gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: Leo K on May 27, 2008, 05:35:20 PM
-
After listening to the B8 again yesterday (Wand/BPO/RCA) I was struck how this work may be the most glorious thing I ever heard...perhaps my favorite musical work of all time it is so glorious. I regret taking so long to listen to Bruckner...but better later than never. I like the 7th and 9th alot too...there are still symphonies of his I haven't heard, but part of the fun is discovery.
--Todd
-
Todd:
Give it some time and sanity will return ;D. But seriously, it's so great to see your enthusiasm, and remember the days when I just couldn't stop playing the Eighth as well. But lest you think I'm old and jaded, let me give you the even better news: over time the piece will cease to be "the most glorious thing you've ever heard," and take its place "among the most glorious things you've ever heard." Until then--ENJOY!
Dave H
-
Thanks Dave! I remember when I felt that way about Ives too!
--Todd
-
By the way, I think I may be also responding to the excellant rendition here by Wand and the BPO...who seemed to help make the work's structure come to light in a vivd way, more than other recordings of this work I've heard so far (I've only heard a few though).
--Todd
-
After listening to the B8 again yesterday (Wand/BPO/RCA)...
Which one? To all we know Herr Kapellmeister Wand (now that's a great name) has recorded B8 seventy-two times (and counting) with BPO for RCA during his Golden Autumn years alone.
PT
-
It is this one (wow...thats ALOT of B8's):
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZDW5MABAL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
--Todd
-
Todd,
Welcome to the Bruckner club :D!
For me it is those adagio movements of B4, B6, B7 (listen to the second theme), B8 that bring tears in my eyes every time I listen. There isn't quite anything like experiencing the great music here.
John,
-
Todd,
If you have been thrilled and touched by Bruckner then you should try Sibelius next. His music is as deep and soulful as Bruckner and Mahler, but is purer and leaner than either of them - "While others are busy serving all kinds of cocktails I offer only pure, cold water" (to quote Sibelius on his music). Like Mahler his symphonies can be dark (S4th for example) and brooding, but he was most attached to the Nature - the vast, snowy lands and deep forest of Finland - and many legendary tales surrounding it. His last symphony, the Symphony No.7 is particularly an enchanting piece in these respect - a brilliantly unified single movt. symphony with Olympian scale of harmonies and melodies. Along with his last tone poem, Tapiola, the S7th is the crowning achievement in the late Romanticism/Nationalism era.
John,
-
The Eighth is probably my favorite, but the Ninth is so glorious, too. This fall, Stanislaw Skrowaczewski will lead the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra in the Eighth, and I'm psyched. A few seasons back, I had given up on the Fourth Symphony. It went from a "great" work, to something merely okay. Then I heard Skrowaczewski perform it live with the SLSO. It sounded so good, I didn't want to hear a recording of it. I'm glad he'll be appearing here again.
-
st. anton is among the best for me!
dj
-
Yes, probably Bruckner is my favourite composer - I was listening to Haitink's fiery VPO recording of the B3 this morning on my mp3 player. If you get this and his 1977/8 B7 and 1981 B9 (both Concertgebouw, but not in his boxed cycle, which is earlier) you have three of the best of Haitink in Bruckner.
Celi in B4 and B6 on EMI is excellent.
For the B8 Sinopoli with the Dreseden Staatskapelle on DG is hard to find now but sounds amazing.
-
I'm moving to a different music forum :(
Barry
-
Alright, alright - I'll try to contribute something useful here. You see, as I get older and more curmudgeonly (sp?), I become less enchanted with the standard line of Austro-German symphonists. Like Mahler - THE DUDE, as far as I'm concerned - I like the Schumann symphonies about the best of them; that, and the full line of Haydn symphonies. Brahms?/Bruckner? - the less discussed, the better in my book. But allow me to throw something of a wrench into the works now.
Even from the very start, I felt that there was something fundamentally wrong with the Bruckner 8th. I've NEVER had that strong, devotional feeling that so many people seem to get from this work. In short, the ending simply isn't strong enough to justify such a long, bombastic, and elephantine work. From a purely technical standpoint, I feel that the first movement is the strongest. Then I discovered the first version (at that time, only the Inbal recording existed of the first version).
While the first version is obviously more flawed, it's also far more characteristic of earlier Bruckner. It's very much a younger man's work. Some people can't handle the loud coda at the end of the first movement - in major, no less! - that exists in Bruckner's first version. But I believe that loud appendage in major, much better sets up the rest of the symphony; and thus, the genuine "tone" of the work in general. At the very least, anyone who can look at Bruckner in a more objective, more "historic" context (i.e. academic), has to admit that two fundamentally different Bruckner 8ths exist. I prefer the earlier version because I believe that it far better represents Bruckner's original concept and feelings about the work. I like the recording of the first version with Dennis Russell Davies on Arte Nova.
Another Bruckner 8 that I like - one that would be considered totally blasphemous to any true Bruckner buff - is the one that was recorded for EMI by Klemperer. Klemp takes most of the finale far slower than usual, but also puts a couple of good-size cuts in it. Like myself, Klemperer felt that Bruckner simply overextended himself in the finale. In general, finales are not always Bruckner's "forte", shall we say (think of the weird finale to Bruckner 4). But in the long haul, I find Klemp's slower but slightly truncated version easier to digest. Hey, that's just me. I greatly prefer the Mahler 8th to the Bruckner 8th (and feel the exact opposite, when it comes to 9th symphonies)
Barry
-
None should be in any way ashamed for an appreciation of Bruckner.
After all, GM, "THE DUDE" reported to Bruckner after conducting his Te Deum:
"I experienced what I consider to be the greatest triumph for any work--the audience remained sitting without a sound, without stirring; and not until the conductor and the performers had left their places did the storm of applause break out." (Blaukopf, p 95)
And then, there's the matter that Mahler. though he needed money at the time, put off royalties on his first four symphonies in order that the publisher (Universal Edition) could get Bruckner's music published. Surely Bruckner and his music meant something significant to GM.
John H
-
Good points John, and thanks for your post...
And Barry, I thought you liked Bruckner! I know you like his 9th Symphony...whats wrong with discussing Bruckner :-[ I enjoyed reading your thoughts on Bruckner's 8th.
I get more enchanted with the austro-German symphonists as years go by...but not to the exclusion of others, like Ives, Gershwin, Debussy, Stravinsky and etc.
--Todd
-
Fine; you can take me on, and pull out your quotes all you want. But I'll pull out my trusty sword - my computer keyboard - right back at you. First off, if Mahler had felt THAT strongly about Bruckner, he would have spent far more time and energy championing Bruckner's symphonies, and less on developing his own music. He didn't. He conducted Bruckner symphonies, but certainly no more than Beethoven or Schumann. In fact, probably far less. Can you point to a single instance of Mahler ever having conducted Bruckner's 8th? Perhaps so, but it would have been very seldom, if at all. I believe that Mahler had enough personal integrity, that if he had felt that strongly about Bruckner as a composer, he would have - to at least some extent - sacrificed his own compositional career for the sake of Bruckner. I truly believe that! That's not a fact - just an opinion. But what I do believe to be a fact - and I could be wrong about this - is that Mahler conducted the 5th symphony the most, which is the one Bruckner symphony that truly has a knock-out finale; far beyond any argument. Am I wrong?
Let's back up a bit and get our facts straight: I never said that I didn't like Bruckner. What I said was, was that I felt that there was something - quote - "fundamentally wrong", after hearing only the revised version of B8. Allow me to alter "fundamentally wrong", to fundamentally flawed. Once I heard the first version, I was dumb-struck: "aha, that explains it!" - I thought to myself. I've already admitted that the first version is a more "up and down", inconsistent work than the revised version. But I also think that it represents the TRUE Bruckner far more than the tired sounding, overly elephantine revised version does (Nowak or Haas - not much difference). You're welcome to disagree with me, but you won't change my mind on this topic. If you don't know the first version, then you have no right to tell me that I'm wrong. Know it first - then tell me that I'm full of molarchy.
Now let's talk about my second favorite topic, after Mahler: me! Don't like my tone of voice? . . . neither do I. But I'm just tired of adulating the same-old line of Austro/German composers. Can't we move beyond this? Isn't this - at least, to some small degree - what Mahler was rebelling against? What about French composers? Czech composers? Polish? Russian? Spanish? Japanese? Finnish? Come on folks, it's a big, wide world out there! Nes pas? I'll make a proclamation that I'll bet some of you will just hate: I think that Debussy's "La Mer" is easily as great a work as ANY Austro/German symphony out there. Don't like that? . . . then you don't like me! Fair enough; we don't know each other. But I would much rather take De Falla's "Three Cornered Hat" as my "desert isle disc" (other than Mahler), than any Brahms or Bruckner symphony (maybe B9 would be my exception). I'm just being honest here. Now, let's return back to Bruckner, because I do have a right to clarify my thoughts and position about him.
I have an even/odd theory about Bruckner. I believe that - beginning with the 3rd symphony - Bruckner's odd numbered symphonies are something of a reaction, or correction, to the previous even numbered symphony (symphonies 1 & 2 are pretty much the same thing). Think about it. The even numbered ones are always more experimental; more daring, but also more flawed. The odd numbered ones come closer to perfection, if also a tad more reigned in. To me (hint: this is an opinion, not a fact), the revised version of B8 is an even numbered symphony that tries to behave like an odd numbered one. I feel that the first version of B8 lives up to being a true, even numbered symphony: flawed; crazy; uninhibited; more mysterious - you name it.
I also said that I would take Bruckner 9 over Mahler 9. Excuse me, but I think that that's a pretty strong compliment for Bruckner; especially given just how much most Mahler buffs gush all over M9 (and thank goodness Bruckner never finished that finale!). I also feel that Bruckner's 7th is almost as good as Mahler's 7th. In the case of B6 vs. M6, I think that B6 actually beats M6 for the first three movements. But then Mahler's finale (M6) comes from behind to completely bury B6, in my view. I'm sure few Mahler buffs would argue against that opinion.
And as far as Mahler making all kinds of proclamations about Bruckner's "Te Deum" after having just performed it, here's the problem: Mahler nearly always spoke highly of ANY given composition that he happened to be working on at the time. Think I'm wrong about that? Read the biographies carefully; he ALWAYS did that. When he put on Wagner's "Rienzi", he called it the greatest opera ever written. That's just an example. Mahler ALWAYS threw himself 100% into any given work that he happened to be doing at the time. That's what I mean about his integrity. Also, in regards to the particular quote that John H. gives about Bruckner's "Te Deum", Mahler seems to be discussing the performance as much - or more - than the composition itself. Granted, those words reflect highly upon the work at hand. But let's not call an apple an orange.
Barry
-
Let's back up a bit and get our facts straight: I never said that I didn't like Bruckner. What I said was, was that I felt that there was something - quote - "fundamentally wrong", after hearing only the revised version of B8. Allow me to alter "fundamentally wrong", to fundamentally flawed. Once I heard the first version, I was dumb-struck: "aha, that explains it!" - I thought to myself. I've already admitted that the first version is a more "up and down", inconsistent work than the revised version. But I also think that it represents the TRUE Bruckner far more than the tired sounding, overly elephantine revised version does (Nowak or Haas - not much difference). You're welcome to disagree with me, but you won't change my mind on this topic. If you don't know the first version, then you have no right to tell me that I'm wrong. Know it first - then tell me that I'm full of molarchy.
Sorry to accuse you of not liking Bruckner Barry...that came out quite wrong.
Like I said in my previous post, I enjoy this discussion and your thoughts on B8 (I'm not out to change your mind)...I wish there was more discussion on this! Of course, this is a Mahler board, so within reason of course. But anyways...now I am eager to hear the 1st version of B8. I have the Inbal 1887 B8...I was just waiting for the right time to listen.
Now let's talk about my second favorite topic, after Mahler: me! Don't like my tone of voice? . . . neither do I. But I'm just tired of adulating the same-old line of Austro/German composers. Can't we move beyond this? Isn't this - at least, to some small degree - what Mahler was rebelling against? What about French composers? Czech composers? Polish? Russian? Spanish? Japanese? Finnish? Come on folks, it's a big, wide world out there! Nes pas? I'll make a proclamation that I'll bet some of you will just hate: I think that Debussy's "La Mer" is easily as great a work as ANY Austro/German symphony out there. Don't like that? . . . then you don't like me! Fair enough; we don't know each other. But I would much rather take De Falla's "Three Cornered Hat" as my "desert isle disc" (other than Mahler), than any Brahms or Bruckner symphony (maybe B9 would be my exception). I'm just being honest here. Now, let's return back to Bruckner, because I do have a right to clarify my thoughts and position about him.
LIke I said in my previous post...I also enjoy Debussy, Ives, Stravinsky and others. I think Debussy's L'Après-midi d'un faune is as valid as any Brahms or Beethoven...and I like it just as much as Mahler's 6th (if not better). I'll take Ives over Beethoven any day. It's just that I'm still excited over austro-German stuff as Russian, American and what not...I also listen to Beach Boys more than Mozart...Brian Wilson is amazing.
I have an even/odd theory about Bruckner. I believe that - beginning with the 3rd symphony - Bruckner's odd numbered symphonies are something of a reaction, or correction, to the previous even numbered symphony (symphonies 1 & 2 are pretty much the same thing). Think about it. The even numbered ones are always more experimental; more daring, but also more flawed. The odd numbered ones come closer to perfection, if also a tad more reigned in. To me (hint: this is an opinion, not a fact), the revised version of B8 is an even numbered symphony that tries to behave like an odd numbered one. I feel that the first version of B8 lives up to being a true, even numbered symphony: flawed; crazy; uninhibited; more mysterious - you name it.
I also said that I would take Bruckner 9 over Mahler 9. Excuse me, but I think that that's a pretty strong compliment for Bruckner; especially given just how much most Mahler buffs gush all over M9 (and thank goodness Bruckner never finished that finale!). I also feel that Bruckner's 7th is almost as good as Mahler's 7th. In the case of B6 vs. M6, I think that B6 actually beats M6 for the first three movements. But then Mahler's finale (M6) comes from behind to completely bury B6, in my view. I'm sure few Mahler buffs would argue against that opinion.
This is great stuff to read...thats why I said "why not discuss Bruckner"?
--Todd
-
Admittedly, Bruckner for me, too, represents a bit of an anomaly rather than standard fare in my listening patterns. Maybe I should start paying more attention to him, and stop just enjoying those vast works as a guilty pleasure when all I want to do is to be washed away in that big chorale sound of the Bruckner orchestra playing at full throttle. He is actually really fun to listen to, in the same way as Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, and one or two others can be. Although, honestly speaking, the most interesting thing thus far, really, that I've felt to be there about his music is that Boulez (of all people) decided he wanted to do the B8. Still, those openings lines can be so magnificent, the scherzos so tremendous, and the adagios seldom fit under a roof. Maybe I'm a closet Bruckner buff with EI issues?
???
In any case, Bruckner is great for showpiece purposes and so, besides Sibelius, he was bound to become my choice domain for experimenting with different conductors and orchestras (in Tchaikovsky thou shalt have no other conductors before Mravinsky). Yet, what I've discovered is that perhaps more than any other composer I know, he seems to be conductor-sensitive. I tried most that I could get my hands on (including the famous usual suspects by Jochum, Boehm, Klemperer, Giulini, Karajan, Wand, even Haitink, Ozawa, Harnoncourt, Nagano...), and now only three remain: Sinopoli, Abbado (an excellent 7th btw), and Boulez, in the descending order.
But nowadays I always take the opportunity to advertise what surely must be the greatest of them all :o : Abbado's new B4 with the Lucerne Festival Orchestra -- the inspiration and execution are out of this earth (http://e.lucernefestival.ch/platform/apps/shop/index.asp?MenuID=2849&Menu=13&ID=127&Item=10.6&page=detail&artId=4627), even if the work itself is perhaps the least appealing to me among all Bruckner symphonies.
PT
-
Darn that Barry--why does he so often turn out to be right, even when we disagree!
I have to admit that, in addition to Mahler's praising Bruckener's Te Deum, he did rave about Rienzi, and come to think of it, Barry said it exactly right when he pointed out that Mahler always threw himself completely into any production on which he was working--that he pretty much fell in love with the production of the moment.
Darn--why is Barry right so much?! But then, whenever I read an Amazon review, if Barry gives it 5 stars, it's an immediate "must have" for me. Perhaps we're all a bit at fault, for wanting to hear what he says.
John H
-
Thanks. Now, let me make something perfectly clear: I didn't mean a single thing that I wrote ;D except for one: I do greatly prefer the first version to the revised version. That's just a personal preference is all. Say, what do you guys think of my even/odd theory? (and I'm perfectly willing to discuss Bruckner - sort of).
Also, keep on enjoying those "guilty pleasures". That's what it's all about.
B.
-
Actually, I'll tell you why I get sore on this topic. I really feel that the best overall, completed symphony by Bruckner is the 7th. I like it far better than the 8th. I feel that its melodic invention is far superior, in all four movements. It's also much less long-winded, especially in the finale. It's not Bruckner's greatest finale (the 5th has that distinction, I feel), but it summarizes the work in a far more succinct and tidy fashion than the finale of B8 does. I also think that it has just as grand of an "apotheosis" type ending as B8 has. I love the scherzo, because it's like the "Ride Of The Valkyries" on steroids - or acid. The scherzo to B8 sounds like a wash machine that still has 20 minutes to go. The first movement is gorgeous, and I like the tribute to Wagner that is the second movement. Anyway, those are just some of my ridiculous thoughts.
I think that the next logical step after B7 is the first version of B8. As I said, two fundamentally versions exist of B8. Perhaps what's truly needed is a hybrid version - something along the lines of what the Oesser Edition does for B3.
-
Actually, I'll tell you why I get sore on this topic. I really feel that the best overall, completed symphony by Bruckner is the 7th. I like it far better than the 8th. I feel that its melodic invention is far superior, in all four movements. It's also much less long-winded, especially in the finale. It's not Bruckner's greatest finale (the 5th has that distinction, I feel), but it summarizes the work in far more succinct and tidy fashion than the finale of B8 does. I also think that it has just as grand of an "apotheosis" type ending as B8 has. I love the scherzo, because it's like the "Ride Of The Valkyries" on steroids - or acid. The scherzo to B8 sounds like a wash machine that still has 20 minutes to go. The first movement is gorgeous, and I like the tribute to Wagner that is the second movement. Anyway, those are just some of my ridiculous thoughts.
I think that the next logical step after B7 is the first version of B8. As I said, two fundamentally versions exist of B8. Perhaps what's truly needed is a hybrid version - something along the lines of what the Oesser Edition does for B3.
Agreed. Just as I love the Brahms third most, I like the Bruckner seventh best among all Bruckner symphonies. It has plenty of tuneful melodies, great, achingly beautiful moments (especially in II.) and the tight, but well structured Finale. Bruckner didn't have to revise it because it had everything at his first shot. It has quickly become my musical 'Love Affair' :D
John,
-
Say, what do you guys think of my even/odd theory?
Seems to work for Mahler as well, AFAIK.
(If not in terms of compositional perfection, then at least as far as my aesthetical preference goes.)
But if you ask me in Brahms it's just the other way around.
With Sibelius, it's a mixed bad.
I'm not familiar enough with Tchaikovsky's earliest accomplishments.
I might go with you in Dvorak but again don't know the early ones beyond fragments.
Mendelssohn: a mixed bag.
Schubert: Would work, were it not for his 8th (which is actually the 7th but then we'd have to qualify for the 9th/real 8th).
Schumann: Ultimately doesn't matter.
Haydn: Todd, didn't you just say you're collecting all 103+ of these on LPs? Howzit?
In LvB, works as well.
Mozart: Might work, as a matter of fact.
Kalevi Aho -- anyone?
pt
PT
-
Hmmmmm . . . in regards to Mahler, I've always thought that the narrative from one symphony, pretty much leads straight into the next one. But then again, you're certainly correct in a very obvious way. For example, M4 is obviously Mahler's smallest, most "neo-classical" symphony. That's certainly a reaction to his most gigantic symphony, the 3rd. And after the total victory that is the finale to his 5th symphony, Mahler gives us his most outwardly tragic symphony. So, in a very obvious sense, you're certainly right. I tend to think of Mahler symphonies as being divided into at least three distinct periods, with the 8th being the culmination of his first two periods (the so-called "Wunderhorn" period, and the equally so-called "Ruckert" period of middle symphonies). Interesting.
Barry
-
Barry is pretty right about B8 - the finale is too long and has a rather abrupt conclusion, and the scherzo is overlong. Boulez gets it right when he plays the finale at a cracking pace - very exciting! Have you tried that one Barry? My guilty pleasure is playing Sinopoli for I-III and Boulez for IV...
B9 (preferably Barenboim II though I listen to about 6 versions) is my favourite, but I have a penchant for B2 (in the revised version) - much better than B3 I think.
-
in regards to Mahler, I've always thought that the narrative from one symphony, pretty much leads straight into the next one.... I tend to think of Mahler symphonies as being divided into at least three distinct periods, with the 8th being the culmination of his first two periods.
Agreed. And yes, the 9th is really distinct, representing a very significant qualitative leap forward (if we are still allowed to use this term associated with metahistorical grand narratives..).
Alex, what's your favorite B2, btw?
PT
-
My guilty pleasure is playing Sinopoli for I-III and Boulez for IV...
Interesting. I thought that Sinopoli's first movement (B8) was outstanding. I don't remember his slow movement making a huge impression on me (but I can imagine him doing it very well). And I certainly agree about Boulez for the finale (Karajan/VPO is pretty, darn strong on the finale as well).
Barry
-
Now I'm real curious about the Boulez B8, and taking the Finale faster...perhaps I should get the Klemperer B8 and see what Barry is taking about, by comparing to a cut Finale to an uncut...of course I'm about to hear the 1st version of B8 as well...
--Todd
-
I think that Klemp's B8 could be very hard to find now, and might cost you pretty penny. There's also the very real risk that you might not like what he does. In fact, I'm almost willing to bet on that. Let's handle it privately: I'll include it in my shipment to you of you know what (more on that later, for the rest of you). So don't go hunting for it. Look for Sinopoli/Dresden or Haitink/VPO instead. Both of those may cost you as well.
B.
-
I think that Klemp's B8 could be very hard to find now, and might cost you pretty penny. There's also the very real risk that you might not like what he does. In fact, I'm almost willing to bet on that. Let's handle it privately: I'll include it in my shipment to you of you know what (more on that later, for the rest of you). So don't go hunting for it. Look for Sinopoli/Dresden or Haitink/VPO instead. Both of those may cost you as well.
B.
Thanks Barry...and I look forward to that you now what 8)
-
I think that Klemp's B8 could be very hard to find now, and might cost you pretty penny. There's also the very real risk that you might not like what he does. In fact, I'm almost willing to bet on that. Let's handle it privately: I'll include it in my shipment to you of you know what (more on that later, for the rest of you). So don't go hunting for it. Look for Sinopoli/Dresden or Haitink/VPO instead. Both of those may cost you as well.
B.
Thanks Barry...and I look forward to that you now what 8)
Barry,
Could you do the same favor to me, you know what? 8)
I've been searching for the Kempe B8th for years :-[
John,
-
I think that Klemp's B8 could be very hard to find now, and might cost you pretty penny. There's also the very real risk that you might not like what he does. In fact, I'm almost willing to bet on that. Let's handle it privately: I'll include it in my shipment to you of you know what (more on that later, for the rest of you). So don't go hunting for it. Look for Sinopoli/Dresden or Haitink/VPO instead. Both of those may cost you as well.
Is there a way for additional forum participants still to partake in this you know what? ;D
This reminds me of the reaction rumours of reception food always triggered amongst us in grad school, come guest lecture time, but this time I'd be glad to reciprocate in whichever way.
(I assume you are talking about Klemp & NPO, right?)
PT
-
Barry and John are right about the difficulty of finding Klemperer's B8 by EMI.
Amazon does have one copy available from a used seller.......for $75.00 plus shipping!
Don't fight ove it.
-
Amazon does have one copy available from a used seller.......for $75.00 plus shipping!
Via Amazon.co.uk you can get it for.......83.43 Sterling pounds (plus postage).
Via Amazon.de about the same, or.......102 euros (plus postage).
--> An opportunity for Barry to make many new friends, and quick. :P
PT
-
Here's my crazy ramblings about Bruckner...
Someone was kinda enough to burn me a copy many moons ago, but I still recently picked Klemperer's Bruckner 8th on LP at a book fair last month. I love this paragraph from the program notes: ...Additionally, upon thoughtful re-examination and study of Bruckner's score of the Eighth Symphony, Dr. Klemperer made certain cuts in the last movement. Wrote the maestro" "In the last movement of Bruckner's Eighth Symphony I have made cuts. In this instance it seems to me that the composer was so full of musical invention that he went too far. Brucknerians will object, and it is certainly not my intention that these cuts should be considered as a model for others. I can only take the responsibility for my own interpretation."
For me, his cuts don't quite work. But it is interesting. I admire a conductor for taking a stand now-and-then. Bernstein threw those weird glissandi type things in the first movement to the Mahler 9th (they work for me), Szell did that positively weird cut in the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra (bad idea!),but...why not? Take chances!
I've always loved Bruckner. He may not even be a so-called "great" composer, but I still love him. He's probably more innovative than we even realize. I credit him with being an early minimalist, even if minimalists don't!
Like Barry, I probably prefer the B9 over the M9. It's an hour of music that is sooooo seamless. I'll go in thinking, "I'll chill to this for a few minutes. Then, an hour later, I want to start it going again." I thought I once read a quote from Daniel Barenboim saying that when he first heard the B9 scherzo, he thought it was Shostakovich. I don't quite hear THAT connection, but it's a visionary work. I love that passage in the last movement that sounds like Bruckner stole it from Ralph Vaughan Williams Tallis Fantasia, even though Bruckner obviously wrote it first. Like Barry said, thank goodness he never finished it.
I have a small point to quibble with Barry's (already described as half-serious) observation that Mahler couldn't have been that into Bruckner. I really wonder if anyone from that time period really understood his music because the editions had so many culprits screwing things up. What was that guy's name, (Schalk?,) who changed the massive chord at the climax of the B9? No one really caught if for years. Similarly, the B5 was also screwed with. Ideally, I'd love to see a conductor from Bruckner's time write in a journal or something, "I thought I understood this Bruckner, but these passages just don't seem true to him." That's why I admire Klemperer's decision to go with a cut. I doesn't sound right to me, but he's taking a stand. His B4, 5, 6, and 7 are among the best, so it's not like he's ill-informed on Bruckner. I'd like to hear Klemperer's B9 someday.
Bruckner may not have even understood his own works. Sometimes his first impressions are best, other times, a later view seems better. It's really too bad he got in the middle of the infamous Brahms vs. Wagner debate. For me, he's pretty far removed from either. But I always thought it was an interesting point someone made that the B5 has practically that same instrumentation as the Brahms Second, just larger numbers. Yet, he always gets the Wagnerian tag glued to him because of his late works.
Last unorthodox thought...
Perhaps we have only in the past 50 or 60 years seen the true advocates of his music come out. It's probably hyperbole, but if given a choice of a ride in a time machine to hear Furtwangler do Bruckner or Skrowaczewski today, I'd pick Skrowaczewski.
-
I credit [Bruckner] with being an early minimalist...
Now that's an interesting way of putting it about someone who gave elephantine a new meaning in music and pushed the whole form to its breaking point...
Other than that, not so crazy ramblings but quite nice ones. I don't have a well thought-out position on cuts, apart from a basic tendency to view the original work as untouchable, including the much more frequently manipulated repetitions. But would cuts be more acceptable than alterations? On the other hand, not too long ago adaptations, arrangements, transpositions, orchestrations and reorchestrations, and even fundamental reworkings were pretty much part of the norm in performance practice and compositional practice, all the way from Bach to Mahler, to name but two examples big for our purposes (Mahler, for instance, had absolutely zero scruples in touching people's works, even with a seriuosly heavy hand -- just see what he did with Schumann, for instance). And I kind of trust anything Klemperer decided to do, at least from the interest point of view, even if he himself could drastically change his position on the issue a little later on. At the very least we can say that nothing he did was ever for motivated by anything other than absolute respect for the composer and the work, something in which the personality of the conductor was never to interfere in any manner or form.
And certainly we can agree that if anyone, it is Bruckner who has suffered maybe most in the hands of unscrupulous tinkerers. But it was his own insecure personality that made him so vulnerable, too. Could you imagine a Beethoven or a Schoenberg letting a student or a fan rewrite his piece after an unfavorable response from the public or the Viennes critics (some special lot they were, too)? (Well, Beethoven did, in fact, replacing an entire movement at his publisher's behest.)
PT
-
It's probably hyperbole, but if given a choice of a ride in a time machine to hear Furtwangler do Bruckner or Skrowaczewski today, I'd pick Skrowaczewski.
I totally agree with that thought. First off, other than a very few select recordings, Furtwaengler's Bruckner really isn't that wonderful. Second, Skrowaczewski was (still is?) fabulous at Bruckner. Dave Hurwitz told me that one his greatest early musical experiences was seeing Skrowaczewski conduct B8 someplace on the east coast (don't remember what orch.).
I can't quite hang with the concept of Bruckner being a pre-minimalist, as there are too many disparate elements for me: German medieval music; German "gothic" music; Bach-like counterpoint; Bach-like chorales; Schubert; Wagner; Austrian laendler. For me, this is what's flawed about the finale to B8 (as well as other movements): too much reaching around to various ideas and disparate elements. That's just me.
Barry
-
It's probably hyperbole, but if given a choice of a ride in a time machine to hear Furtwangler do Bruckner or Skrowaczewski today, I'd pick Skrowaczewski.
I totally agree with that thought. First off, other than a very few select recordings, Furtwaengler's Bruckner really isn't that wonderful. Second, Skrowaczewski was (still is?) fabulous at Bruckner. Dave Hurwitz told me that one his greatest early musical experiences was seeing Skrowaczewski conduct B8 someplace on the east coast (don't remember what orch.).
I can't quite hang with the concept of Bruckner being a pre-minimalist, as there are too many disparate elements for me: German medieval music; German "gothic" music; Bach-like counterpoint; Bach-like chorales; Schubert; Wagner; Austrian laendler. For me, this is what's flawed about the finale to B8 (as well as other movements): too much reaching around to various ideas and disparate elements. That's just me.
Barry
It's funny you should mention the finale to the B8, because that would be my prime example of inspiration. The very opening of Adams' Nixon in China reminds me of the quiet music near the end of the B8.
I may have mentioned this before, but Skrowaczewski is doing the B8 here in St. Louis this Oct. and I think I'll go both nights. I'm psyched.
-
Just for the all the reasons that you bring up, Herr Bugala, I'm beginning to think that we should consider Bruckner's first versions of his various symphonies as being the most authentic. All this business of versions and editions gets very complicated, very quickly. I have an acquaintance who considers himself to be a Bruckner scholar - has gone over to Vienna and looked at various autographed scores, etc. - who strongly thinks that the various Schalk versions should be taken quite seriously. That's why I feel that it's sort of shame that Mahler didn't take up Bruckner's cause more strongly - he could have worked miracles with those scores. Mahler performed the Bruckner 5th several times. I'm willing to bet that he started with the basic Schalk version, and then added some of his own additions and alterations to the orchestration. I'll bet it was incredible, but we'll never know.
Anyway, all of this is why I'm quite serious when I say that perhaps what's truly needed, is some sort of hybrid version of the 8th symphony. If you look at the Oesser edition of the 3rd symphony, it's clearly the best. It's not nearly so truncated and "sanitized" as the final version of B3. Nor is it ridiculously long-winded like the first version of B3. The Oesser edition truly captures the best of both worlds. We could use something along those lines for B8, in my totally un-humble opinion.
Barry
-
Hybrids could be fine. I'm not a big Solti fain, but if I recall in his memoirs, he suggested doing some sort of composite of the M10. Of course, he never lived to do it. But as someone who never touched the M10 beforehand, I could appreciate him trying to "work it out" that way.
For me, I'm inconsistent. I favor Bruckner's first thoughts on his 1st Symphony, for instance, but prefer his later thoughts on the 4th and 8th.
-
Listened to the Bruckner 5 for the second time recently, a recording of Celibidache (sorry--don't have the other info on hand)...love this work as much as the B8. Don't have the words yet to describe my process with the work, but I'm brand spankin' new with Bruckner!
--Todd
-
Listened to the Bruckner 5 for the second time recently, a recording of Celibidache (sorry--don't have the other info on hand)...love this work as much as the B8. Don't have the words yet to describe my process with the work, but I'm brand spankin' new with Bruckner!
--Todd
My favorite Bruckner symphony in fact. Try the Sinopoli/Dresden recording if you have a chance (on DG); it's nothing short of stupendous. A near-cosmic experience and to be honest that's not possible elsewhere in Bruckner without some self-suggestion. One of Sinopoli's more interesting recordings and to me maybe his most successful one (more gorgeously played & recorded than his famed B8 and the reading is very fascinating and effective, plus the work is more complete and better manageable and as such much easier to relate to). After that one becomes a Dreden fan (assuming we are all Sinopoli fans already as we should).
PT :)
-
I haven't heard the Sinopoli, but my current favorites are Barenboim/CSO/DG, Thielemann/MPO/DG, Klemperer/PO/EMI, and Karajan/BPO/DG. It is a great, monumental symphony, particularly the Finale, but only really good conductors can bring it off.
John,
-
Thanks for the recommends everyone!
I'll be listening to more Bruckner today...oh, and I started on the F minor Mass...another "wow" :D
--Todd
-
Bruckner's 4th is amazing (Muti/BPO/EMI)...my third time through it now...can't wait to hear the original score from 1874, after I get to know this later version.
--Todd
-
Bruckner's my composer no.3, after The Dude and Ludwig-baby.
I started with 2 and 3, because that's what the local record library (in Hendon,N.W.London) had in the early 60s. And 2 has remained a firm fave. And that old ('44) performance of Eugen's brother Georg Ludwig Jochum has stayed special despite the poor recording (but then i have a yen for poor recordings). It's all warm and gorgeous.
No out-and-out faves among the works. the big flaws, like the premature 'ending' early in 4;IV, are part of what Bruckner's about. Perfection is not of this world.
I like bruckner's strength, grandeur, power, orgasm-quotient, melody, seriousness, bounce, piling-up, crescendi and cymbal-clash.
Surely the minimalism is about his tendency to repeat (where Mahler is constant [the only constant] in shifting and developing. And his four-aquareness, which gives me a kind of comfort amidst a lot of changeability and restlessness in the world. Well, my world.
His mine is narrower than Gus's, but he found an awful lot of gold.
Comparing by number an amusingly-silly game, B only wins at 8, and it's,for me, a draw at 3 and maybe 9. And I don't think B. produced a dud - I like 0 and 00 quita a lot.
Ivor
-
I been listening to Classical for about 7 years before I discovered Bruckner, simply because the Musical Encyclopedia I was using wrote negative things about his music. The first thing I heard by him was his 5th conducted by Christian Thelemann. As is usually the case, the scherzo first got my attention, but later I completely fell in love with the finally as well. My favorite recording of the work is by Wand NDR SO 1989, The bass is unbelievably robust.
-
I've been listening to Bruckner's 9th the last few weekends. This symphony is still rather new, and part of the fun is learning the deep structure...the work is the gift that keeps on giving.
The Colin Davis/LSO/LSO Live B9 is becoming a fast favorite (sounds vulnerable, but raw with power)...also like the Guilini/VPO/DG and the Furtwangler. Today I'm going to play the Baronboim/BPO/Teltec.
--Todd
-
I've heard mixed about the Barenboim Bruckner cycle, mostly complaints that the 7th is live unlike the other recordings. I heard a rumor that the late Wand Berliner is actually a complete cycle but that RCA didn't release it all like the Cologne Radio Preformances.
-
Todd, I'd have hoped you got another packet of tapes, 'coded' for your innocent ear.
Ivor
-
Todd, I'd have hoped you got another packet of tapes, 'coded' for your innocent ear.
Ivor
I sure did man...many thanks!!!!
--Todd
-
I continue my journey with Bruckner...some recordings are so amazing I have to mention some of the stand outs:
B7 Barenboim/CSO and Tintner/RSNO...man, I think the 7th is becoming my favorite Bruckner...what a sound world, and these recordings really uplift...fine brass.
B8 Wand/BPO/RCA...perhaps my fav Bruckner recording at this time. Also am impressed with Guilini/VPO/DG, a totally different account and wonderful contrast with the Wand.
B6 Barenboim/CSO...wow! What an Adagio!!!!
B2 and B5 Tintner/RSNO...glorious, glorious, glorious and etc.
B4 Barenboim/CSO...my heavens, another knockout listen...I think this cycle is the best I've heard out of the CSO.
B9 Guilini/VPO/DG and Davis/LSO/LSO Live...inredible experiences both...stunning.
My next stop is the Jochum cycle, which I just found on LP the other day...excited to get into this.
--Todd
-
I found the Celibidache box not too long ago for a great price and fell in love with it....in fact, now whenever I listen to just about any other recording my immediate thought is "why the heck is this being played so fast?"
If you can find any of his later recordings (some broadcasts are on operashare) they're definitely worth a listen - especially the 7th.
-
The Celi set is interesting because it usually doesn't feel slow to me.
Bruckner is one of the most interesting composers because of how tempi can be shaped. Carl Schuricht (sp?) did a Bruckner 8th with Vienna that I happened to like before I sold it during some lean times, and it only takes something like 72 mins. Celi does another interesting performance that is something like 100 mins. long! Weird, wild stuff!
-
I can tolerate Celibidache type tempos in the faster movements. That's because Bruckner has a lot of inner stuff that are like the gears in an analog clock. That alone enables the music to keep itself propelled at slow tempi. But I also think that he absolutely destroys all sense of line or melody in the slow movements. How do the adagio movements benefit by making them into Largos? I don't get it. I prefer Klemperer's way, which is to take faster movements a bit slower than usual, but keep the Adagios up to a more flowing tempo.
Barry
-
For now I only heard the Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth.
The B8 and B9 are just simply glorious, but I have a hard time with B4.....the first 2 movements are great no doubt. But the latter 2 movements don't make sense to me.
Am I the only one who feels that way?
-
For now I only heard the Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth.
The B8 and B9 are just simply glorious, but I have a hard time with B4.....the first 2 movements are great no doubt. But the latter 2 movements don't make sense to me.
Am I the only one who feels that way?
Well the Fourth is strange as it doesn't have a normal slow movement - but you've obviously got past that! I think the hunting scherzo is one of his best (inspired by a vision of a medieval castle with knights riding out), and Robert Simpson opined that the finale is just a series of adagio episodes.
Celibidache's EMI version is perhaps his best recording here. For a 'normal' version try BPO/Wand or VPO/Boehm, and for a fast one go for Philh. O/Klemperer [sic]. But I have found the Fourth less interesting in recent years, preferring the 2nd, 5th and 6th.
-
Well....I just feel that the last 2 movements don't flow well with the first 2, especially with the finale.
I have the old Wand with NWR and the Tennstedt/BPO coupled with B8 with LPO. I have been looking for the Bohm/BPO B4 for ages!
-
I love some of Bruckner's symphonies, my first was B9 in the first Karajan recording on DG (analog, now out of print I think). I think B2 is a gem of a symphony that should be better known
As for B8--I FULLY agree with those above who say the finale is WAY too long and drawn out, I have never heard a performance that makes a perfect case for it. And I also agree that the First Movement is the best (although I do like the 'regular' version of it)
A few years ago, I had a reveleation:
The Jesus Lopez-Cobos recording of Bruckner 8 on Telarc---WOW, one of the most cogent presentations of this music I have found. Give it a shot.
-
Hello Bruckner lovers. If any of you who may own the out-of-print Barenboim/Chicago (on DGG) CD set would like to exchange favors please contact me. For Bruckner and Mahler, I believe it could be interesting for some of you.
I own the LPs of the Barenboim and have looked for the CD versions in various places, to no avail.
Thank you for your consideration.
-
I have the Barenboim LPs. Since I prefer the audio of LPs, I have no need for the CDs. However, I do see the individual CDs on Ebay at times, and there are CDs of individual recordings with CSO on Amazon as well. I've never seen a box set of the CSO recordings. The only box set I've seen is the BPO cycle.
-
Listened to the Bruckner 9 today on my birthday (after listening to Mahler 8 in the morning), the Guilini/VPO/DG one...
What a symphony this is...and it is fast becoming my favorite with a number 9 attached to it. As much as I obsess over Mahler 9, the Bruckner 9 is right there too, perhaps just an inch more :o
--Todd
-
Listened to the Bruckner 9 today on my birthday (after listening to Mahler 8 in the morning), the Guilini/VPO/DG one...
What a symphony this is...and it is fast becoming my favorite with a number 9 attached to it. As much as I obsess over Mahler 9, the Bruckner 9 is right there too, perhaps just an inch more :o
--Todd
Congratulations on your birthday! :-*
If you are falling in love with B9th, make sure you try the complete 4 movts. version. The Finale is HEAVENLY (even more so than III.)!!
John