Bruckner's Abbey

[Cato]

And the concerts have been very well attended. The first three looked to be sold out (though I couldn't be sure -- just a visual check of the hall).

--Bruce

Wonderful!  Is the Ninth Symphony the 3-movement version or the 4-movement completion?

[Mahlerian]

Wonderful!  Is the Ninth Symphony the 3-movement version or the 4-movement completion?

I didn't particularly like Rattle's recording of the most recent completion, but that very well could be the fault of the conductor.  I fully enjoyed the two-piano arrangement I found here:
https://www.abruckner.com/downloads/downloadofthemonth/november15/

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Wonderful!  Is the Ninth Symphony the 3-movement version or the 4-movement completion?

As expected, it's the 3-movement version, talking even of the "Adagio-Finale" on the website. Coupled -- nicely -- with a Mozart PC. I predict Barenboim trying to wing it and it being a bit of a shamble but that people won't care. (Though Bruce will notice, if it is going to be so.)

Using the 3-movement version is not surprising; any performance version of the last movement is a field of musicological landmines and still much more skeptically treated than, say, a full M10. (Which is rare enough, in concert.)
Since people attend a 9th w/3 movements just the same as one with 4, it's also not surprising on that count. I don't know if the finale works for me; it's certainly not quite convinced me yet, as such. But! The very idea of the Adagio being looked at and treated as a 'finale' raises my ire -- and in fact I want the Finale of the B9 to be performed, not to hear the finale but to better hear the Adagio in its rightly place as a movement leading into something. That way, all that nonsense about "parting statement", "last-will-and-testament-cum-music", this slow-goodbye attitude goes out the window (ideally). The Adagio sounds different that way; more modern, more 'Bruckner; less like the final movement of Mahler's 9th.

[bhodges]

Here's my review of the Sixth. (And sorry, have been so busy that my report on Nos. 4 and 5 will come probably tomorrow. Today is occupied by a Boulez tribute concert, which Barenboim has squeezed in between all the Bruckner evenings, with AXIOM performing -- Juilliard's new music ensemble. I'll be writing that up, too, for Musical America.)

http://newyorkclassicalreview.com/2017/01/a-sublime-adagio-forms-the-cornerstone-of-barenboims-bruckner-sixth/

And just found out that tomorrow night's concert, the Seventh, will be broadcast live on WQXR.com, 8:00 EST.

On Sunday afternoon at 2:00 EST, medici.tv will be live-streaming the Ninth, too.

--Bruce

[Cato]

As expected, it's the 3-movement version...

Using the 3-movement version is not surprising; any performance version of the last movement is a field of musicological landmines and still much more skeptically treated than, say, a full M10. (Which is rare enough, in concert.)
Since people attend a 9th w/3 movements just the same as one with 4, it's also not surprising on that count. I don't know if the finale works for me; it's certainly not quite convinced me yet, as such. But! The very idea of the Adagio being looked at and treated as a 'finale' raises my ire -- and in fact I want the Finale of the B9 to be performed, not to hear the finale but to better hear the Adagio in its rightly place as a movement leading into something. That way, all that nonsense about "parting statement", "last-will-and-testament-cum-music", this slow-goodbye attitude goes out the window (ideally). The Adagio sounds different that way; more modern, more 'Bruckner; less like the final movement of Mahler's 9th.

Quite true!  I like the Finale in its most recent "multi-musicologist" manifestation: Simon Rattle almost does it the way my brain says it should be done.  I obtained early versions of the sketches from the Library of Congress 50 years ago or so.  Other discoveries and the actual score of the "multi-musicologist" team I have not seen.

In fact I listened to it last night, and am amazed at 1. how quickly it goes by (22 minutes!) and therefore 2. how much I want it to continue! 0:)

[bhodges]

More Bruckner comments soon, but if you're at all inclined, check out the Ninth from Daniel Barenboim and the Staatskapelle Berlin, from Sunday afternoon at Carnegie Hall, available on medici.tv. It was quite something.

www.medici.tv

--Bruce

[bhodges]

Here's my review of No. 7, a noisier affair than usual, with an opening rant. 

http://seenandheard-international.com/2017/01/a-rightly-annoyed-barenboim-shows-the-audience-how-to-cough/

--Bruce

[Cato]

Hard to believe: a "review" with two arrogant snobs complaining how Bruckner is too individualistic, not connected enough to the doubting Thomases in the proletariat, too concerned with Hell and Heaven, and...wait for it...was used by the Nazis to pump up the home front!  At the same time, he is also too "communal," too often puts a triumphant "we" at the center of his music, and is guilty of "pseudo-medieval self-importance," which proves that the writers know absolutely nothing about the nature of Medieval People, whose general lack of ego and self-deprecation is summed up by the simple fact that so many of their creators are unknown, leading to the old joke that the greatest poet/composer/artist of the Middle Ages was named "Anonymous."


See:


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/arts/music/bruckner-barenboim-staatskapelle-berlin-carnegie-hall.html

[André]

Ah, the vagaries of live occasions... Regardless, it must have been quite an evening, musically speaking.

Great review by the way! 

[Mahlerian]

Hard to believe: a "review" with two arrogant snobs complaining how Bruckner is too individualistic, not connected enough to the doubting Thomases in the proletariat, too concerned with Hell and Heaven, and...wait for it...was used by the Nazis to pump up the home front!  At the same time, he is also too "communal," too often puts a triumphant "we" at the center of his music, and is guilty of "pseudo-medieval self-importance," which proves that the writers know absolutely nothing about the nature of Medieval People, whose general lack of ego and self-deprecation is summed up by the simple fact that so many of their creators are unknown, leading to the old joke that the greatest poet/composer/artist of the Middle Ages was named "Anonymous."


See:


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/arts/music/bruckner-barenboim-staatskapelle-berlin-carnegie-hall.html

Anyone who thinks that the Fifth is less than fully integrated deserves no attention as a serious critic of Bruckner's work.

On top of which, the criticism of Bruckner as less than individualistic is ridiculous.  He was, as a person, not at all interested in politics, and as a musician, he was staunchly individual, declaring his independence not only from Beethoven but also from his idol Wagner.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Hard to believe: a "review" with two arrogant snobs complaining how Bruckner is too individualistic, not connected enough to the doubting Thomases in the proletariat, too concerned with Hell and Heaven, and...wait for it...was used by the Nazis to pump up the home front!  At the same time, he is also too "communal," too often puts a triumphant "we" at the center of his music, and is guilty of "pseudo-medieval self-importance," which proves that the writers know absolutely nothing about the nature of Medieval People, whose general lack of ego and self-deprecation is summed up by the simple fact that so many of their creators are unknown, leading to the old joke that the greatest poet/composer/artist of the Middle Ages was named "Anonymous."
See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/arts/music/bruckner-barenboim-staatskapelle-berlin-carnegie-hall.html

I was quite shocked by the seeming celebration of this double-barreled ignorance, myself. It's OK when a NYT/WaPo critic confesses not liking Brahms and/or ignorance about the composer; awareness of shortcomings is healthy and not everyone has to love everything. But when you have no one in the house who has any appreciable Bruckner credentials and then let them just wallow in their lack of response and call that journalism (and be even celebratory of their own ignorance), that's strange indeed.

From Twitter:

Jens F. Laurson ‏@ClassicalCritic:
@BruceHodgesNY @zwoolfe @CorinnadFW A most worrying read! If any air of pomposity was in fact involved, it surely wasn't Bruckner's fault.

Bruce Hodges ‏@BruceHodgesNY:
@ClassicalCritic @zwoolfe @CorinnadFW My #Bruckner experiences have been completely different: gentle, contemplative, architectural...

Jens F. Laurson ‏@ClassicalCritic:
@BruceHodgesNY @zwoolfe @CorinnadFW Validity of any subjective experience aside, that's much more in keeping w/character of A.B.'s music.

In reply to Bruce Hodges  Jens F. Laurson ‏@ClassicalCritic:
@BruceHodgesNY @zwoolfe @CorinnadFW After all, never has a more humble composer composed more humble music.

In reply to Bruce Hodges  Jens F. Laurson ‏@ClassicalCritic:
@BruceHodgesNY @zwoolfe @CorinnadFW But perhaps it's precisely the humility & self-effacing qualities (& G_d) in there, that make us squirm.

[Cato]

I was quite shocked by the seeming celebration of this double-barreled ignorance, myself. It's OK when a NYT/WaPo critic confesses not liking Brahms and/or ignorance about the composer; awareness of shortcomings is healthy and not everyone has to love everything. But when you have no one in the house who has any appreciable Bruckner credentials and then let them just wallow in their lack of response and call that journalism (and be even celebratory of their own ignorance), that's strange indeed.

A Big AMEN to you!   0:)

Anyone who thinks that the Fifth is less than fully integrated deserves no attention as a serious critic of Bruckner's work.

On top of which, the criticism of Bruckner as less than individualistic is ridiculous.  He was, as a person, not at all interested in politics, and as a musician, he was staunchly individual, declaring his independence not only from Beethoven but also from his idol Wagner.

And another Big AMEN for these comments!   0:)

The "article" almost seemed to have an agenda that Bruckner had to be in general pooh-poohed for some reason, that such a series of concerts augured an increasing popularity for Bruckner, which need to be nipped in the womb.  And so we needed to know that the "Smaht Set" at the Times disapproved of such religious bombast and "pseudo-medieval self-importance," a phrase whose ignorance and emptiness smears only its perpetrator with the mud of irrelevance, rather than Bruckner's accomplishments.  (See my earlier comments on it.)

[Jo498]

It is amazing that in 2016 (rather than 1966) they could only muster two reviewers who are both not very familiar and not fond of Bruckner (or was that the point? but if one has a choice, why not one "skeptic" and one sympathetic?). Sure, a fanboy might not be ideal as well but they are obviously struggling even to verbalize what they don't like about the music. And it is so full of clichés and spurious associations that one wonders if they could be bothered to prepare for the concerts by listening to other recordings or looking at some scores not to go ignorant and unprepared into such a "marathon". This is really unprofessional.

While I think it is perfectly fine to mention and discuss the "oddness" of Bruckner, his strange relation to his predecessors and Wagner, this, like his personal quirks or his catholicism could at best be a starting point for thinking about and appreciating (or maybe even disagreeing with) his music.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

It is amazing that in 2016 (rather than 1966) they could only muster two reviewers who are both not very familiar and not fond of Bruckner (or was that the point? but if one has a choice, why not one "skeptic" and one sympathetic?). Sure, a fanboy might not be ideal as well but they are obviously struggling even to verbalize what they don't like about the music...
While I think it is perfectly fine to mention and discuss the "oddness" of Bruckner, his strange relation to his predecessors and Wagner, this, like his personal quirks or his catholicism could at best be a starting point for thinking about and appreciating (or maybe even disagreeing with) his music.

I absolutely agree: Every music deserves to be treated, even by its greatest fan, with an empathy for those who might not find it great. The ignorance of love is not much better (though often at least more knowledgeable or perhaps positively infectious) than the ignorance of indifference or dislike. But this clichee-ridden, happily ignorant "conversation" really is shameful. The jarring tie-in with Trump is particularly egregious, since they are themselves wallowing in non-appreciation of things different from their own experiences thus far. It's just a sorry lack of experience for two music critics in 2016 to be so utterly unfamiliar -- and disinterested in -- Bruckner.

[knight66]

Reading those critics made me wonder whether they write with perception about music that they do like. I drew from it, that, unable to grapple with the music and evaluate it, they pulled in what they felt was damming cultural baggage to explain their dislike. But the baggage mostly was not even Bruckner's baggage. Perhaps they should be made to only use their ears for a while and practice writing about what actually happens in the hall.

I hope some of these concerts surface as recordings. The 5th esp sounded mouthwatering Bruce.

Mike

[bhodges]

FYI for anyone who missed any, here are my reviews to date, of 1-7. If I hadn't had to deal with a massive water leak in my apartment yesterday, you'd be seeing the others, too -- hopefully tomorrow.

Daniel Barenboim's Bruckner Cycle at Carnegie Hall

No. 1
http://seenandheard-international.com/2017/01/a-revelatory-opening-to-barenboims-bruckner-cycle/

No. 2
http://seenandheard-international.com/2017/01/after-bruckners-second-symphony-barenboim-gives-a-memorable-coda/

No. 3
http://newyorkclassicalreview.com/2017/01/in-majestic-bruckner-third-barenboim-defies-conventional-wisdom/

Nos. 4 and 5
http://seenandheard-international.com/2017/01/torrential-bruckner-fourth-and-fifth-in-barenboims-bruckner-cycle/

No. 6
http://newyorkclassicalreview.com/2017/01/a-sublime-adagio-forms-the-cornerstone-of-barenboims-bruckner-sixth/

No. 7
http://seenandheard-international.com/2017/01/a-rightly-annoyed-barenboim-shows-the-audience-how-to-cough/

--Bruce

[Cato]

FYI for anyone who missed any, here are my reviews to date, of 1-7.
--Bruce

Many thanks!  Very quickly, concerning the coughing and general stupidity, the Cincinnati Symphony has a recommendation: the management offers "free" cough drops at the doors of the hall to all patrons.  Bowls two feet wide and a foot deep full of monitory cough drops!

Concerning the rudeness, what can we say?  The believers in solipsism are everywhere today! 

[Karl Henning]

Many thanks!  Very quickly, concerning the coughing and general stupidity, the Cincinnati Symphony has a recommendation: the management offer "free" cough drops at the doors of the hall to all patrons.  Bowls two feet wide and a foot deep full of monitory cough drops!

I first saw such a public service in the Eastman Theater for a Rochester Phil concert.

[Mahlerian]

Concerning the rudeness, what can we say?  The believers in solipsism are everywhere today!

If they all meet up, would they even acknowledge that it happened?

Thanks for the reviews, Brewski.  I read the first few, and I'll read the others too before long.

[vandermolen]

There is IMHO a great performance of Bruckner's 7th Symphony in this newly released CD. I bought it for Shostakovich's First Symphony as I was curious to hear what the man who conducted the premiere in 1926 made of it. The Bruckner was a broadcast from 1960.
[asin]B016OTKDYI[/asin]