OT: Is Bruckner slowly sliding into obscurity?

[bluesbreaker]

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.

[sbugala]

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. 

[barry guerrero]

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.

[Ivor]

  Bruckner 7 under Masur atBBC Proms tonight, and more Antoin to come.

  He's still in the frame.


      Ivor

[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

[bluesbreaker]

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.

[barry guerrero]

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

[bluesbreaker]

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...........

[yiwufan]

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.

[waderice]

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

[barry guerrero]

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.

[barry guerrero]

"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.

[yiwufan]

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.

[stillivor]

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

[barry guerrero]

"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.