money that would be Dave's vote as well.
-
What do you think of the SFS's sound since MTT took over? I had a friend who played there and he said that Blomstedt developed a disciplined orchestra that played tightly and that MTT spent much less time on keeping things tight and since then things have gotten a little sloppy in exchange for stylized interpretations.
-
A quick look at the Bruckner Discography site
http://www.abruckner.com/
under new releases shows that Bruckner continues to be recorded by younger conductors, both complete sets and individual symphonies.
Looks like Anton's doing ok. Thank goodness.
He has a unique voice and created some wonderful music of the highest quality, so he'll live on quite a while yet.
Ivor
-
"What do you think of the SFS's sound since MTT took over?"
I think it's a good sound for French, American and 'modern' music. But by-and-large, I think they're also a bit too bright and 'slick' sounding for most Austro-German music. Mahler included. When I heard Rostroprovich conduct the SFSO in the music of Shostakovich, they sounded like an entirely different orchestra: a huge, fat string sound, like Philly.
"He has a unique voice and created some wonderful music of the highest quality, so he'll live on quite a while yet."
I hope so too.
-
My listening buddy dropped me off a rip of this Bruckner set by Gerd Schaller you can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Symphonies-Nos/dp/B005DVGUKA
He has been raving about this set for the past few weeks. He is an intense 65 year old Bruckner maniac!
Last night I listened to the Schaller 7th. It was flat out amazing. I've never heard Bruckner like this. His ability to tie together the different musical cells is perhaps equaled only by Klemp or Celi. His tempo is on the fast side, it never sounds rushed or hurried. It's similar feeling to how Celi can be VERY broad though it never feels that way. The balances he achieves are very exact; he allows the woodwinds to really speak, especially in the 1st movement. They are never covered by the strings as the strings are never covered by the brass. You can hear everything. To me though, the best part was that this was an incredibly exciting performance. If half the Bruckner I've heard on disc was this exciting I think we'd have a very different mind of him as a composer.
I've yet to hear the 4th or the 9th. My friend said the reconstruction of last movement of the 9th is far and away the best he's heard. I feel inclined to believe him even though I've not heard it. He's the only person I know who's actually copied out the score to B9 by hand! As he would say, "Chris, in the late 50's you just couldn't order scores on Amazon. I ordered mine from the Library of Congress, then had 3 months to copy it!"
-
Some info about Schaller http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_Schaller&ei=aBUPT6jqEM-bOtOxmaID&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDwQ7gEwAg&prev=/search%3Fq%3DGerd%2BSchaller%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4DSGK_en___GB424%26prmd%3Dimvnso
Ivor
-
My listening buddy dropped me off a rip of this Bruckner set by Gerd Schaller you can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Symphonies-Nos/dp/B005DVGUKA
He has been raving about this set for the past few weeks. He is an intense 65 year old Bruckner maniac!
Last night I listened to the Schaller 7th. It was flat out amazing. I've never heard Bruckner like this. His ability to tie together the different musical cells is perhaps equaled only by Klemp or Celi. His tempo is on the fast side, it never sounds rushed or hurried. It's similar feeling to how Celi can be VERY broad though it never feels that way. The balances he achieves are very exact; he allows the woodwinds to really speak, especially in the 1st movement. They are never covered by the strings as the strings are never covered by the brass. You can hear everything. To me though, the best part was that this was an incredibly exciting performance. If half the Bruckner I've heard on disc was this exciting I think we'd have a very different mind of him as a composer.
I've yet to hear the 4th or the 9th. My friend said the reconstruction of last movement of the 9th is far and away the best he's heard. I feel inclined to believe him even though I've not heard it. He's the only person I know who's actually copied out the score to B9 by hand! As he would say, "Chris, in the late 50's you just couldn't order scores on Amazon. I ordered mine from the Library of Congress, then had 3 months to copy it!"
I won't add anything pithy other than to say that I've listened to these disks in the car on my commute, and the are a revelation. They're totally attention grabbing start to finish, but there is nothing eccentric (though the 9th's 3rd takes on a totally different character in this complete edition). Subtle details are illuminated and balances are 'adjusted' in places that seem absolutely right.
-
I won't add anything pithy other than to say that I've listened to these disks in the car on my commute, and the are a revelation. They're totally attention grabbing start to finish, but there is nothing eccentric (though the 9th's 3rd takes on a totally different character in this complete edition). Subtle details are illuminated and balances are 'adjusted' in places that seem absolutely right.
It's quite impressive that they managed all of this while performing in a cathedral. They can be an acoustic nightmare for everyone involved.
-
I do think Bruckner's first 3 symphonies are a bit weak, and if you include 0 and 00, that's 5 symphonies that don't really show how brilliant he was.
-
3 was good enough in its early version for Wagner to accept the dedication by Bruckner. Even with Wagner's ego, I doubt there are any more authoritative judges since then.
Tom in Vermont
-
I like the first five very much, and love 3 and especially two.
There have been quite a few experts in Bruckner since Wagner, not least Furtwangler, Jochum x 2, Haitink, Abendroth, Barenboim, Tintner and Rostropovich
Ivor
-
True, many advocates of Bruckner, but none of Wagner's stature unless we admit Mahler.
-
I have never myself been that big of a Bruckner fan, but this year I resolved to become better acquainted with the 5th and 6th. The only Bruckner symphonies I have ever heard live iare the 4th, many years ago under Sanderling in Toronto, and the 9th, equally many years ago in SF under de Waart. I have shared the view that the 8th is the greatest Bruckner symphony, or put another way, my favorite, but I recently purchased the SACD with Blomstedt and the Leipzig Gewandhous on Querstand doing the 6th, and it is starting to come together for me, and I have been listening to my SACD of Harnoncourt doing the 5th in anticipation of hearing Blomstedt conducting the SF Symphony this Friday night in the 5th. I have heard that the Klemperer recordings of these two, especially the 6th, are special so I plan to seek those out (on EMI LPs if possible, which makes it tough when you live in the US!).
Tom
-
Tom,
Both the Klemperer B5 and B6 are just as good as people say. But there was also a 'pirate' out there of a 'live' B5 that Klemp. did with the Vienna Phil., performed somewhere around the same time (I think). That one is equally good, if not better. Enjoy the 5th with Blomstedt.
-
Bruckner isn't sliding into obscurity, at least no more so than classical itself. When I observe those keeping keeping classical alive, I can't help but wonder if the masters rather be dead, and dead in all aspects.
-
"What do you think of the SFS's sound since MTT took over?"
I think it's a good sound for French, American and 'modern' music. But by-and-large, I think they're also a bit too bright and 'slick' sounding for most Austro-German music. Mahler included.
Barry,
I totally agree.
They sound too 'Hollywood' when it comes to Mahler and Shostakovich to name a few.
John,
-
Remembering that Herbert Blomstedt preceded Michael Tilson Thomas as MD of the SFO, and linking Bruckner, Wagner, Richard Strauss, and Mahler together as entities feeding off each other as the great names of the late 19th-early 20th century orchestral music oveure, Blomstedt got a positive review in the Washington Post on the Beethoven 4th/Strauss Ein Heldenleben concert he gave with the National Symphony Orchestra of Washington, DC, as a no-nonsense, music-first conductor. Read the review here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/conductor-herbert-blomstedt-lets-the-music-speak-for-itself/2012/02/16/gIQAHw07IR_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/conductor-herbert-blomstedt-lets-the-music-speak-for-itself/2012/02/16/gIQAHw07IR_story.html)
It seems that the vast majority of the concert-going public today cannot fathom a musician who places the music before himself, but must place the individual before the music. That is the main point Ms. Midgette (the critic) is trying to make, and it's too bad that there will not be enough of the classical music concert-going public to read this review and learn something important to get to the next level.
Wade
-
All I can tell is that I enjoyed both the De Waart and Blomstedt eras in S.F. far more than I am the current MTT one - except when MTT is conducting things like Ives 4th, Verese's "Ameriques", Debussy's "Martrydom of St. Sebastien", etc.