Mystery Orchestra 17 - Bruckner Symphony No.9

[Greta]

But I allow anyone in my Comparison threads as long as people treat each other with respect.

Though if there is misbehaving or rudeness in my threads, I will not permit it. But right now, everyone has a clean slate.

So everyone please feel welcome, even if you are not welcome here.

[M forever]

It was the same here before "O Mensch". You are welcome to have and keep him.

You haven't posted in MO18 yet 

[MishaK]

M,

Save yourself the ammo. I'm not participating in your games anymore anyway. I prefer more civilized discussion.

[uffeviking]

It must be the extreme heat we are having here making it difficult for me to grasp certain posts on this topic that have nothing whatsoever to do with the intent and purpose: Discussions of the classical work, not arguments about merits or talents or views of various conductors.

Can you all please keep it as interesting and educational as it has been, without dragging in personalities?

Thank you kindly,
uffeviking

[Sean]

Hey guys, I wouldn't usually give a damn but Uffe has a point. Why don't you get on with the next thread and give Mensch an amnesty: I don't agree with him either!

[Sean]

By the way movs 2-3 still don't work for me when you put the four digit code in.

But despite its architecture Jochum's first movement completely fails to find the music's unique idiom and let it breathe, and sounds like he's conducting any other regular romantic symphonist...

[not edward]

By the way movs 2-3 still don't work for me when you put the four digit code in.

Sometimes the codes are ambiguous: O, Q and 0 can look almost identical, for example. Just go back a page until you can guess right--that's what I do.

[M forever]

Sean, you have absolutely no clue what Bruckner's idiom actually is. I remember I spent a very, very, very, very, very, long time explaining that subject and how complex it is to you in the old forum. And it looked a little, little, little bit like you were beginning to understand that. Just a little bit, but there seemed to be hope.

You pontificating here about Bruckner's idiom is like you giving dating tips for how to meet shy girls.

And no, the stuff I said about "idiomatic" playing earlier has nothing to do with that subject either, so no stupid and cheap comebacks, please. I understand your desire to pick up a tiny fragment of knowledge and act like you have it all figured out, the sun, the moon, the universe, but you really have no clue about this subject.

OK, now we know what your cliché idea of what Bruckner should sound is like, thank you very much, now sit down, listen and learn. Jochum knew much more about Bruckner than you ever will. You can also learn a lot from the intelligent and differentiated observations of some of the posters here.

Don't spoil the thread with your nonsense, please?

[Sean]

If I can get the rest of Mr Jochum to play I'll tell you whether he better succeeds in finding the right interpretive idiom- because it does exist independently of the mind of the beholder. Bruckner's a very unusual figure, revealing a musical logic no one else saw, and its obviously a mistake to dash it off as routine Brahmsian sonata form, missing the Wagnerian inner space and sense that slower tempos reveal. Jochum holds the first movement together in a way that it doesn't need holding.

I'd been looking forward to hearing some of his famous Bruckner though so thanks anyway.

I'm particularly interested in Bruckner, and Wagner, in connection with his repetition of motifs and the logic that emerges out of the placing of related material over time- a logic depending on the listener's awareness as well perspicuous architecture that can be pointed to in the score- and which Jochum seems more interested in at least on this occasion. Ideas emerge and submerge in some kind of parallel with how consciousness naturally processes material. A visual parallel, if you're still unsure about what I mean, might be Bridgit Riley's geometrical paintings that clearly involve the human awareness process... Mmm?

[M forever]

If I can get the rest of Mr Jochum to play I'll tell you whether he better succeeds in finding the right interpretive idiom.

Yes, please, I really look forward to that. I personally don't know how "successful" he is, I am dying to know, so please let me know when you find out. 

Bruckner's a very unusual figure, revealing a musical logic no one else saw

Well, good that you see it now, but can you take that nonsense and all the consciousness stuff to the Bruckner Abbey, please? Thanks.

[Bonehelm]

M,

Save yourself the ammo. I'm not participating in your games anymore anyway. I prefer more civilized discussion.

Hahaha, I made that word popular 

[M forever]

Active MO players who would be interested in hearing more of the Sawallisch and Wand recordings please PM me.

And a little bonus treat for everybody. Here is the coda of the first movement in the Wand/Kölner RSO recording. What I find absolutely stunning here is that you can really hear the massive minor second Eflat/D clashes between the trumpets and trombones, to great (and rather "modernistic") effect (at 1'34, 1'42, 1'47 etc).
No, that's not a mistake or bad intonation, that's what Bruckner actually wrote. Except it gets smoothed over by many conductors.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yvnwhz

[BachQ]

Ideas emerge and submerge in some kind of parallel with how consciousness naturally processes material. A visual parallel, if you're still unsure about what I mean, might be Bridgit Riley's geometrical paintings that clearly involve the human awareness process... Mmm?

[BachQ]

A visual parallel, if you're still unsure about what I mean, might be Bridgit Riley's geometrical paintings that clearly involve the human awareness process... Mmm?

Is this what Bruckner means to you, Sean?

[head-case]

Is this what Bruckner means to you, Sean?

If you can't tell that one is Schumann there is no helping you.