Well, with all these things it - sadly in a way - just comes down to price. If Karajan's was four times the price of Jochum's - like it was until very recently - then Jochum's it'd be.

Hello all,

at the moment, I enjoy Bruckner`s late symphonies very much, especially the 8th and the 9th.

My favorite conductor of these works is Günter Wand. Since I´ve listened to his live recordings with the NDR-Sinfonieorchester on RCA, I think Jochum and Klemperer did something wrong.

Using the correct tempi, Wand is imo able to make the complex achitecture of the composition manifest, and so the music´s structure becomes clearer for the listener.

Btw, the sound of the Wand recording ist much better than Jochum´s Bruckner on DG. DG recordings are tonally seldom excellent, it´s a shame.

Best wishes

Manfred

Dear Manfred,

I had no idea that Klemperer left a recording of either the Eighth or the Ninth. I am aware of a lovely recording from him of the Sixth, and he made a recording of the Seventh that followed an edition other than Bruckner's own urtext, perhaps forty years after these editorial adjustements by other hands had been discredited. It is probably fair to say in that case that Klemperer showed faulty judgement in his choice of edition, but I would be exceptionally pleased to have the chance to listen to the great man's way with the Eighth and Ninth, which are my two favourites! Otherwise I can more or less take or leave Bruckner, at least on records.

Kindest regards from Fredrik

Hello Fredrik,

I have a recording of Bruckner`s Eighth on vinyl - EMI 1 C 191-02 259/60, Otto Klemperer conducts the New Philharmonia Orchestra. It is a very fine recording, the music is involving and the recording excellent, but I think, Wand is nearer to Bruckner than Klemperer.

All the best

Manfred

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
I had no idea that Klemperer left a recording of either the Eighth or the Ninth

No, it's a new one on me too!

quote:

Otherwise I can more or less take or leave Bruckner, at least on records.

Nos 5 - 9 form a fairly regular part of my listening, but I could live without the 1st four. I usually lose interest after the first 376,000,000,000,000,000 bars of the third!

EW

I don't know, the first is firm favourite of mine, thought not always quite done justice on disc. I wish Oramo would record, the thrilling reading he gave in Edinburgh last summer would probably be enough to win over any sceptic (though probably not via the shoddy job the BBC's engineers did when taping it).

I'm also very attached to the 3rd with its Wagnerian references (particularly when conducted by Knappertsbusch, himself a fine Wagnerian).

But I'm surprised to see the 4th off your list of essentials, granted too often the finale can underwhelm, but when a conductor gets it right.....


regards, Tam

quote:

Originally posted by Tam:
But I'm surprised to see the 4th off your list of essentials, granted too often the finale can underwhelm, but when a conductor gets it right.....

To be honest, I find the 4th quite irritating. Bruckner is a composer I had to grow into; when I first listened to his symphonies I thought he was a bombastic old windbag who had to keep saying the same things over and over again (a bit like me! ). It wasn't until I heard Barenboim's 9th (the BPO one, not the Chicago) and Karajan's bloody astonishing 8th with the VPO that I got him. Even now though, although I'd defend every last bar of the 8th, the 2nd movement of the 9th still smacks of bombast, and unless it's very carefully handled so does the 1st movement of the 5th - although the finale is nothing short of a miracle! The 4th sounds like it was written as an exercise - a sort of Brucknerian pastiche by a lesser composer, without any depth or substance. My life would be the better for never having to sit through it again!

When Bruckner's at his best - e.g. the slow movement of the 8th - time stands still; when he's not quite there he's bloody interminable, and the 4th is a sentence!

EW

I am glad that Klemperer essaued the Eight in the studio. Something for me to watch for in future.

It used to be that the Fourth was regarded as the entrance way to Bruckner Symphonies, though I found it not so. I have a recording of it under Bohm in Dresden [the premiere recording for HMV in Dresden at a time in the '30s when it was not a commercial proposition], and also once had the Decca VPO recording under him, which made a fair advocacy of the music, but the finale does not live up to the first three movements in my experience.

The Fifth I had in two Furtwangler recordings, and the '30s premiere under Bohm. I still have the Furtwangler Salzburg one with the VPO, which is a harrowing listen for me, and I still like the best, the Bohm premiere essay. The Sixth remains an enigma for me. Sometimes I think I like it the best...

The Seventh strkes me as the most accessible, and Kna does rather well in Salzburg [again with the VPO] in 1949 {Music and Arts, USA].

But the Eighth and Ninth seem to engagae me with a rather distressing directness. I don't have recording of the Eighth at all at the moment, but I have the Ninth under Bruno Walter [on CBS], which is slightly soft grained, but works beautifully in terms of clarity, and fine judgemment if not the last element of pure fire, which is part of the concept of the music, it seems to me.

Again this is purely personal, and there is no reason to take my word for it. I am after all someone who loves Bach and Haydn above all. Bruckner and Bach share counterpoint, and with Haydn, Bruckner shares the phenomenon of being able to take the most apparently simple ideas and make them sublime. Neither Beeethoven, nor Brahms had this ability in the same degree [except in the first movement of the Fifth Symphony of Beethoven]. Both managed the compression of Haydn, but both were more extravagant in their use of prolific melody. Haydn would often develope one tune, even in Sonata form [the second subject being entirely derived from the first], which takes true genius. Bruckner often manages the same sort of trick, though without Haydn's concision! Like Bach he could take a basic germ of a melody and turn it into the longest of themes. Bach wrote the longest melodies in the history of music...

ATB from Fredrik

PS: A thought to provoke thought: Was the most wonderful slow movement before Bruckner actually the Largo from Haydn's 88th Symphony in G? Not long in time duration but cosmic in its implications...

Fredrik -

I know this is something I shouldn't admit to in public, but I've never heard Haydn's 88th! Something to look out for in future. My knowledge of his symphonies is shameful - but there are even some of the early string quartets I haven't heard!

Back to Bruckner and ilk - as a general rule, can one ever really trust any composer who never wrote a violin concerto??!

EW

Dear EW,

My relationship with Bruckner's music has been very long, and only partly fruitful. I love the Eighth and Ninth! I used to joke with a friend that if he had written a concerto it would have been for a very large organ, so it would balance his orchestra!

Another side of Bruckner is his religeous choral music, which seems completely different to the Symphonies. I have yet to find a good recording of these peces, for all that. I played in the orchstra on two occasions in the Te Deum, and unfortunately for me the biggest memory of it was counting like mad so that the ostinato bass-line [repeating by the bar for 8, 16 or even 32 bars at a time!] kept the harmony moving in the right places! I ended up finding it a difficult piece to enjoy as a result. The shape seemed calculated rather than organic or somehow felt or inspired...

If anyone has a recomendation for the choral works beside the Te Deum [I have Mehta's VPO recording on Decca which serves but is very weighty], I would be glad to read it.

Altogether his music really is an enigma for me in most cases.

ATB from Fredrik

I feel a bit like that about Mahler. Some days I get it, others he just irritates me.

On the Music of Mahler: I have really only an affection for the Adagietto from the Fifth Symphony! I am sure that this is my problem rather than the music itself, but it has actually become more accute over thirty years...

ATB from Fredrik

I like the songs more than the symphonies - I like the Ruckert lieder and Das Lied von der Erde. The symphonies... I blow both hot and cold. I'm sure I don't like the 8th though!!

I couldn't do without Mahler. Even in the last couple of days I've been embarking on an enjoyable survey of Barbirolli's recordings, and wonderfully passionate they are too (and remarkably fresh, given how many other recordings I have). I don't think I'd want to be without several recordings of any (though the 8th is rarely brought off well). The only one I can do without is the completion of the 10th, largely because it has never felt fully like Mahler to me (and Cooke himself conceded that was not the point).

As far as Das Lied von der Erde goes, it is surely one of the symphonies in all but name, indeed, he only didn't title it his ninth symphony out of superstition. It's a real shame that so many conductors miss it when surveying them.


regards, Tam

The beginning of Mahler`s First is imo very impressive, it is like a beautiful, magical sunrise. The fourth movement is extremly stirring. As a young man - many years ago - I listened to it very loudly when I was angry or frustrated, afterwards I felt much better.

Back to Bruckner: His music is very special and is not always suitable, the early symphonies are also not my cup of tea, but the 3rd movement of the Eighth, the final of the 4th movement and the 3rd movement of the Ninth are the peak of romantic music for me.

Best wishes

Manfred

quote:

Originally posted by Tam:
As far as Das Lied von der Erde goes, it is surely one of the symphonies in all but name

Yes, I read that too, although I've never quite understood what makes a cycle of unusually long orchestral songs a symphony!?? I rather like it though, whatever it is!

The other symphonies I keep changing my mind about. Objectively they're imaginative, superbly orchestrated, often very beautiful; but there's something a bit plasticy and... um ... well, not quite kitsch, but something similar about them? I don't know! They have their moments - the 3rd I adore, the finale of the 6th is amazing and the 9th is a rather morbid sort of peach! But the 4th is poo and I'd like to think he was ill when he wrote the 8th. I know it's not fashionable these days to admit to purely subjective preferences in classical music, but damn it all perhaps I just don't always like it! That said, I can see the attraction.

EW

I take your point - in much the same way the 8th isn't really a symphony either (and, at the end of the day, nomenclature isn't important next to whether or not it entertains).

I'm a big fan of the 3rd (particularly of Haitink's various readings, the latest of which has just been issued on the Chicago Symphony's new label and is very fine, though I wish they'd used a horn in the 3rd movement rather than a trumpet).

I'm fond of the 4th, though I think it too is extremely tough to execute. The finale was originally bound for the 3rd (and I sometimes wonder why nobody attempts a performance of the 3rd with the finale of the 4th), and is rarely pulled off well but when done so it has a tantalising beauty (otherwise the movement is an anti-climax). I'm rather fond of the sleigh bells too. You're not alone though, last summer I was at a performance at the Edinburgh festival from Rattle and the BPO and a number of the sponsors didn't seem to feel the need to be quiet for it.

The 8th is trickier still. One of the things I think about Mahler is that he had a genius for orchestration and in particular creating wonderful textures. The 8th, with it's absurd forces, was in some regards the summit of this - I'll always love it for the sheer scale of those opening chords. But even I'd admit its far from perfect, and it's sprawling nature makes it tricky to perform well (I understand those who want nothing to do with it).

I not sure what's wrong with subjective preferences - if we all liked the same things, there would be next to no point in having this forum (or, at least, it wouldn't be very interesting).

regards, Tam

geting back to mahler again, one of the pieces they did at the recent ojai festival was "songs of the earth." astounding piece! i am aware most musicologists view it as his actual 9th sym. - i think you have to view that in the context of his work leading up to it to see that - not really anything else to call it (too bad, though, he still didn't beat the nine-symphony curse). in any case, that's basically all he composed, symphonies. i am always amazed when i hear the 9th - he took it to the wall on that one, making romantic music impossible after writing the greatest romantic work ... everyting after mahler's 9th was post-romantic. he's certainly my favorite romantic composer (as long as beethoven can be "classical") - i always get something out of sitting through a mahler piece. mahler adoration is not universal, though! certainly not for everyone. i agree w/ tam that there just aren't many good renditions of the 8th. i had the good fortune to see it live some years ago, it's not done often for obvious reasons, and that was a very good experience.

bruckner for me is problematic. i do have all his symphonies, and quite like some of them (or i should say, some movements), and love to hear him live, but there is something odd about his composing. i've wondered whether he should have been an opera composer, as he wrote well for voices (his mass in e is perhaps my favorite piece), and was certainly able to create dramatic music, but he was completely (in his mind in any case) in wagner's shadow.

quote:

Originally posted by fidelio:
"songs of the earth." astounding piece! i am aware most musicologists view it as his actual 9th sym. - i think you have to view that in the context of his work leading up to it to see that - not really anything else to call it (too bad, though, he still didn't beat the nine-symphony curse). in any case, that's basically all he composed, symphonies.

That's the only reason I can see for calling it a symphony: when a composer of symphonies writes an orchestral song cycle then that too must be a symphony!! Far more symphonic pieces don't get labeled as symphonies though; I've never heard Brahms's Violin Concerto referred to as his 'real' Symphony No 5, and the piece is basically a symphony with a substantial violin part!!

If Brahm's Violin Concerto shows symphonic traits what about the Second Piano Concerto!. If that is not a symphony with obligato piano, I don't know what is! I love it in any case...

ATB from Fredrik