The *18* Bruckner Symphonies

[MishaK]

Just a few days ago, I received the newly reissued Barenboim/CSO Bruckner cycle that I have had for many years on LP and which is one of my favorites. Thankfully, unlike the Sony/BMG box set reissues, the new DG/Decca sets have extensive liner notes. This particular one includes an interesting essay which refers to a suggestion by the Bruckner researcher Juan Cahis that one should consider Bruckner to have actually written 18 symphonies, given the many complete reworks of his symphonies. His listing is as follows:

1. F minor Symphony (1863)
2. 1st Symphony D minor, Linz Version (1865/66)
3. Symphony in D minor No. "0" (1869)
4. 2nd Symphony C minor, first version (1872)
5. 3rd Symphony D minor, first version (1873)
6. 4th Symphony E flat major, first version (1874)
7. 5th Symphony B flat major (1875-78)
8. 2nd Symphony C minor, second version (1875-77)
9. 3rd Symphony D minor, second version (1876/77)
10. 4th Symphony E flat major, second version (1878)
11. 4th Symphony E flat major, third version (1878/80)
12. 6th Symphony A major (1880/81)
13. 7th Symphony E major (1881-83)
14. 8th Symphony C minor, first version (1884-87)
15. 3rd Symphony D minor, third version (1888/89)
16. 8th Symphony C minor, second version (1889/90)
17. 1st Symphony C minor, "Vienna" version (1890/91)
18. 9th Symphony D minor, unfinished (1887-96)

Now, you may disagree whether each of those deserves to be considered a separate symphony. E.g. the first and last versions of the 4th symphony are so radically different that you can legitimately speak of two different symphonies. I'm not sure you could say that the second and third iteration of the 4th are so different to merit separate numbers. Be that as it may, accepting Cahis/ premise, I was curious what your "ideal dream Bruckner cycle" would be for all 18, or what your recommendations would be for these 18 individually, given that I don't think I even have recordings of all of these versions. From what I have, my favorites are below. I would appreciate recommendations for the bolded versions of which I have no, or no satisfying, recordings.

1. F minor Symphony (1863) -- I only have Ashkenazy, whom I don't find convincing. Recs please. Thinking of ordering Skrowaczewski.

2. 1st Symphony D minor, Linz Version (1865/66) -- Berky says Tintner is the only one available? Don't have it.

3. Symphony in D minor No. "0" (1869) -- Barenboim/CSO

4. 2nd Symphony C minor, first version (1872) -- Don't have. Young, Bosch, and Tintner seem to be the only serious choices.

5. 3rd Symphony D minor, first version (1873) -- Don't have.

6. 4th Symphony E flat major, first version (1874) -- Young/Hamburg

7. 5th Symphony B flat major (1875-78) -- Sinopoli/Dresden

8. 2nd Symphony C minor, second version (1875-77) -- Barenboim/BPO

9. 3rd Symphony D minor, second version (1876/77) -- Haitink/VPO

10. 4th Symphony E flat major, second version (1878) -- Don't have. Tintner seems to be the only option?

11. 4th Symphony E flat major, third version (1878/80) -- Kubelik/BRSO

12. 6th Symphony A major (1880/81)  -- Chailly/RCO

13. 7th Symphony E major (1881-83) -- Böhm/BRSO

14. 8th Symphony C minor, first version (1884-87) -- Young/Hamburg

15. 3rd Symphony D minor, third version (1888/89) -- Wand/WDR

16. 8th Symphony C minor, second version (1889/90) -- Schuricht/VPO

17. 1st Symphony C minor, "Vienna" version (1890/91) -- Wand/WDR

18. 9th Symphony D minor, unfinished (1887-96) -- Barenboim/CSO

[Lethevich]

I wish I could help out here, but I have no familiarity with the alternate versions in multiple recordings :\ I do value the Naxos 2CD of various versions of the 3rd conducted by Wildner, though.

The quoted individual raises an interesting point. More than any composer, if you like one Bruckner symphony, you can explore it from multiple angles. Not only via differing interpretations, but also completely different revisions - hearing the music you are familiar with in bizarre new contexts. It's really neat

[MishaK]

I wish I could help out here, but I have no familiarity with the alternate versions in multiple recordings :\ I do value the Naxos 2CD of various versions of the 3rd conducted by Wildner, though.

Thanks for that tip. I have Wildner's recording of the completion of the finale of the 9th. Wasn't aware he had other Bruckner recordings out there. Will have to check that out.

[LapsangS]

The most complete Bruckner symphony cycle on record is the Rozhdestvensky/USSR Ministry of Culture Orchestra 16 CD set. It is available on Russian Venezia label nos. 04367 (Volume I, 8CD) and 04368 (Volume II, 8CD)

http://www.abruckner.com/editorsnote/news/newsarchive/rozhdestvenskyfina/

[MishaK]

The most complete Bruckner symphony cycle on record is the Rozhdestvensky/USSR Ministry of Culture Orchestra 16 CD set. It is available on Russian Venezia label nos. 04367 (Volume I, 8CD) and 04368 (Volume II, 8CD)

http://www.abruckner.com/editorsnote/news/newsarchive/rozhdestvenskyfina/

But how good is it? I'm not really interested in yet another cycle. Rather individual discs to complement what I don't have.

I have, BTW, in the meantime acquired the original versions of the 1st and the Volksfest finale of the 4th with Tintner. Reconfirms my general impression of what I have otherwise heard of his cycle: good phrasing, though bordering on the over-rehearsed and anal retentive, sloppy ensemble, limited dynamic range, no convincing long line. Instructive for familiarization with unknown versions, but that's about it. The cult status of that cycle among some still escapes me.

[mszczuj]

2. 1st Symphony D minor, Linz Version (1865/66) -- Berky says Tintner is the only one available? Don't have it.

But there is another version of 1st from 1877 which is commonly called "Linz" and has plenty of recordings. The original "unrevised Linz" version from 1866 doesn't really exist any more and was reconstructed by William Carragan.

[MishaK]

But there is another version of 1st from 1877 which is commonly called "Linz" and has plenty of recordings. The original "unrevised Linz" version from 1866 doesn't really exist any more and was reconstructed by William Carragan.

Thanks. I'm aware of that. The liner notes for Tintner's recording say essentially the same thing though I think the reconstruction is a lot better founded on textual evidence than the 9th finale completion.

[DieNacht]

Quote from MishaK:

1. F minor Symphony (1863) -- I only have Ashkenazy, whom I don't find convincing. Recs please. Thinking of ordering Skrowaczewski.

2. 1st Symphony D minor, Linz Version (1865/66)[/i] -- Berky says Tintner is the only one available? Don't have it.

3. Symphony in D minor No. "0" (1869) -- Barenboim/CSO

4. 2nd Symphony C minor, first version (1872) -- Don't have. Young, Bosch, and Tintner seem to be the only serious choices.

5. 3rd Symphony D minor, first version (1873) -- Don't have.

6. 4th Symphony E flat major, first version (1874) -- Young/Hamburg

7. 5th Symphony B flat major (1875-78) -- Sinopoli/Dresden

8. 2nd Symphony C minor, second version (1875-77) -- Barenboim/BPO

9. 3rd Symphony D minor, second version (1876/77) -- Haitink/VPO

10. 4th Symphony E flat major, second version (1878) -- Don't have. Tintner seems to be the only option?

11. 4th Symphony E flat major, third version (1878/80) -- Kubelik/BRSO

12. 6th Symphony A major (1880/81)  -- Chailly/RCO

13. 7th Symphony E major (1881-83) -- Böhm/BRSO

14. 8th Symphony C minor, first version (1884-87) -- Young/Hamburg

15. 3rd Symphony D minor, third version (1888/89) -- Wand/WDR

16. 8th Symphony C minor, second version (1889/90) -- Schuricht/VPO

17. 1st Symphony C minor, "Vienna" version (1890/91) -- Wand/WDR

18. 9th Symphony D minor, unfinished (1887-96) -- Barenboim/CSO

Would definitely, definitely recommend the Inbal Teldec recordings of the symphonies nos. 00, 0, 1, 2 & 3 - some of the best Bruckner I own, very vital and engaged recordings, his 2nd and 3rd especially being magnificent. His 00 is also better than Rozhdestvensky, the other one I know, and I tend to prefer Inbal to Tintner and usually Skrowaczewski in the earlier symphonies.

EDIT:

The Inbal 1st is described as "Linzer Fassung von 1866" on the cover, but there are no liner notes in my budget CD issue. It sounds very different from Tintner/Cardogan´s version. I haven´t noticed any differences from the widely recorded 1877 version (where both the Abbado and Skrowaczewski recordings for instance are worth listening to), but didn´t check very carefully for them either. However the Wikipedia article on the symphony states that Inbal´s recording is of the 1877-version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._1_(Bruckner) .

The magnificent 2nd with Inbal is "unfortunately" the revised version from 1877, not the first edition.


In short: try hearing Inbal in 3 and 00, for a start ...

[MishaK]

Quote from MishaK:
Would definitely, definitely recommend the Inbal Teldec recordings of the symphonies nos. 00, 0, 1, 2 & 3 - some of the best Bruckner I own, very vital and engaged recordings, his 2nd and 3rd especially being magnificent. His 00 is also better than Rozhdestvensky, the other one I know, and I tend to prefer Inbal to Tintner and usually Skrowaczewski in the earlier symphonies.

EDIT:

The Inbal 1st is described as "Linzer Fassung von 1866" on the cover, but there are no liner notes in my budget CD issue. It sounds very different from Tintner/Cardogan´s version. I haven´t noticed any differences from the widely recorded 1877 version (where both the Abbado and Skrowaczewski recordings for instance are worth listening to), but didn´t check very carefully for them either. However the Wikipedia article on the symphony states that Inbal´s recording is of the 1877-version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._1_(Bruckner) .

The magnificent 2nd with Inbal is "unfortunately" the revised version from 1877, not the first edition.


In short: try hearing Inbal in 3 and 00, for a start ...

Really? I heard Inbal conduct the 9th live last summer at the Rheingau Musikfestival and was somewhat underwhelmed. Straightforward interpretation, but not very detailed and quite softened around the edges. Skrowaczewski is on my shortlist for next complete cycle I must own after hearing him conduct an absolutely riveting 2nd with BRSO on the radio.

[mszczuj]

Really? I heard Inbal conduct the 9th live last summer at the Rheingau Musikfestival and was somewhat underwhelmed. Straightforward interpretation, but not very detailed and quite softened around the edges. Skrowaczewski is on my shortlist for next complete cycle I must own after hearing him conduct an absolutely riveting 2nd with BRSO on the radio.

Really. I have been listened to complete cycles of Jochum (Staatskapelle), Skrowaczewski, Haitink, Wand and Inbal for last weeks (now I'm beginning Tintner) and I'm must say that I was very fond of Inbal's interpretation of early symphonies - especially 1, 0 and 00. 2 was good but may be little too static. But Inbal 1st gave me the greatast satisfaction of all  this weeks! I was really suprised. The late symphonies was not very ineresting for me.

To calibrate my opinion I must say that I liked 7, 8 and 9 by Jochum, and trios of scherzos by Wand, and probably Skrowaczewski as the whole cycle. Tintner as far  seems to me extremely uninteresting and now I'm really wanting to cry of fear because I'm just beginning to listen to 5 by him.

[mszczuj]

Thanks. I'm aware of that. The liner notes for Tintner's recording say essentially the same thing though I think the reconstruction is a lot better founded on textual evidence than the 9th finale completion.

I just wanted to say that when somebody writes "Linz version", or even "1866 version", he probably means Linz version with 1877 revision.

[DieNacht]

Concerning Inbal, I agree that he is often very middle-of-the-road, his Mahler/Denon and Scriabin/philips didn´t  make much impression on me, but the mentioned Bruckner 00-3 are good. They originate back in the late 80s and I haven´t heard any of his later performances. His 7th is also decent from that series, whereas the 4th and 8th are mainly interesting for the alternative versions, not so much the playing, as far as I recall.

[MishaK]

Concerning Inbal, I agree that he is often very middle-of-the-road, his Mahler/Denon and Scriabin/philips didn´t  make much impression on me, but the mentioned Bruckner 00-3 are good. They originate back in the late 80s and I haven´t heard any of his later performances. His 7th is also decent from that series, whereas the 4th and 8th are mainly interesting for the alternative versions, not so much the playing, as far as I recall.

OK. Thanks. So it seems his early symphonies may be worth seeking out as individual discs, not so much the whole cycle.

[sfdoddsy]

There's also the 1888 version of the 4th which Vanska has recently recorded, much to the dismay of Classics Today.

I have the recording and it is very good.

As for the 1873 version of the 3rd, I have Young, Nott, Inbal and Nagano. To be honest none of them really satisfy me because of deficiencies in the sound. Young is probably the best (for me) even if the sound is a bit over the top and congested.

[MishaK]

So I joined spotify the other day and discovered that they have the whole Skrowaczewski, Inbal and Maazel Bruckner cycles there, neither of which I own and all of which I had been curious about. So I am gradually making my way through them.

Have heard all of Skro' except 5 & 9 so far. Brilliant!!!! Absolutely mindbogglingly brilliant. This might just be the best overall Bruckner cycle ever, I have never heard anyone lavish so much attention on the early symphonies. Every detail fits and everything is spontaneous and all voices are audible. In the more famous later symphonies, I kept catching myself with a broad smile on my face as I yet again discovered something new, some new hidden counterpoint, or other detail that other conductors gloss over. Yet everything always flows in Skro's hands. I was blown away by the playing of the Saarbrücken RSO. This is nominally a second rate orchestra, but in his hands it sounds so much better than so many more famous orchestras. Really unhesitatingly recommended. And the sound is superb.

Of Inbal I have so far heard only 0, 1, and 3. I used to own his 9th with the early version finale completion. Nicely done, but a little too reverential for my taste, too beautiful. Not very detailed. But overall good. He knows what he's doing and the orchestra knows where they're going. Not much to complain about. Somewhat recessed sound, and the Frankfurters sometimes have rather approximate ensemble ideas, but generally solid.

Maazel: I've listened to 1, 2, and 3. Very disappointing. Living proof that being a good Mahler conductor doesn't automatically make you a good Brucknerian. The early symphonies are pointless, the following applause as lukewarm as the performances themselves. 3 is a bit better with some interesting touches. Maazel draws things out considerably, but without having the ability of a true Brucknerian to maintain the tension across a long line at a slow tempo. Tremolos and ostinatos are static, so everything just sits without forward motion. Amazingly, Maazel, the great technician, doesn't even get the BRSO to play at their best. There is some sloppy work in a number of passages. A long way from the BRSO that performed those incandescent 4th and 8th for Kubelik or that crisp 7th with Jansons.

[MishaK]

mszczuj, thanks for recommending Inbal! I finally had a chance to delve more deeply into his cycle and found some real gems. His recording of the original version of the 4th is brilliant! So much more involved and gripping than Young.

[MishaK]

Absolutely.  And that Frankfurt recording was made back in the 70s.  He's even better now.  I saw him conduct the Vienna SO in the original 4th a few years ago, and he completely changed my mind about how it works, in the Scherzo particularly.  If you ever get the chance to hear him in concert, don't hesitate.  He has a new cycle of Bruckner symphonies trickling out from Tokyo, but no sign of the 4th yet.

It was made in 1982. I did hear him conduct B9 last summer with the WDR Symphony Orchestra at the Rheingau Musikfestival. It was very good, just a bit middle of the road and not very detailed. He had a hard sell with me given that I have heard B9 live with Barenboim and Haitink several times, who both get a bit more out of that piece. But I do love his recordings of the original versions of the early symphonies.

[MishaK]

There's also the 1888 version of the 4th which Vanska has recently recorded, much to the dismay of Classics Today.

I have the recording and it is very good.

I just listened to the Vänskä and liked it a lot. The very minor perversions of the 1888 version aside, I like Vänskä's take very much. He manages at once to make it sound lively and rustic, yet gets a real organ-like sound in the brass chorales. Very fine low brass playing.

As for the 1873 version of the 3rd, I have Young, Nott, Inbal and Nagano. To be honest none of them really satisfy me because of deficiencies in the sound. Young is probably the best (for me) even if the sound is a bit over the top and congested.

I haven't heard Young, Nott or Nagano in the original 3rd (they're not on Spotify), but I like Inbal and don't find the sound bothersome, though it is a little distant and congested, like the rest of his cycle. But the performance is much better than the other two alternatives: Tintner and Bosch. Yesterday I discovered Nagano's take on the 1874 4th and was mesmerized. What a glorious performance. Especially the outer two movements are magnificent. Not quite so convincing in the inner movements. Loses the thread a bit and lacks articulation in the second movement especially. Overall Inbal still has the better 1874 4th, though Nagano's band sounds better.

[sfdoddsy]

I'm a fan of the Nagano 4th as well. Great sound too.

I have the new Blomstedt 1873 3rd and like it lot, so it goes to the top for me.

[MishaK]

I'm a fan of the Nagano 4th as well. Great sound too.

Yes, I listened to that the other day and liked it quite a bit. It's beautiful. Maybe too beautiful and a tad on the too broad side. I think Inbal brings out the quirkiness of the original version a bit better. Nagano loses quite a bit of detail in his effort at crafting a beautiful blended orchestral tone.