Recordings That You Are Considering

[Keemun]

Wand's Lübeck 8th is sonic swamp.

It is, absolutely. I was looking for it myself, until I sampled it via torrent, and no. It's good, but the Berlin one has far less swamp value.

But the Lübeck performance is incredible, sonic swamp and all.  

If you trust me only once this year, trust me that you have to have Wand's 8th. (I will get Maazel's 8th, btw.. It's already in the cart.)
There are points made for preferring the Luebeck 8th over the Berlin 8th, and I could subscribe to that... but I find the Berlin just that little bit more immediately arresting. Ultimately, both are probably mandatory in anyone's bulging collection.

My list (today) would be:

8 Maazel/Berlin (he took me by surprise when I did a comparison of all my Eighths. Szell/Cleveland is near the top too but I don't have a CD of that performance; making do with my 40-year-old LPs)

Damn, I thought I wouldn't want any more Bruckner 8ths now that I have Boulez, Celibidache, Karajan/Vienna, Giulini/Vienna and Wand/Lübeck.    How do Wand/Berlin and Maazel/Berlin compare to the others I listed?

[Renfield]

Damn, I thought I wouldn't want any more Bruckner 8ths now that I have Boulez, Celibidache, Karajan/Vienna, Giulini/Vienna and Wand/Lübeck.    How do Wand/Berlin and Maazel/Berlin compare to the others I listed?

I'd say the Maazel/BPO sits firmly behind Karajan/VPO, Boulez and Celi, around Wand/BPO and Giulini/VPO, with Wand/NDRSO (Lübeck) trailing behiiiinnnnnnddddeeee dueeetooootheeesssss ooooonicsssss.

All in all, Maazel's is a great performance, if not entirely special. (Whereas Wand's and Giulini's are special, but I have some gripes with some aspects of them which, slight as they are, put them behind the more pristine triad I list first, above. )

[jlaurson]

But the Lübeck performance is incredible, sonic swamp and all.  

A perceptive reviewer of the concert wrote: "Why did it take Wand 86 minutes to perform Bruckner's 8th? Because it took Wand 86 minutes to find God."

Don't analyze that... just taste the flavor of that quote.

Damn, I thought I wouldn't want any more Bruckner 8ths now that I have Boulez, Celibidache, Karajan/Vienna, Giulini/Vienna and Wand/Lübeck.    How do Wand/Berlin and Maazel/Berlin compare to the others I listed?

I've ordered, but not yet heard, Maazel -- so I can't comment on that. I am a big Celi-fan, but don't think the 8th works particularly well on disc with him. At least not as well as some others (3, 5, 6). Boulez' iron fist is--err... gripping.    Karajan I like for the way the orchestra digs into the music for him, Giulini I never established a firm opinion about, and Wand/Luebeck is a spiritual performance that's sans pareil, which is not to say "the best", but unique and utterly moving. I do, however, prefer Wand/Berlin over any of these (slight margin, perhaps)--because it so immediately, obviously grabs you by the lapels not via an overt "interpretation", but what one assumes (in the moment, at least) to be true "Bruckner". Conjecture, of course, but the best way to describe it in two sentences I can come up with right now.

[Lilas Pastia]

True, Wand's Lübeck Bruckners (8 and 9) are very swampy. Past the initial laudatory, quasi-epiphanic initial reviews (everything wandian is incense-laden in the french musical press), some common sense has settled and the impossible sonic aspects of those recordings have led amateurs to look for the real Wand sound: crisp and sonorous, luminous and dark, with ample yet very precise gestures. One can hear that in the more or less contemporaneous Hamburg Musikhalle performances. I can't imagine any reason to prefer the Lübeck performances over the Hamburg ones (same orchestra, BTW). The latter are impressive up to a pooint, but quite misleading. The latter are truly staggering.

[Drasko]

A perceptive reviewer of the concert wrote: "Why did it take Wand 86 minutes to perform Bruckner's 8th? Because it took Wand 86 minutes to find God."

Don't analyze that... just taste the flavor of that quote.

Overripe apricot? Teeth hurting.

[Haffner]

Overripe apricot? Teeth hurting.

(laughing uproariously)

[Renfield]

(laughing uproariously)

I laughed so heartily that it made me guilty and wanting to give the recording a second chance.

Am doing so now: still a swamp!

[jlaurson]

True, Wand's Lübeck Bruckners (8 and 9) are very swampy. ... I can't imagine any reason to prefer the Lübeck performances over the Hamburg ones (same orchestra, BTW). The latter are impressive up to a pooint, but quite misleading. The latter are truly staggering.

There simply is a difference between Bruckner in a cathedral and Bruckner in the concert hall. If a conductor doesn't adjust, the result isn't particularly good. I heard Bloomstedt in the Bruckner 8th last year --  first at the Herkulessaal and then, a week later, at the Ottobeuren cathedral. Unfortunately he didn't seem to have taken the different acoustics into much consideration and the result didn't breath as it needs in a church. It will still sound swampy, even if it does (and of course it takes longer to perform it properly in such an acoustic), but it has its own charm. Then again, Boulez manages to do it without the swamp... but then his Linz performances isn't particularly reverent, either.

[Daverz]

I don't know if these are different issues or the same.  (There's also an SHM CD issue...no thanks, and a big box with Bruckner, Beethoven, Brahms, etc...more Karajan than I want.)  Really, I'm just interested in 5 and 8, maybe 9, but this is probably the most cost effective way to get them.

[Wanderer]

I don't know if these are different issues or the same.  (There's also an SHM CD issue...no thanks, and a big box with Bruckner, Beethoven, Brahms, etc...more Karajan than I want.)  Really, I'm just interested in 5 and 8, maybe 9, but this is probably the most cost effective way to get them.

I believe they're the same set with just a different cover. I have the older (and much bulkier) incarnation of these as a set; the present reissue must certainly occupy much less shelf space. If you want his other symphonic cycles as well, probably getting the big symphony box would be the wisest move.

[jlaurson]

I believe they're the same set with just a different cover. I have the older (and much bulkier) incarnation of these as a set; the present reissue must certainly occupy much less shelf space. If you want his other symphonic cycles as well, probably getting the big symphony box would be the wisest move.

Yes, they are the same cycles and yes, at some of the rates I have seen the complete Symphony set offered, it would probably the best bet. Because even if you are _not_ a HvK fan, his LvB cycle is excellent, I quite like his Mendelssohn (esp. the 2nd), and you could do worse than have his Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Schumann. Depends on the difference between the Bruckner-alone and the complete set--and whether you are interest in anything at all from what the rest would offer you. (Review of Beethoven here)

[jwinter]

[Renfield]

Yes. Next!


(In all seriousness, an outstanding compilation. Landmark Brahms, for one, and Schumann you can't hear anywhere else. )

[George]

Yes. Next!


(In all seriousness, an outstanding compilation. Landmark Brahms, for one, and Schumann you can't hear anywhere else. )

How does it compare to his stereo Schumann?

[Renfield]

How does it compare to his stereo Schumann?

That's a good question. I don't have any of his stereo Schumann! I've always been very satisfied by these mono offerings.

[Brian]

Scriabin / Melnikov



Dvorak / Herbert / Capucon
(This one was only released a few weeks ago.)

[Brian]

Dvorak / Herbert / Capucon
(This one was only released a few weeks ago.)

Recommendation limited to the Herbert now. I found out the Dvorak is a live broadcast which I've already downloaded from OperaShare.

[Philoctetes]

The Melnikov is a wonderful treatment of the sonatas, and the rest is just as delightful.

He's light and diabolical.

[Philoctetes]

Also, I'm looking for a Tchaikovsky 6th recording with an exaggeratedly slow first movement.

[Brian]

Also, I'm looking for a Tchaikovsky 6th recording with an exaggeratedly slow first movement.

Well, Leonard Bernstein is the most famous example of this at 24 minutes (an hour for the whole piece), and I seem to recall a Finnish conductor recently releasing a similarly slow account - was it Mikko Franck? In my own collection the slowest first movement is Eschenbach / Philadelphia - 20 minutes even - but it feels so natural that the exaggeration criterion would likely not be met.

Thanks for the Melnikov comment!