Bruckner's Abbey

[Cato]

GMG member @Foxandpeng mentioned elsewhere that he was interested in people's reactions to Bruckner's works: here is an excerpt from an unpublished novel with something of interest perhaps on that basis.

"...when (at age 11) Tom heard the Fourth Symphony of Anton Bruckner for the first time, a section of the symphony's first movement, bars 334 to 350, suddenly conjured forth an image of himself as a very small child watching a B-52 meander through the clouds on its way to the base.  Exactly why and how the music of a 19th-century Austrian composer should resurrect this memory in his soul remained a mystery that he often contemplated and marveled at.  Strange that such a death-dealing aircraft could be linked to the poetry of sounds! 

[Cato]

From the same book, but concerning a different symphony, but the same comment from @Foxandpeng...

GMG member @Foxandpeng mentioned elsewhere that he was interested in people's reactions to Bruckner's works: here is an excerpt from an unpublished novel with something of interest perhaps on that basis.

"...a melody from Tom's musical memory began playing, as he read the obituary...

The melody was a somber funeral march, complete with muffled drumbeats.  The important thing, however, was that the second part of the march rose somewhat, and seemed to aspire toward hope, or at least to counterbalance the tragedy of the opening notes.  It was from the Sixth Symphony of Anton Bruckner, from the Adagio, the second movement.  But Tom also remembered that Bruckner brings this theme back toward the end of the movement, in a shortened form, and the little tragic funeral march becomes involved in a short brass chorale that softens the lament, which then leads to a dialogue in the strings, an up-and-down debate, with the upwardness of the music winning gently at the end, the two flutes and a single clarinet slowly, benignly, smilingly voicing their opinion that all is well, that the turmoil and sadness heard earlier have been dissolved into nothingness..."

 

[Cato]

Gennady Rozhdestvensky and the U.S.S.R. Symphony Orchestra: the Original Version of the Bruckner Third Symphony!

[André]

Yesterday I listened to the 3rd (1877 version) and the 6th symphonies performed by the Aachen Symphony Orchestra under Markus Bosch.




Bosch and the Aacheners have recorded all 11 symphonies on the Coviello label. I have nos 1-9. All were recorded live in the same venue, a church in Aachen. Never the best way to present them IMO, although when the listeners were present physically I suppose that any playing or acoustic deficiencies were compensated by the sense of occasion and the subliminal plus of being in an environment dear to the composer.

However for some reason these recordings are quite inconsistent in their approach. That is especially so in the case of these two performances.

In the 3rd Bosch opts for the 'middle ground' among the work's versions. The original contained all kinds of musical clauses, sub-clauses, asides, parentheses, footnotes etc that contributed to make it a very diffuse, formless and aimless score. That's how it comes across in some recordings anyway. Not all of them though: put a clear-headed conductor in charge and lots of things that raised question marks fall into place. Not everything though: Bruckner was absolutely right to rework the score. That's where the 1873 version really shines: everything is still majestic, imposing yet purposeful and direct. Among those versions I favour for the 1873 version, Haitink (esp. his first recording with the COA) and Kubelik take pride of place. Bosch does not dislodge them. Acoustics may be a factor: the strings often recede way back in the aural image in those huge climaxes. Without a firm, assertive string body the sonic picture is prone to congealing. Or maybe the numbers are just too low (not enough string instruments). That's strike number one. In the 3rd symphony Bosch adopts sensible but often leisurely tempi with a laidback overall direction. IOW his conducting lacks firmness. Strike number two. There is no 3rd strike. The defects of this particular performance may be linked to the occasion (esp. the venue).

Then the 6th: here Bosch conducts the fastest first movement of all but one or two among 100+ performances listed in the Bruckner discography (around 13:30 vs an average of 17 minutes). The slow movement is par for the course (15 mins vs a range of 12-18), the scherzo is fine but rather soft-edged - this particular bear just coming out of his cave after hibernating. The finale is smartly paced but the acoustics and the unassertive strings rob it of a fraction of its impact. Overall, a very fine performance, but not rising above the 2nd tier.

Next in this Bosch/Aachen series will come a 4th with slowish tempi and a 5th with definitely fast ones.

[Cato]

Yesterday I listened to the 3rd (1877 version) and the 6th symphonies performed by the Aachen Symphony Orchestra under Markus Bosch.




Bosch and the Aacheners have recorded all 11 symphonies on the Coviello label. I have nos 1-9. All were recorded live in the same venue, a church in Aachen. Never the best way to present them IMO, although when the listeners were present physically I suppose that any playing or acoustic deficiencies were compensated by the sense of occasion and the subliminal plus of being in an environment dear to the composer.

However for some reason these recordings are quite inconsistent in their approach. That is especially so in the case of these two performances.

In the 3rd Bosch opts for the 'middle ground' among the work's versions. The original contained all kinds of musical clauses, sub-clauses, asides, parentheses, footnotes etc that contributed to make it a very diffuse, formless and aimless score. That's how it comes across in some recordings anyway. Not all of them though: put a clear-headed conductor in charge and lots of things that raised question marks fall into place. Not everything though: Bruckner was absolutely right to rework the score. That's where the 1873 version really shines: everything is still majestic, imposing yet purposeful and direct. Among those versions I favour for the 1873 version, Haitink (esp. his first recording with the COA) and Kubelik take pride of place. Bosch does not dislodge them. Acoustics may be a factor: the strings often recede way back in the aural image in those huge climaxes. Without a firm, assertive string body the sonic picture is prone to congealing. Or maybe the numbers are just too low (not enough string instruments). That's strike number one. In the 3rd symphony Bosch adopts sensible but often leisurely tempi with a laidback overall direction. IOW his conducting lacks firmness. Strike number two. There is no 3rd strike. The defects of this particular performance may be linked to the occasion (esp. the venue).

Then the 6th: here Bosch conducts the fastest first movement of all but one or two among 100+ performances listed in the Bruckner discography (around 13:30 vs an average of 17 minutes). The slow movement is par for the course (15 mins vs a range of 12-18), the scherzo is fine but rather soft-edged - this particular bear just coming out of his cave after hibernating. The finale is smartly paced but the acoustics and the unassertive strings rob it of a fraction of its impact. Overall, a very fine performance, but not rising above the 2nd tier.

Next in this Bosch/Aachen series will come a 4th with slowish tempi and a 5th with definitely fast ones.

Many thanks for the review!

I have visited the Romanesque cathedral of Aachen several times: if that is where the performance took place, I can understand why the acoustics are problematic, whether it be in the Carolingian or the Gothic section.