Bruckner's Abbey

[MishaK]

http://tower.jp/item/3094799/ブルックナー:-交響曲選集

Japan-only release, but maybe an international one will follow in some foreseeable future.

Oooh! Will have to try to get this. I love his 5th.

Really fascinating. I love listening to Sir Simon!
Thanks for sharing, Colin.

I see that this is going to be released in just under a month. I'd certainly be interested in getting it...
[asin]B007O3QC8K[/asin]

This will be interesting, as it is the latest and greatest revision of the SMPC finale completion, which has only improved with each iteration. I might even get it, even though Sir Simon still owes me money that I paid for some very expensive BPO tickets when he performed a wretched rendition of the first three movements.

Piano works - Brunner, Schopper - nice disc from CPO

Really? You like this? I found it completely unlistenable. Yes, there is something to be said for using a fortepiano in certain repertoire. But this tinny piece of c*r*a*p merely masks for the performers' lack of expressive abilities. There is another disc of the solo piano repertoire with Fumiko Shiraga which I find much more successful. Also includes a transcription of the adagio of the 7th.

[DieNacht]

Really? You like this? I found it completely unlistenable.

Me too  ...

[eyeresist]

Ralph Moore over at MusicWeb has posted a positive review of Rattle's new Bruckner CD, though he has a couple of quibbles with the first movement, and laments the omission of a telling passage from the new version of the finale.

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/May12/Bruckner9_Rattle_9529692.htm

I don't think I knew about the Dresden Amen before (employed in the adagio). Instantly recognised it from the Mendelssohn Reformation symphony, of course.

[Leo K.]

Ralph Moore over at MusicWeb has posted a positive review of Rattle's new Bruckner CD, though he has a couple of quibbles with the first movement, and laments the omission of a telling passage from the new version of the finale.

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/May12/Bruckner9_Rattle_9529692.htm

I don't think I knew about the Dresden Amen before (employed in the adagio). Instantly recognised it from the Mendelssohn Reformation symphony, of course.

Much thanks for the link! I just recieved this CD in the mail, and look forward to listening to it very soon!

[Sergeant Rock]

Notes from the 2012 Dresden Music Festival ( 5 )
Dresden's Bruckner and their Thielemann


http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2012/05/bach-death-and-antihistamines.html

The links don't work, Jens.

Sarge

[jlaurson]

The links don't work, Jens.

Sarge

Thanks for pointing that out.

edit: links fixed

Notes from the 2012 Dresden Music Festival ( 5 )
Dresden's Bruckner and their Thielemann


http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2012/05/notes-from-2012-dresden-music-festival_26.html

[calyptorhynchus]

Just taken delivery of the EMI Rattle Ninth and given it a first spin.

My first impression is overwhelmingly positive. I know the Naxos Wildner recording of the Ninth with a reconstructed finale well, and I like that recording a lot. However I think I'm going to prefer Rattle's version for a few reasons.

Firstly, it's the latest version of the 4th movement reconstruction, I haven't noticed major differences from the earlier reconstruction of the Wildner recording, but you might as well have the latest one!

Secondly, the recording is much better, the EMI recording is very immediate and close and brings out the power of the orchestra, but it also brings out, in a way I haven't heard on recordings of any other Bruckner symphonies, the way that the accompanying figures have a life and vitality of their own, and don't always complement the main musical material (perhaps Bruckner was making his accompanying figures more independent as a feature of the style of his last years).

Thirdly, Rattle seems to play all four movements in the same way (perhaps this is a function of having all the movements on one disk, whereas the Naxos has the finale on another disk). Wildner seems to play the first three movements in his recording as a finished piece, and then add on a finale which is more tentative. Rattle by contrast plays the finale full-bloodedly, but in the first three movements he doesn't gloss over the ragged bits.

I think it's important to remember (as Robert Simpson pointed out) that the Ninth is essentially a draft in all its movements. I think that in the latest reconstruction we now have a fair approximation of the penultimate draft of all four movements that Bruckner was working towards (much the same could be said for Mahler's Tenth). In both cases what the composer would have produced as the final version would have been incomparably more wonderful than what we have as reconstructions, but we are lucky to have the reconstructions.

(One final thought, Bruckner could easily have finished his Ninth if he hadn't be distracted by the pleas of so-called friends and helpers asking him to revise his earlier symphonies. He wasted several of the last years of life on these endeavours).

[eyeresist]

(One final thought, Bruckner could easily have finished his Ninth if he hadn't be distracted by the pleas of so-called friends and helpers asking him to revise his earlier symphonies. He wasted several of the last years of life on these endeavours).

Unless one prefers the revisions

I'm listening to the Rattle now (adagio). When playing the CD in my PC, the audio began to stop-start during the first movement. I think my OfficeScan was trying to check the disc (work PC, can't turn it off). I think this may be a "mixed media" disc - note the liner message about using the disc for access to special EMI stuff I have no interest in. I ripped the disc and am listening to the rip.

Not fan of this reading so far. Rattle doesn't have much intensity, and keeps tweaking the tempo in a way that damages the flow of the music. I think I will have to finally buy the Wildner soon.

[calyptorhynchus]

Unless one prefers the revisions

Nah, earliest version except for 4 and 8.

[eyeresist]

I read an interesting article a few months ago which argued, from looking at the handwritten corrections to later editions, among other things, that the attribution of the revisions to Bruckner's friends or "weak will" may have been overstated. I really wish I'd bookmarked the damned thing!


EDIT: I still can't find it, but I think this may be a reference to it (transcribed from The New Bruckner at GoogleBooks):

The matter of the tempo modifications requires clarification. It is evident from Mus. Hs. 19.479 that tempo indications in the outer movements have been added at various times and in various hands. Robert Haas's 1944 edition omitted most of these modifications, and his successor Leopold Nowak was fiercely criticized for re-admitting some of them in his 1954 edition, most notably by Deryck Cooke and Robert Simpson.[35] But Rüdiger Bornhöft's 2003 Revisionsbericht identifies many of the added tempo directions and time signature changes rejected by Haas as being in Bruckner's handwriting after all, including the very directions singled out for the angriest complaints from Simpson and Cooke, the Molto animato at bar 233 in the first movement and the rit. at bar 7 in the Finale together with the a tempo two bars later, directions repeated in all the later appearances of the Finale's main theme.[36] At a stroke, Bornhöft has undermined a long-established tradition of critical commentary in the English-speaking world characterized by righteous indignation directed against the Schalks and, to an even greater extent, against Nowak.

READ THIS: Link to review of The New Bruckner: http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.11.17.4/mto.11.17.4.ramirez.html


EDIT: Another fascinating tidbit, this time from Alex Ross's blog:

At the end of his life, Bruckner was seen reciting the Lord's Prayer at the top of his voice, repeating each line for emphasis.

It sounds like he was planning to set it to music 

[jlaurson]

Thirdly, Rattle seems to play all four movements in the same way (perhaps this is a function of having all the movements on one disk, whereas the Naxos has the finale on another disk). Wildner seems to play the first three movements in his recording as a finished piece, and then add on a finale which is more tentative. Rattle by contrast plays the finale full-bloodedly, but in the first three movements he doesn't gloss over the ragged bits.

That's the key to the finale, I think, because it finally undoes the myth that has become the 9th... as a Symphony that was allegedly, somehow "really" finished with the slow movement. And that outlook understandable if completely wrong, makes it a different work than when it has the finale (or even if you only think of the finale). (Tacking on the Te Deum is nonsense and doesn't count.) I think that's Rattle's whole point, too, and I'm glad it can be heard in the performance.

I think it's important to remember (as Robert Simpson pointed out) that the Ninth is essentially a draft in all its movements. I think that in the latest reconstruction we now have a fair approximation of the penultimate draft of all four movements that Bruckner was working towards (much the same could be said for Mahler's Tenth). In both cases what the composer would have produced as the final version would have been incomparably more wonderful than what we have as reconstructions, but we are lucky to have the reconstructions.

Well... hmm... yes, but then Bruckner's own (rather than advice-stipulated) changes to a complete score are modest compared to Mahler. What we have of the Bruckner finale is complete, much more so and for more of those parts than M10. On the other hand, there's nothing missing in M10 -- even if it's just two staves to go by, whereas in Bruckner there are actual lacunae.

[calyptorhynchus]

I read an interesting article a few months ago which argued, from looking at the handwritten corrections to later editions, among other things, that the attribution of the revisions to Bruckner's friends or "weak will" may have been overstated. I really wish I'd bookmarked the damned thing!


EDIT: I still can't find it, but I think this may be a reference to it (transcribed from The New Bruckner at GoogleBooks):

READ THIS: Link to review of The New Bruckner: http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.11.17.4/mto.11.17.4.ramirez.html

I know the dangers of romanticising artists, and I certainly don't blame Nowak for besmirching Bruckner's work. However I have listened to the original and at least one of the revised versions of all the symphonies where different versions exist, and I do prefer the originals in all cases except 4 and 8, where it seems Bruckner did improve on his first thoughts. I'm not enough of an expert to die in a ditch over tempo markings!

The first Bruckner I ever heard was Karajan conducting the 3rd in the 1890 version. I was blown away by the sound, but couldn't understand the structure. It wasn't until I heard the original and few years ago I thought "Oh, that's what he meant, then he went and hacked big chunks out of it." 

[mszczuj]

I must say that for me the most appropriate way to listen to the 9th is listen to the preserved fragments of Finale after Adagio. So I cut these fragments from Harnoncourt recording and made new single record with all what is really composed by Bruckner. It works better for me than reconstructions.

[DieNacht]

Quote from: eyeresist on May 28, 2012, 10:38:10 PM
I read an interesting article a few months ago which argued, from looking at the handwritten corrections to later editions, among other things, that the attribution of the revisions to Bruckner's friends or "weak will" may have been overstated. I really wish I'd bookmarked the damned thing!


EDIT: I still can't find it, but I think this may be a reference to it (transcribed from The New Bruckner at GoogleBooks):

READ THIS: Link to review of The New Bruckner: http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.11.17.4/mto.11.17.4.ramirez.html

I know the dangers of romanticising artists, and I certainly don't blame Nowak for besmirching Bruckner's work. However I have listened to the original and at least one of the revised versions of all the symphonies where different versions exist, and I do prefer the originals in all cases except 4 and 8, where it seems Bruckner did improve on his first thoughts. I'm not enough of an expert to die in a ditch over tempo markings!

The first Bruckner I ever heard was Karajan conducting the 3rd in the 1890 version. I was blown away by the sound, but couldn't understand the structure. It wasn't until I heard the original and few years ago I thought "Oh, that's what he meant, then he went and hacked big chunks out of it."

Exactly my thoughts too. Viva Inbal ! in the 3rd.

[kishnevi]

The first Bruckner I ever heard was Karajan conducting the 3rd in the 1890 version. I was blown away by the sound, but couldn't understand the structure. It wasn't until I heard the original and few years ago I thought "Oh, that's what he meant, then he went and hacked big chunks out of it." 

Hmm, obviously a case of de gustibus here.  I've been playing my way through the Karajan boxset these last few days, and must say Karajan's performance is the first Third I've actually liked, although the Second rather sputtered (Karajan seems to have come up with his own list of cuts and restorations for the Second), and the Seventh, which I just finished a few moments ago,  was a complete letdown: Karajan didn't seem to be able to get his scherzo on in that one.   Now have the Ninth starting to finish off the set.  (And I did like K.'s Eighth.)  (Anyone know which versions Wand used in the Cologne set of recordings?)

[Sergeant Rock]

Anyone know which versions Wand used in the Cologne set of recordings?

SYMPHONY #1 VIENNA 1891 BRUCKNER
SYMPHONY #2 ORIG VERSION 1877 HAAS
SYMPHONY #3 REV VERSION 1889 NOWAK
SYMPHONY #4 1ST DEF VERSION HAAS
SYMPHONY #5 HAAS
SYMPHONY #6 NOWAK
SYMPHONY #7 HAAS
SYMPHONY #8 REV VERSION 1887/90 HAAS
SYMPHONY #9 NOWAK



Sarge

[Karl Henning]

Sarge, you de man.

[Sergeant Rock]

Hmm, obviously a case of de gustibus here.

Indeed. I love the late revisions of 1 & 3 (not that I dislike the originals).

Sarge

[kishnevi]

SYMPHONY #1 VIENNA 1891 BRUCKNER
SYMPHONY #2 ORIG VERSION 1877 HAAS
SYMPHONY #3 REV VERSION 1889 NOWAK
SYMPHONY #4 1ST DEF VERSION HAAS
SYMPHONY #5 HAAS
SYMPHONY #6 NOWAK
SYMPHONY #7 HAAS
SYMPHONY #8 REV VERSION 1887/90 HAAS
SYMPHONY #9 NOWAK



Sarge

Thank you!

Karajan seems to be very similar.  The only major differences are the first two, and possibly the Third and Eighth
.
The versions used by Karajan according to the DG liner notes
1--Original version, Linz 1866 ed. Haas with minor emendations from the Nowak 1953 edition
2--The only time the liner notes specify Karajan's own editorial decisions.

"Karajan conflates the original 1872 version ed. Haas with 1876 Bruckner and Herbeck revision, ed. Nowak...Karajan observes the following cuts.  First movement coda between figs. R and S; slow movement between figs. C and E; and the Scherzo's repeats.  In the Finale, by contrast, Karajan plays the complete text, ignoring the proposed cut in the coda and restoring 23 bars after fig. U."

3--1889 Bruckner and Franz Schalk revision of the versions of 1873, 1876-7; ed Nowak, omitting additional changes made by Schalk for printing of the 1889 edition.
4, 5, 8, 7, and 9--DG is slightly more verbose, but apparently they are the same versions as used by Wand.
8--Revised 1890 edition, ed. Haas with material restored from 1887 original version

[eyeresist]

Hmm, obviously a case of de gustibus here.  I've been playing my way through the Karajan boxset these last few days, and must say Karajan's performance is the first Third I've actually liked,

Yep, my favourite too. Certainly a better performance than Tintner

Re revisions, Bruckner is not the only composer to do such a thing (RVW 2, Sibelius 5 to name but two). In most cases, cutting is involved. Hearing the cut passages back in is a interesting novelty, but I generally prefer the concise structure of the later version.