Mystery Orchestra 17 - Bruckner Symphony No.9

[M forever]

M, could you comment a bit on the Wand performance of MO17F, and the set this is taken from. I wonder if I need another set to complement Jochum and Karajan, or if I only should go for more individual recordings.

Probably both. Most people who are really interested in Bruckner's music end up with half a truckload of recordings sooner or later. The music is just so fascinating and complex and hard to "fathom". It is a never ending quest. Which is why it's so much fun.

If you should buy that Wand set or Scrowaczewski, I can't say. Maybe. Or maybe not. I actually don't know the latter but I have heard good things about it. I am thinking about buying it. But I am also thinking that I should maybe listen to ome of the many CDs I already have but never listened to, or listened to completely.

For instance, I also have acquired the BP/Barenboim and CA/Haitink sets in recent months, but only listened to small portions of them. I also finally bought the complete BP/Karajan box finally, although I have known the individual recordings for years. But then I just "discovered" I never heard Karajan's 1966 recording, so I "had" to order that, too. Plus I want to have the DVD of the 1985 Berlin live performance of the 9th with him because I was in the concert...
You see, it never ends.

Whatever you do, you will probably "have" to buy some individual recordings sooner or later. As far as the 9th is concerned, I think you "must" have the Giulini recording with the WP because I think that is just beyond awesome. Rather slow and "grand", but musically outstanding and orchestrally phenomenal. The playing of the WP here is just beyond description, especially the trombones in the scherzo are totally apocalyptical. Those few bars alone are worth the price of admission.
I also think the SOBR/Kubelik recording is fabulous in ever respect, and very interesting because he is fairly slow and lyrically intense in some parts, rather quickly moving forward and highly "dramatic" in others. Plus the orchestral playing and recorded sound are also top.



But you specifically asked about Wand and the recording from which MO17F is taken.
This is from Wand's first complete cycle with the Kölner RSO which was was recorded in the 70s and kicked off his unplanned "second" career which brought him international attention.

Wand was actually fairly well known for his work in Cologne where he was GMD of the opera and the Gürzenich Orchester for many years, although not so much internationally. He had made a number of recordings with the GO for a French record club (many of which have been reissued on CD by Testament), had appeared in England, France, Italy and the USSR and guested with the BP regularly in the 60s. He was also known as a champion of modern music such as Messiaen and Fortner. His unfussy, deeply reflected, "honest" interpretations had gained him a lot of respect, but he was never interested in building a big international career or working on his public image as a "podium star". He had a reputation as being very demanding and uncompromising, and he had also withdrawn more and more from the opera during his last years there because he was dissatisifed with some aspects of the daily opera routine. He concentrated mostly on the GO symphony concerts and had already announced his retirement when he was invited by the WDR to conduct a recording of Bruckner's 5th in 1974.

Like I said in a recent thread elsewhere, he turned down the invitation at first because the 5th was the one Bruckner symphony he felt he didn't understand enough and he had never actually conducted it. Then he reconsidered because he realized there might be no other opportunity for him to tackle this work.
After studying the score for a few months, he made the recording which was a phenomenal success. That prompted the WDR to record all the Bruckner and Schubert symphonies. Invitations from everywhere started pouring in, in 1982 he accepted the post as principal conductor of the NDR SO with which he recorded the complete Brahms and Beethoven in the studio and made many live recordings. He also appeared often in London as principal guest conductor of the BBC SO. In the late 80s and 90s, his relationship with the BP intensified again and he made a number of great live recordings with them, too. In 1989, at the age of 77 (!), he made his USA debut with the CSO. But he conducted them only twice. He did not get along well with the orchestra. They thought they were already the very greatest in the universe and couldn't handle Wand's detailed and very critical rehearsing. Wand in turn was unhappy because he had a hard time getting the natural and idiomatic phrasing and timing from the CSO that he was used to from the orchestras he normally worked with. So that was that.

Their loss, our gain. Instead of jetting around the globe, he concentrated on appearing with the NDR, BP, RSO Berlin, BBC SO and a select few other orchestras. I fortunately saw him often with the NDR, BP, and RSO Berlin. Wand concerts were always events because the natural tension and flow of the music making under his direction drew the audience in and you could feel how concentrated the orchestras played and the audience listened. Like with only a few other conductors, you had that rare but distinct feeling that what you were experiencing was "the real thing", not some kind of show, however good or bad, just "the real thing".


Wand never systematically re-recorded the Bruckner symphonies after his first studio cycle in Cologne. But many of his conerts with the NDR and BP were recorded and released by EMI/deutsche harmonia mundi and then RCA after they had taken over the dhm catalog from EMI. That got a little confusing because of some of the symphonies, there are several live recordings, such as the 9th which was recorded with the NDR in the great cathedral in Lübeck (with about 2 minutes of reverb), then again in Hamburg, then once again with the BP. Plus there is a video with the NDR from yet another concert. Plus there is a live recording with the SWR on Hännsler Profil and a number of "pirates", of course.

The Cologne studio cycle was among the first Bruckner recordings I had, along with Haitink and Karajan, on LP! Because of the "flood" of later live recordings with the NDR and BP which are "generally considered to be better" orchestrally and sonically, I hadn't listened to most of them in many, many years after I got rid of my LPs a long time ago.

But I had wanted to revisit them for a long time and remembered some of them as particularly good, especially the 5th and the 9th featured here, plus Wand never re-recorded the 1st and 2nd which he felt were "disturbed" pieces, meaning that he thought they clearly showed how Bruckner did not always follow his artistic inspiration there but tried to "cater" to external expectations.
Still, I like the 1st and 2nd, too, and since Wand out of principle always conducted the last versions, his 1st is one of the few recordings of the reworked later Vienna version which is very rarely performed and even less often recorded. I think only Rozhdestvensky and Chailly recorded it apart from Wand.

The later NDR and BP recordings are somewhat "smoother" and "richer" and maybe more polished in playing and sound. The playing of the Kölner RSO was technically maybe not always quite on the same level and sounded noticeably "rougher" and "edgier" but that actually has some attractiveness, too, and it results in very clear and transparent textures with "bite".
The recorded sound quality also leans towards the bright and sometimes cavernous, but it's actually much better than I had remembered it. And it is fairly detailed and "natural".
Musically, the earlier recordings are not very different in concept, they already show Wand's unique deep understanding of the "mechanisms" of the music and his ability to develop his readings naturally from the substance of the score, without the "need" for "special ideas" or what he called "Firlefanz". That basically means empty, vain, pretentious ornamentation and "ado".

I find it very interesting that in this and the MO round with Beethoven 5, several people specifically commented on how "naturally flowing" and "well paced" and "organic" the Wand interpretations sounded to them.

Particularly interesting for me was rubio's remark that the opening of this Bruckner 9 sounded most "mystical" to him.
Because that's exactly what I think, too, in fact, that's one of the hallmarks of this recording that I remembered over many years. And it still grips me as the most "misterioso" opening of the symphony I know.
Why that is, I also find very, very hard to explain in words. But it has deeply fascinated me ever since I first heard that recording.

What I find particularly fascinating is how Wand achieves that "misterioso" effect here not by being particularly "mysterious" or "nebulous" but the exact opposite, by sketching this primeval soundscape in clearly outlined, "icy" detail. And is that not "exactly" what Bruckner writes, with accents everywhere, bith the common > and his favorite, the "expressive marcato" upside down V? There is even one of these on the first entry of the woodwind which is marked p, a step above the strings' pp.
Also note that all strings are playing tremolo, except for the basses. Bruckner obviously didn't want the warm, rich blanket of tremolo sound he created at the beginning of the 4th or the weightlessly floating sound he opened the 7th with. He wanted a "cold", "material" sound here, not some kind of primeval soup with stuff floating around in it. With the long zzzz in the basses and the very quiet, but hard and fast string tremolo, it sounds to me like "slowly shifting tectonic plates" or something like that.

The horn calls also sound particularly "misterioso here", well accented like Bruckner wrote, but very soft and dark, and the upwards slur to the C (sounding F) which first tells us this is d minor is very smooth and slightly softer than the first note, and I think that's what makes it sound so "misterioso" here. It has both an organic and material quality, like something or some supernatural force calling with a soft, but strong voice, from very far but well audible in the clear cold air. The trumpet and timpani also sound like they come from far away but at the same time, the sound is hard and clear, like an anvil being struck far in the distance. Very interesting effect.
This beginning of this recording is one of the few cases in which I actually "see" an image while listening to the music. I "see" a wide valley between tall mountain peaks half lit by early light, with patches of mist hanging in it and a broad river with shoals of ice floating on it in the middle, and I "hear" these calls and anvil strokes echo through that scenery. Very strange.

But I don't want to get too poetic here, I better leave that to our friend soundproof 

[Sean]

M

What I find particularly fascinating is how Wand achieves that "misterioso" effect here not by being particularly "mysterious" or "nebulous" but the exact opposite, by sketching this primeval soundscape in clearly outlined, "icy" detail. And is that not "exactly" what Bruckner writes

Indeed: I wasn't going to listen to much of that clip after the rather literal opening but admittedly I thought an odd Brucknerian logic emerged.

[Soundproof]

What I find particularly fascinating is how Wand achieves that "misterioso" effect here not by being particularly "mysterious" or "nebulous" but the exact opposite, by sketching this primeval soundscape in clearly outlined, "icy" detail. And is that not "exactly" what Bruckner writes, with accents everywhere, bith the common > and his favorite, the "expressive marcato" upside down V? There is even one of these on the first entry of the woodwind which is marked p, a step above the strings' pp.
But I don't want to get too poetic here, I better leave that to our friend soundproof 

This is interesting, though, M. I think it's precisely this "icy" detail which made me find the performance "metronomic" in its regularity, particularly as compared to my favourite, which was E. Which isn't to say that E is better than F, just that it spoke to my predilections, and premonitions, about this symphony.

The 9th has been a favourite of mine since forever, due to the immense degree of invention in it, particularly in the subsequent movements. With the drive of the pizzicato attacks opening the Scherzo (foreshadowed in the first movement) simply ineradicable from my mind. (I find a similar drive in the 3rd movement of Shostakovich's 8th).

Yet - I don't think Feierlich, Misterioso is necessarily arrived at through a clinical ("icy" detail) approach, and find the Wand lacking in comparison with Jochum's reading together with Staatskapelle Dresden.

Consider, if you will, the different treatment of air between the two performances. As an airpuffer yourself I can understand why you might appreciate the clarity of the Obo part starting at 32; or the prominence ("icy" detail?) lent to the winds from 79 onwards, over the pizz.
Unfortunately, to my ears, this leads one's mind more towards a martial tone and build-up in this interpretation. Further strengthened by the Turkish Marching Band quality of the sound expelled by the brass.

Which is why I, in my initial assessment of the Wand version, spoke of soldiers strolling off to war with a smile on their faces, while bidding adieu to cheering villagers.

In contrast, Jochen's reading in E puts a veil over the wind and brass, keeping them back, which I think accounts for that versions more true adherence to the Feierlich transforming into Misterioso elemental quality of this opening.
Interestingly, in version G which you supplied, Jochen again repeats his trick of commencing the crescendo earlier than marked (even earlier than E), and while the brass get slightly more prominence here from 55 onwards, he pulls the whole thing home again at 76.

I won't go through the whole selection in this manner, but this is only to indicate what I hear and feel, and why, relative to what I consider are deliberate choices from two great interpreters.

[M forever]

This is one of the most fascinating threads I've read. Of course it helps that it discusses one of my favourite works, a pinnacle of western art. And another really intriguing feature was the variety of responses elicited by those clips. I mean, objectively we all hear the same excerpt, but subjectively we don't respond to them in the same way. Even what for me are objective facts are not necessarily heard by others as I hear them (like the Cleveland oboe sound for example).

I only have tinny earphones on my computer, so I didn't have much interest in listening to the clips (my listening room is downstairs, the computer room upstairs ). But I was drawn in and in any event, they were all listened to on the same crappy equipment, so they all got out of the gates at the same time.

One feature of the thread (or similar ones at that) that I don't really like is the temptation to peg names onto those sound clips. It makes very little sense. I have close to 30 versions of this symphony, and only one of them was featured in the MO17. It would be foolhardy to think that, out of the many dozens available, I could identify them correctly. Even the one I own - Kubelik - didn't really sound all that familiar when I listened to it (even after reading the answers - I listened to all the clips only today). I love this version of the symphony, but it's in other places that I would have been able to guess its identity. So much for familiarity with my own collection!

It would have been interesting to read what you had to say about those Clevleland oboes.

You make some interesting observations in your post, but frankly, I find it a little disappointing that you didn't make any before I revealed the clips, especially if you find this such a "fascinating" discussion. Or did I overlook that?

I don't know if you missed that, I only said it about 237 times or so, but you really don't have to "peg names" on anything to participate. Some do, some don't. For some, the guessing part is fun, too. For some, it's not. Anybody can say whatever they want or not say whatever they don't want.

It is not the point at all of these Mystery threads either to "test" people or their familiarity with their collection. It is not about "recognizing" known recordings. If you do, OK, if not, it doesn't matter. There are way too many recordings of these pieces around anyway to "know" and "memorize" them all. As you can see, I don't specifically select "obscure" or "hard to guess" recordings.
I figured few would know the Masur and Sawallisch recordings, I had no idea how many would know the Wand given that Wand is an eminently well known Bruckner conductor but this recording may be less well known than other ones, or the Dohnányi, I figured some people would recognize the Kubelik or Jochum recordings since these are very well known and often discussed. But that doesn't matter because I don't select recordings based on how hard or easy they are to "guess".

The original idea for the game came to me when over on RMCR, everybody got so excited about the Hatto scandal, and some of the people who had celebrated "Hatto" recordings but dissed the exact same recordings under the true artists' names (oops!) got the most upset and couldn't even admit their mistake. For obvious reasons, I guess.
Plus I have taken part in blind comparisons a lot myself and find it a lot of fun.
Plus we used to have all these discussions here about "the best orchestra in the world", and I believe I have killed those because it has been shown that some of the people with the most desperate opinions can't keep most of them apart or even recognize their favorite "best orchestra in the world" (oops again).
Plus it is eminently good listening training.
Plus you get results which you rarely get in other discussions when people spend most of the time imagining to hear things based on their biases.
Plus it's fun for me to select the recordings and very interesting to read the "blind" comments and reconsider my own "unblind" impressions.
Plus I have a lot of recordings of some parts of the repertoire which I like to share and let people know about, and in this way, they can discover themselves if they really like them instead of me telling them they should like them.


If your listening environment is too far away from the computer, why don't you just burn a CD then. With 5,6,7 clips you don't even "waste" the CD and they cost next to nothing these days anyway.

In any case, listening to the clips after reading the answers didn't prevent me from exercizing due diligence and objectivity.

Maybe. Or maybe not. We will never know.

I was actually surprised to hear in Sawallisch and his bavarian orchestra (clip A) a reading I really connected with. I had always found Sawallisch a bit too cool and uninflected in his conducting. I'm now quite eager to hear the whole disc.

Looks like you did indeed not let yourself be influenced by your idea about Sawallisch. He does come across as rather "cool" in general, he reminds me of my Latin teacher in school. But some of the stuff he did is indeed really good and not at all "uninvolved". I actually don't have too many recordings of his (he made more than one would think), but who knows, maybe I will slip in one of those I have in one of the future Mystery threads. Or maybe not. We will see.

Ditto with the Wand (clip F). I found this one almost like a guided tour of that first movement excerpt: extremely vivid and painstaking detailing of all the instrumental strands of the score. At the same time it's done with such an expert hand that it's always involving, never perfunctory. Objectively speaking, if I had to direct someone new to this work to a good phonographic representation of the work, that might well be it. I have two other Wands and as best as I recall them, they don't sound like that.

See my way too long post above about that.

For my money, the Masur (clip B) is notable mostly for superb orchestral playing. that in itself is certainly a very important quality. It remains to be heard if the whole thing adds up to more than that. I didn't sense a distinguishing profile here, but cumulatively it might work very well.

That is basically my opinion, too. Highly interesting listening because of the orchestral culture and the great music making. But the most "compelling" and "coherent" Bruckner interpretations? Most likely not. But still interesting to listen to.

The single clip that struck me the most (by far) is the last, Jochum's MP one. I've read once that Jochum had lost his Bruckner scores a long time ago, meaning that this music is so much inside him that he almost recreates it every time he stepped onto the podium.

A nice story, but Jochum actually always conducted with a score in front of him (at least in every picture or film that I have seen and the one time I saw him live). He probably didn't "need" them. But it fits his "style" which was very down to earth, workmanlike, working with musical material directly from the score like a craftsman, basically the "Kapellmeister" thing.

The single clip that struck me the most (by far) is the last, Jochum's MP one. I've read once that Jochum had lost his Bruckner scores a long time ago, meaning that this music is so much inside him that he almost recreates it every time he stepped onto the podium. This one is amazing for the liberties it takes, but also for the illuminating details that come out: the pecking winds at 1:45 to 2:02 are like nothing else I've heard and create a really frightening sense of anticipation. And that giant ritard when the main theme explodes in the full orchestra is jaw dropping, and yet it sounds theatrical, not cheap. These touches give an unusual shape and lighting to that familiar music. That's one I'm really interested in hearing in full.

Do you like it better than his SD recording (MO17E)?

The MP recording was posted on Operashare a few days ago (which is where I got it):

Superb performance of Bruckner's Ninth with the Munich Philharmonic and Eugen
Jochum
from January 1987.
From OOP Meteor CD.

http://rapidshare.com/files/40076406/01_Track01.mp3
http://rapidshare.com/files/40077414/02_Track02.mp3
http://rapidshare.com/files/40080066/03_Track03.mp3


You didn't say anything about Dohnányi's recording.


We look forward to seeing you in MO18. Hopefully *before* I reveal the clips.

[Sean]

Cheers for the Jochum 9 M- I'm going to give that a run through now.

What piece will MO.19 be?

[M forever]

Dunno yet.

This is interesting, though, M. I think it's precisely this "icy" detail which made me find the performance "metronomic" in its regularity, particularly as compared to my favourite, which was E. Which isn't to say that E is better than F, just that it spoke to my predilections, and premonitions, about this symphony.

The 9th has been a favourite of mine since forever, due to the immense degree of invention in it, particularly in the subsequent movements. With the drive of the pizzicato attacks opening the Scherzo (foreshadowed in the first movement) simply ineradicable from my mind. (I find a similar drive in the 3rd movement of Shostakovich's 8th).

Yet - I don't think Feierlich, Misterioso is necessarily arrived at through a clinical ("icy" detail) approach, and find the Wand lacking in comparison with Jochum's reading together with Staatskapelle Dresden.

Consider, if you will, the different treatment of air between the two performances. As an airpuffer yourself I can understand why you might appreciate the clarity of the Obo part starting at 32; or the prominence ("icy" detail?) lent to the winds from 79 onwards, over the pizz.
Unfortunately, to my ears, this leads one's mind more towards a martial tone and build-up in this interpretation. Further strengthened by the Turkish Marching Band quality of the sound expelled by the brass.

Which is why I, in my initial assessment of the Wand version, spoke of soldiers strolling off to war with a smile on their faces, while bidding adieu to cheering villagers.

In contrast, Jochen's reading in E puts a veil over the wind and brass, keeping them back, which I think accounts for that versions more true adherence to the Feierlich transforming into Misterioso elemental quality of this opening.
Interestingly, in version G which you supplied, Jochen again repeats his trick of commencing the crescendo earlier than marked (even earlier than E), and while the brass get slightly more prominence here from 55 onwards, he pulls the whole thing home again at 76.

I won't go through the whole selection in this manner, but this is only to indicate what I hear and feel, and why, relative to what I consider are deliberate choices from two great interpreters.

Fortunately, we are in the "open discussion phase" now in which I am also "allowed" to say what I think, and since I have already typed for a long time now and my impression from your posts is that you can "handle" opposing viewpoints without much sugarcoating and tiptoeing around (or maybe you will prove me wrong now), let me tell you that I think the above is pretty much total nonsense.

I am apalled to read about "Turkish marching band quality" (not that there is anything wrong with Turkish marching bands as such, but that has nothing to do with what we hear in any of the clips here) and puzzled that you find Jochum "puts a veil over the wind and brass and holds them back".
Huh?
I have wondered about the quality of your high end listening setup before, not to diss or pisscontest it, but simply because of the strange remarks like this you made about such things here and there.
The one thing that could potentially be criticized most about Jochum's SD recordings (which I think are fantastic, too, but some have that objection to them) is that he totally lets the brass off the leash in many places and they blast away without reserve.
Very puzzling.

You didn't get what I meant by "icy" which mostly applied to the beginning and the sound quality and athmoshere. That may be my fault because I am not such a talented poet as you are.
But that has nothing to do with "metronomic" anyway. And neither is the Wand recording metronomic. Not at all. Fairly steady outer tempi don't have anything to do with metronomic. Nor is the tempo that steady everywhere. In fact, it is very subtly adjusted almost all the time, as is the rhythm or what I call "microtiming".

I think it's pretty safe to say without wanting to "put you down" that you simply don't "get" the Wand performance. It appears to me that its qualities are too subtle for you since you didn't get all of the above. Ad that's OK. Maybe you will later. Or maybe not. But my impression here is that your listening is far more superficial than I had initially thought. I know you don't share that opinion and your very colorful images illustrate that you are very much in love with your superficial impressions. And I don't want to take that away from you. I am just trying to give you a few tips, for your own enhanced listening enjoyment, and to widen your horizon.

Which, again, is not to put you down or prove you "wrong" - obviously, it is completely up to you what you "hear" and "feel" and that is neither "right" nor "wrong" - but just to point out to you that there is definitely more there than met your ear. And not just for me, as you can see by some of the other responses.

[Greta]

I totally dig the Wand. If the rest of that set is that involving as that performance, wow.

And it was beautiful what you wrote earlier about the recording, M.  0:)

Do the participaters still get a prize?

(*eyeing the Sawallisch*)

[Greta]

Plus I have taken part in blind comparisons a lot myself and find it a lot of fun.
Plus we used to have all these discussions here about "the best orchestra in the world", and I believe I have killed those because it has been shown that some of the people with the most desperate opinions can't keep most of them apart or even recognize their favorite "best orchestra in the world" (oops again).
Plus it is eminently good listening training.
Plus you get results which you rarely get in other discussions when people spend most of the time imagining to hear things based on their biases.
Plus it's fun for me to select the recordings and very interesting to read the "blind" comments and reconsider my own "unblind" impressions.

Yes, this is just why I enjoy hosting them too. The selecting really is fun. And so interesting to see the associations people make, and also what they "think" a certain conductor's style is like, that a clip is him...and it turns out not to be, or that a certain orchestra from a certain country "sounds like this", and often, they don't.

And is more interesting for all when there is such good participation as in this Bruckner thread.

I do hope some of you bring your very perceptive ears over to my Mahler 5th thread. Many interesting (and some, extremely fine) clips to hear.

I guess, Mahler's 5th isn't such a good work for this? But was the first thing that came to mind that I had many recordings of, that others also seemed to like around here...

[Soundproof]

Feedback welcome. And let me right away indicate that I appreciate the effort you are going to in assembling and making available these listening samples under the rules you have stated.
I love going blind into these and therefore not having my mind coloured by preconceptions. I am otherwise hugely skeptical of people who wish to turn the senses into exact organs of measurement and qualification, whether wine tasting, music or other areas -- and I applaud your effort.

I would, however, caution against these statements: "I think it's pretty safe to say without wanting to "put you down" that you simply don't "get" the Wand performance. It appears to me that its qualities are too subtle for you since you didn't get all of the above."
They're not that far removed from 71dB's claims of a higher evolved mind with better developed "vibrational fields" allowing for a more attuned appreciation of the music.

Hey - you love the Wand. I don't - I get it, but I'm not blown away (or rather, maybe I am, when I shouldn't be). And the fact that the movement is "subtly adjusted" and "therefore not metronomic" is because, fortunately, Wand was not an automaton, but a human being.

Please don't stop doing these. They are brilliant!

You'll have to suffer my input, though. And stop questioning my sound system. If anything is wrong, it's my ears and ability to retain musical lines, and discern differences.

If it's any consolation to you, I got a 97,2 score on this test on first run-through. Maybe that will allow for a suitably Teutonic independent measurement of the acuity of my hearing! 

Scroll down, use cans. It's a very good test (and I'm really pissed off about not making 100!):
http://jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/

[Sean]

M etc, I'm listening to the Jochum 9 file with the Munich orchestra. It's really quite rushed and urged on under a fundamentally mistaken aesthetic approach: I greatly admire Jochum in Meistersinger and Beethoven 1,2,4,8 & 9 but he's simply on the wrong footing here. The first movement section two thirds through where the harmonies collide, along with the concluding peroration are insufficiently prepared and lack the insight and power Karajan sees. For many years I thought Karajan set such standards that other attempts at this repertory could only be made with the greatest caution and the present unwittingly blatant and unsophisticated recording only confirms this.

[M forever]

M etc, I'm listening to the Jochum 9 file with the Munich orchestra. It's really quite rushed and urged on under a fundamentally mistaken aesthetic approach: I greatly admire Jochum in Meistersinger and Beethoven 1,2,4,8 & 9 but he's simply on the wrong footing here. The first movement section two thirds through where the harmonies collide, along with the concluding peroration are insufficiently prepared and lack the insight and power Karajan sees. For many years I thought Karajan set such standards that other attempts at this repertory could only be made with the greatest caution and the present unwittingly blatant and unsophisticated recording only confirms this.

Sean, you know we all love you, but please shut up with crap like that. Jochum knew a million times better than you what the "right esthetic approach" to Bruckner is. You don't. And Karajan did not set any standards. He was a great Bruckner conductor, too, but in a very different way.

[Sean]

M, I can't get movs 2 or 3 working from that damn Rapidshare site- I had the same stupid trouble once before. You click on FREE and instead of the download the idiot thing gives you upload details- any thoughts?

[Soundproof]

Shhhhhh. M is taking a test, and shouldn't be disturbed, Sean.

[not edward]

M, I can't get movs 2 or 3 working from that damn Rapidshare site- I had the same stupid trouble once before. You click on FREE and instead of the download the idiot thing gives you upload details- any thoughts?

Scroll down a bit: it will tell you how long you have to wait before being allowed to download again (seems you have to wait about 2-3 minutes for every Mb in the previous file).

[M forever]

I would, however, caution against these statements: "I think it's pretty safe to say without wanting to "put you down" that you simply don't "get" the Wand performance. It appears to me that its qualities are too subtle for you since you didn't get all of the above."
They're not that far removed from 71dB's claims of a higher evolved mind with better developed "vibrational fields" allowing for a more attuned appreciation of the music.

OK, so I was wrong above about your ability to take well meant criticism even if directly put. Well, I am wrong all he time, but I won't make that mistake again.

That is an extreme personal insult which goes far beyond verbal sparring or directed, unsugarcoated exchange of opposing opinions. There is no need for you to stoop to that level. You may not understand that since you have only been here for a few days and have only seen a tiny fraction of the demented crap he is dropping here sometimes. So I forgive you. But only this one time. Some things are not funny anymore.

Hey - you love the Wand. I don't - I get it, but I'm not blown away (or rather, maybe I am, when I shouldn't be). And the fact that the movement is "subtly adjusted" and "therefore not metronomic" is because, fortunately, Wand was not an automaton, but a human being.

This has nothing to do with "not being an automaton" or with what I "like" or not. It has nothing to do with a "higher developed mind" or "vibrational" fields either. I never said anything like that. But I did sit my ass down and write about what I actually meant in very great detail. That was all lost on you, OK, but I hope it wasn't lost on others, then I would have completely wasted my time. It certainly doesn't look like that.

What I am talking about here is none of the above. I am talking about subtleties of music making and musical language, the things which people sometimes call "idiomatic" for want of a better term, things which have to do with how you play, time, phrase, articulate, group, color, stuff like that. Some people hear that, consciously or subconsciously, some don't, or only to a lesser degree. Some people just hear music just in broad, fuzzy emotional images. Which is fine, too. I just happen to be very interested in and familiar with the many subtleties of the "idiomatic" styles of music making for this and maybe some other kinds of repertoire because I grew up in and studied the musical culture which they come from.

I am not interested in arguing about emotional responses, we can exchange that, too, but there is nothing to argue or discuss there. When I talk about things like these, I am talking about "idiomatic" details of the craft of music making. I now know you don't hear these, OK, or maybe you hear but don't "understand" them, that doesn't make you a worse person and I am not trying to put you down. It doesn't detract anything from your enjoyment of music either, and it shouldn't.

But whn we discuss musical performance and your contributions are "Hollywood strings" or "Turkish Marching Band", then you have to understand that isn't much basis for you to claim an "informed" opinion. You can still have your opinion, but we know it's more an eloquently glorified emotional response and it doesn't offer any basis for musical discussion.

In any case, what I had wanted to point out is that there is a lot about that that you don't perceive but that you could learn, for instance from that recording. Because that has all that in abundance.

If it's any consolation to you, I got a 97,2 score on this test on first run-through. Maybe that will allow for a suitably Teutonic independent measurement of the acuity of my hearing! 

I know the test and I know you didn't score 97,2%. There is probably not more truth behind that than behind those "world class musicians blind test".
Please, your contributions here are often very funny and sometimes interesting, don't turn out to be a total bullshitter.

Besides, that test has *nothing* to do with what I am talking about. The suitably Teutonic measurement system for that is to analyze your responses to clips of Teutonic music like the present ones.

[Lilas Pastia]

Thanks for the detailed reply, M. You will have to take my word that I exercised 'due diligence and objectivity' after reading the answers. . It shouldn't be hard to believe since I've often stated that there is no correct, or best way of conducting Bruckner (among others of course). My favourite versions cover an extremely wide range of interpretive ground, orchestral and conducting cultures and traditions. And I keep discovering new and very valuable ways of intepreting this magnificent music. As you rightly say, the quest is endless. Closing the options by zeroing on a specific disc/conductor is a big mistake.

Notwithstanding the very good reasons you give for the genuine usefulness and pleasure of such threads, I didn't come to MO 17 before seeing the answers to the clips. The reasons for my late entry on the thread are quite simple. That's because:

A - my participation to the forum is very limited. I spend *some* time on the computer, but I prefer to be in my listening/reading room. Actually I almost never check the new threads (my loss, of course, but it helps in leaving me time for my main pursuit).

B - the first MO thread was of Strauss' Zarathustra, and because of my really poor computer audio I didn't bother to listen to the clips. Really too much would have been lost, and the usefulness of the exercise would have been lost on me.

C - as you have mentioned 237 times, it's not a guessing game. But still, when those guesses are made, it taints the judgment somewhat, especially for those (like me) who don't have the musical training to figure out if the reasoning and conclusions have any validity. Example: one of my top choices for the 9th is Leitner with the SWR Stuttgart orchestra. Now, who could possibly recognize the SWR Stuttgart band? Probably nobody. They're excellent, but recognizable? So there: this is fabulous music making that very little people would ever be able to recognize. The real interest here is not 'who', but what do I hear in it, and why do I like it so much. So, because of what I saw in that Strauss MO thread I was not really interested in participating. Note, too, that MO 17 had fewer such entries.

D - my interest was really aroused when I saw the pictures of the discs you chose, because out of them I only have the Kubelik. So, I fell out of curiosity for all those new versions I could sample .

Briefly:

- what I hear in the Cleveland oboes is a straight, pure and powerful sound, totally different from that in clips A and B for example, where the sound is slender, insinuating, and somewhat nasal. I don't know how I would have analysed that 'blind', but the prior knowledge of the orchestras confirmed my longstanding opinion that the american and english oboe sound is totally different from the german or french one. Not better or worse, just very noticeably from a different school of playing.

- besides that Cleveland oboe sound, the conductor's rather clinical 'mapping out' of the music didn't draw me in. It's obviously a great orchestra, but the conductor doesn't seem willing to let it rip where we know they could. That's a lost occasion if you ask me. Just compare to Jochum SD or even Wand Cologne. Here you sense the conductors trust their orchestra and let them 'go for it'. In fairness, it could be that Dohnanyi is saving himself and the orchestra for the movement's coda. So, no real conclusion can be drawn, only impressions.

- I can't say I 'prefer' the MPO Jochum to the SD one. I've had the latter on lp, but it's too long ago to really remember everything from it. What I do recall however is that I didn't like Jochum's liberties with tempi. Since then I've come a long way and I wouldn't trust my own opinion of 15 years ago on that. I still have Jochum SD 3, 5-7 on cd, and the whole DG cycle as well. That's why I never felt the urge to buy the Jochum Brilliant cycle (therefore missing that 9th). So, what I can compare right now are those two excerpts and they sound very different. I was captivated from beginning to end by the MPO one (and their playing is just as good IMO, if totally different). I sense a kind of 'liberation' on the podium and that's what makes me reallly eager to hear the whole thing (for which many thanks, BTW - I'm downloading it right now )

[Soundproof]

M - you write:

What I am talking about here is none of the above. I am talking about subtleties of music making and musical language, the things which people sometimes call "idiomatic" for want of a better term, things which have to do with how you play, time, phrase, articulate, group, color, stuff like that. Some people hear that, consciously or subconsciously, some don't, or only to a lesser degree. Some people just hear music just in broad, fuzzy emotional images. Which is fine, too. I just happen to be very interested in and familiar with the many subtleties of the "idiomatic" styles of music making for this and maybe some other kinds of repertoire because I grew up in and studied the musical culture which they come from.

I am not interested in arguing about emotional responses, we can exchange that, too, but there is nothing to argue or discuss there. When I talk about things like these, I am talking about "idiomatic" details of the craft of music making. I now know you don't hear these, OK, or maybe you hear but don't "understand" them, that doesn't make you a worse person and I am not trying to put you down. It doesn't detract anything from your enjoyment of music either, and it shouldn't.

Mr. M - yes, I have but been here a very few days, and am probably making too much noise already. Yet I am not unfamiliar with the nuances of musical idiom, and probably take umbrage at your disparaging put downs. I must confess I find it difficult to accept the law as laid down by you on how one is supposed to listen to and understand these pieces. Nor do I consider our "differences" here to be a result of ratio vs. emotio in music. I hear what I hear, according to your initial invite to participate in the thread I then reported on my findings. You are absolutely free to smack down my opinions, though who's the poorer for that? It kind of defeats the purpose of your investigation, doesn't it? Unless the thread is intended as a showcase for your likes and dislikes - I'll go along with that, but this is somewhat at variance with the premise.

I was not equating you with 71dB, just pointing out that -- from an analytical point of view -- there was little difference between the two statements. I'm grateful that you are willing to extend a courtesy to me in that respect, and that you understood I was not attacking you as a person, but rather the implicit, underlying meaning of that statement.

That said. I never lie. If I say something, that holds. My acquaintances, clients and associates are both appalled and impressed by my forthrightness. They have long since learned they had better not ask my opinion on anything unless they are willing to hear an unembellished expression of how I understand the issue.
Therefore - and this is final - do not ever question the truth of what I write here again.

You write: I know the test and I know you didn't score 97,2%. There is probably not more truth behind that than behind those "world class musicians blind test".

World class musicians holds.
As does the rather astonishing fact that the score indicated above would stand a Doric inquiry. I have simply amazing tonal retention abilities. Why do you think I have that avatar?
When we meet, over a good glass of wine, you can administer the test to me and be the equivalent of the "Bocca de Leone" that I place my hand inside, to suffer the consequences.

You write: Please, your contributions here are often very funny and sometimes interesting, don't turn out to be a total bullshitter.

Again, I am going to enjoy perusing your previous Mystery Orchestras, in order to understand the intention behind the threads. I enjoy the format, I will keep reporting what I hear, to the extent that I find the music interesting.

[M forever]

I must confess I find it difficult to accept the law as laid down by you on how one is supposed to listen to and understand these pieces.

I didn't say that. In fact, I extremely explicitly and several times over said the exact opposite. I don't have to repeat that again.

I was not equating you with 71dB, just pointing out that -- from an analytical point of view -- there was little difference between the two statements.

From an analytical point of view, 71dB makes broad generalized BS statements and claims with nothing to back them up while I sit my ass down and type for half an hour to offer detailed explanations and points, differentiate between my personal opinions and other points of view and offer contextual facts. If you think that is the *same*, then you don't *have* any analytical abilities.

Again, I am going to enjoy perusing your previous Mystery Orchestras, in order to understand the intention behind the threads. I enjoy the format, I will keep reporting what I hear, to the extent that I find the music interesting.

When you do said perusing, you will find that another forum member who, not at all completely different from you, but then again not that similar in all details either (and I don't like to throw people into one pot with other people for cheap rhetorical attacks), but vaguely similar in that he did have some very good points and some interesting things to say but lacked the self-criticism to accept contrary statements because he thought he already knew it all (very similar in that respect), nearly destroyed the game because he brought an unwanted aggressive element in there, forced me to lock one thread and which, if it occurs again, will force me to end all these games. Which I think quite a few enthusiastic participants would regret. But it's not worth the effort it takes just to have another BS flinging contest thread.

[MishaK]

In 1989, at the age of 77 (!), he made his USA debut with the CSO. But he conducted them only twice. He did not get along well with the orchestra. They thought they were already the very greatest in the universe and couldn't handle Wand's detailed and very critical rehearsing. Wand in turn was unhappy because he had a hard time getting the natural and idiomatic phrasing and timing from the CSO that he was used to from the orchestras he normally worked with. So that was that.

Nice try, but that was not the reason. Rather the issue was Wand's insistence on up to eight rehearsals, even for standard repertoire. The CSO was simply unwilling and unable to accomodate that in their schedules, as indeed were most European orchestras. Only the radio orchestras had that sort of luxury of time on a regular basis. At any rate, Wand and the CSO made a very fine live recording of Brahms's 1st on RCA which is hardly "unidiomatic". If you don't have a copy of that, you should try to find it. I think it may be OOP these days unfortunately. I know the CSO has in its broadcast archives tapes of their performance of Bruckner's 5th as well. It would be interesting if they were to issue that on one of their future "from the Archives" releases.

But that is my basic issue with Wand: what he does just sounds a bit too prepared. I love the detail, the meticulous attention to the tiniest instruction in the score. But in the end I prefer my Bruckner with a little more organic development (a la Böhm) or more forward momentum (a la Schuricht or Jochum or Barenboim, each in his own way) or more mysterious (take Giulini, Klemperer, Celi or Barenboim again). Wand is indeed a master-craftsman, and as a textbook guide to Bruckner's symphonies one could hardly do better than to start with any of Wand's cycles (I actually find his video performances with the NDR by far the best). But music is more than just that. You keep chastising people for "emotional responses" to music. But the craft of musicmaking is useless if it is not capable of eliciting an emotional response where the repertoire calls for it. Think of it this way: stage acting is unquestionably a craft. But the audience is still pulled into the performance by way of an emotional response. There must be an emotional logic to each performance. E.g. Macbeth cannot go from being fairly normal in Act I to stark raving mad in Act III without some compelling and convicing character development in between. The absence of a concrete narrative in music does not mean that one can do away that. Emotion is not the same as absence of logic or structure. It is not irrationality. Bernstein used to say that in an ideal performance each note should sound such that you don't know what is coming next, but once you've heard the next note you know it couldn't have come any other way. Music isn't a purely cerebral sport.

When you do said perusing, you will find that another forum member who, not at all completely different from you, but then again not that similar in all details either (and I don't like to throw people into one pot with other people for cheap rhetorical attacks), but vaguely similar in that he did have some very good points and some interesting things to say but lacked the self-criticism to accept contrary statements because he thought he already knew it all (very similar in that respect), nearly destroyed the game because he brought an unwanted aggressive element in there, forced me to lock one thread and which, if it occurs again, will force me to end all these games. Which I think quite a few enthusiastic participants would regret. But it's not worth the effort it takes just to have another BS flinging contest thread.

Nice innuendo. But I didn't destroy anything. It's totally up to you whether you can deal with different views on the music you post and whether you can restrain yourself from attacking people who disagree like you just did with soundproof. There is no need for any childish locking of threads or igniring of members where the participants are emotionally mature enough to handle diversity of opinion.

[M forever]

To all: please ignore the above post and don't reply.

I have asked "O Mensch" nicely several times over to stay away from my Mystery threads because he has attacked me time and time again in the past so that I had to ignore him before (when we still had the "ignore" button). And we don't want that here.

Whatever he said above (I didn't read it), he is not welcome here, and I think he should respect that when asked nicely. For about the 5th time now.

No, I don't "own" the forum, and I don't "own" the Mystery Orchestra threads either, but I create and supply them with clips and all that, and I am not doing that to have another thread with nonsense flying around and personal attacks, especially not from "O Mensch".

So if you allow him to infiltrate and poison the athmosphere here, I have to lock this and other Mystery threads, and then there will be no more of that, no more clips, no more prize recordings to download.

Thanks for your understanding.