Bruckner's Abbey

[André]

John Berky's site lists 9 versions of the 7th under Schuricht. I own 3 of them (Berlin, Hamburg and The Hague). The latter is the least proficient and least known of these outfits, but to my ears it beats the others in characterfulness, and the conductor takes the work by the throat from the first bars and never lets go. It's all a bit raucous and certainly unrefined, but it remains one of my favourites.

Bruckner 7 under Schuricht with a French orchestra is definitely something I'm curious about. But I'd check excerpts first, both for the playing and sound quality.

[Drasko]

I cannot say specifically, only that Carl Schuricht was one of the great Bruckner conductors.  I had a performance of his on the old Angel/Seraphim label with the Ninth Symphony (maybe with the Vienna Philharmonic (?)) and it was a great one!

I absolutely agree about Schuricht. One of great Bruckner conductors. I have multiple recordings of his Bruckner, 3, 5, 8 & 9 with the VPO, 7 with the BPO and the Hague Orchestra, 9 with Berlin State Opera. While I can't really say that I'm fan of any of his 9ths, his VPO 8th and both BPO and Hague 7ths are favorites.

But here I'm more interested in the French connection. Recordings of Bruckner with French orchestras are very rare. I know of only four official releases:

4th - Orchestre d'Paris / Eschenbach (2003, Ondine)
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Ondine/ODE10302

5th - French National Orchestra / Matacic (1979, Naive)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bruckner-Symphony-No-5-Anton/dp/B0007DDR14

7th - French National Orchestra / Jochum (1980, INA)
https://www.amazon.fr/Oeuvres-Brahms-Bruckner-Wagner-Multi-Compositeurs/dp/B00004VN29

7th - Strasbourg Philharmonic / Guschbauer (1989, Erato)
https://www.amazon.fr/Sinfonie-Guschlbauer-Theodor-Bruckner-Anton/dp/B00002400D

The oldest of which is 1979, and I'm really curious how Bruckner sounds played by mid 20th century French orchestras with their unblending watery brass and nasal winds. These Schuricht 7ths are from 1963 and 1956 respectively and since both are live I'm bit wary of sound quality (especially given the Japanese prices).

[kishnevi]

Crosspost from the main listening thread

Last night, I started this set with the First. Currently, I am listening to the Second.
[asin]B01ET5D54Y[/asin]
Heretofore, Karajan has been the only conductor who has produced performances in which I am interested out of B1-B3.  He now has a companion in Gielen, at least for the First and Second.

Curiously, this studio recording from 1968 was never released before. Neither was the performance of the First, although a bit less curiously there (recorded in live performances in 2009).  That fact may make this set a must buy for Cato, Andre, and other Brucknerites.

[André]

Gielen is a master brucknerite in 5 and 7. From the timings you can tell these are swift performances. Few can touch him there. His 8th on the contrary is lumbering and bloated. It's hard to believe this 5th and this 8th are from the same conductor. His 6th is very good. I don't have the others. Maybe the disappointment with the 8th stopped me in my tracks. 

[kishnevi]

Gielen is a master brucknerite in 5 and 7. From the timings you can tell these are swift performances. Few can touch him there. His 8th on the contrary is lumbering and bloated. It's hard to believe this 5th and this 8th are from the same conductor. His 6th is very good. I don't have the others. Maybe the disappointment with the 8th stopped me in my tracks. 

The Eighth in this set is the other never-before-released recording (live, Baden 2007) in this set, so it may be better...although the 95 minute timing certainly allows for lumbering and bloating.

[André]

I see. The 8th I have is with the Baden-Baden Orchestra, not the Saarbrücken one. Curiously, it is coupled with Morton Feldman's Coptic Light (the only work of this composer I ever heard). The Bruckner is some 83 minutes long. It's in the same range as Karajan's performances (which I generally find also bloated and protracted, although it is undoubtedly grand and impressive)  .

Let us know what you think of the 5th !

[amw]

This is the 1887 version which is ~200 bars longer than the 1890 one (on the Coptic Light recording), so timings are going to be longer for that reason.

[Jo498]

Of the ones I have heard, I agree that the 5th and 7th are the best of Gielen's Bruckner. These two as well as the 4th (first version, so this is certainly also interesting because there are not so many recordings, I don't like that version regardless of conductor, though), 8th (the more common version with the SWF Orchestra) and 9th had been on CD on Intercord in the early 1990s. The 3rd and 6th  appeared on Hänssler. As shown the 3rd is also an alternative version (I was not too fond of this recording either). I have not heard the 9th which has been oop for a long time. At 37 EUR the set would be worth it for 5,6,7 and the early version of the 4th (for those interested in it) with the rest as a bonus.

[André]

I wasn't aware that Gielen had recorded both the first and last versions of the 8th. As well as those of the 2nd and 4th. Not many conductors have done that (Rozhdestvensky comes to mind, having recorded multiple versions/editions of most of the works - AFAIK, he's the most 'complete' Bruckner conductor on discs). After careful comparison in the Bruckner Discography (John Berky's web site) I notice that the more recent Gielen discs are of the original versions of the 2nd, 4th and 8th symphonies. 

Symphonies 2, 3, 4 and 8 exist in "first versions" that are substantially different (generally longer, more diffuse, but no less interesting for that) than the later pruned, concentrated, reorchestrated, excised, butchered last versions (take your pick in terms of the appropriate description, but that is not my POV: while I wallow in the unalduterated brucknerian first thoughts,
I ultimately consider his last editorial views as those that convey his musical thoughts best - except in the case of the 1st).

But that shouldn't account for the longer timings. The timing of this Gielen 1887 8th is 20 minutes over Inbal's. And a good 8 minutes over Tintner's very measured versions (with the National Youth Orchestra substantially more interesting than the commercial Naxos issue IMHO) which I also own. I also note that Gielen's 1993 reading of the 9th symphony (EMI/Intercord) and 2013 (the present set), both of the same text are quite different in terms of tempi/timings (58 minutes in 1993 vs 67 in 2013). 

Clearly, the conductor's view of either the the Bruckner symphonies - in terms of the versions (the actual text) - or the interpretation of the scores differs markedly from one disc to another. It thus make for a very interesting, enterprising, but editorially very confused "complete set". A clear case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde, something like Klemperer's mid 50s Bruckner or Mahler in comparison to his mid-to-late sixties interpretations.

The fact that the rarely recorded original 2nd, 4th and 8th (but not the 3rd) are mixed with last versions of the other symphonies should not deter anyone from acquiring this set. Gielen in Bruckner (as in Mahler, Schönberg and Beethoven) is a giant among interpreters.

I do not expect any conductor to be "primus inter pares' in all the symphonies (same as with Beethoven and Mahler complete sets). But, by all means, a "final version" of these symphonies should be at hand for comparison. It matters not one whit whether the interpretation is fast or slow. There will be no winner. "Bruckner vs Bruckner" means that Bruckner will win. Every time.

[Cato]

Courtesy of Todd from "What Are You Listening?"

Three Ninths from Barenboim.  The new recording got first airing in this comparative matchup.  This recording has a bit more brass bite than preceding recordings in this cycle, and that helps things, but not as much as Barenboim's control of tempo and pacing and climaxes.  Though only a minute or two shorter than his prior two recordings, this one is notably more intense, especially when compared to the Chicago recording.  The piece moves forward relentlessly at all times.  It's an hour of nightmares of cataclysm, very much modelled on Furtwangler's approach.  Barenboim doesn't achieve what Furtwangler does, but it is in better sound.  The Scherzo has nearly the same teeth-gnashing intensity as Jansons' take on DSCH 4, and the Adagio is taut and tense.  The low frequencies, especially the double basses and cellos, add a physicality and imposing nature to the music.  The Chicago recording followed, and though the brass definitely shine hear, and overall executive precision is greater, the playing is more conventional and less intense.  The Teldec recording is closer in spirit and style to the newest recording, though it must cede to the Staatskapelle Berlin in terms of intensity and overall satisfaction. 

Of the three cycles, I'd have to do A/B/Cs for the other symphonies, but the Chicago cycle is probably my favorite, though the First and Ninth in this newest one are the big attractions.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Courtesy of Todd from "What Are You Listening?"

Funny, I've always found Nos. 1 & 9 the strong points in the Berlin cycle. And the Fourth, in its brash way, in the Chicago cycle and also the Fourth, in a more supple but less blazing way, in the new Staatskapelle-cycle. (Judging by the Accent DVD which I reckon is the same performance.)

[calyptorhynchus]

Symphonies 2, 3, 4 and 8 exist in "first versions" that are substantially different (generally longer, more diffuse, but no less interesting for that) than the later pruned, concentrated, reorchestrated, excised, butchered last versions (take your pick in terms of the appropriate description, but that is not my POV: while I wallow in the unalduterated brucknerian first thoughts,

I would agree with you in the case of 4 and 8, although 4 I don't think is longer, just more diffuse. However with 2 and 3 I think the earlier versions are better.

My 'rule' is, first version except 4 and 8; in those two cases Bruckner got uncharacteristically overconfident, and produced the first versions in a very short time (for him).

[Cato]

I would agree with you in the case of 4 and 8, although 4 I don't think is longer, just more diffuse. However with 2 and 3 I think the earlier versions are better.

My 'rule' is, first version except 4 and 8; in those two cases Bruckner got uncharacteristically overconfident, and produced the first versions in a very short time (for him).

The psychologists say that second-guessing is usually not a good idea, but there are times when it is correct! 0:)

I was biased for the longest time by the Nowak versions, since Saint  0:) Eugen Jochum used them for the DGG recordings, but I must admit that the Originalfassungen have a great deal in their favor!

e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/v/pH4xR2y3j3w

[amw]

This is probably one for the Unpopular Opinions thread but I prefer the first version of No. 4 to the second. The new scherzo is undoubtedly much better, but everything else became more conventional, more formally unified, less bold and experimental, and often less interesting. The 1874 finale in particular is significantly better than either of the later versions (although much harder to play).
<_<

No. 8 I have to go with the revision. Of course this is the only case where Bruckner carried on revising straight after finishing the piece and thus was still writing within the same frame of mind. 1, 2, 3, and 4 he revised after he'd written a lot of other music in the interim and it shows.

[Mahlerian]

This is probably one for the Unpopular Opinions thread but I prefer the first version of No. 4 to the second. The new scherzo is undoubtedly much better, but everything else became more conventional, more formally unified, less bold and experimental, and often less interesting. The 1874 finale in particular is significantly better than either of the later versions (although much harder to play).
<_<

Much as I love the revision and feel it is the more straightforward piece of the two, I agree with you as to your reasons for preferring the original (if not to the choice itself).  I wouldn't even say that the later scherzo is the better movement; the original movement is more closely connected to the motif that saturates all of the other movements.  It's also unlike any of Bruckner's other scherzos in temperament and style.  He even had to add in a reference to the revised scherzo in his later finale in order to make it fit.

[amw]

Much as I love the revision and feel it is the more straightforward piece of the two, I agree with you as to your reasons for preferring the original (if not to the choice itself).  I wouldn't even say that the later scherzo is the better movement; the original movement is more closely connected to the motif that saturates all of the other movements.  It's also unlike any of Bruckner's other scherzos in temperament and style.  He even had to add in a reference to the revised scherzo in his later finale in order to make it fit.

You're probably right, but I mean I can see why he got rid of it; it's kind of epigrammatic, not really a successful large-scale structure. I do still like it a lot. The later scherzo is more successful as a coherent listening experience but, yeah, doesn't mesh well with the remaining movements, stylistically being more of a throw-forward to the 7th symphony or thereabouts. (begun the year after Bruckner finished revising the 4th)

[kishnevi]

Gielen is a master brucknerite in 5 and 7. From the timings you can tell these are swift performances. Few can touch him there. His 8th on the contrary is lumbering and bloated. It's hard to believe this 5th and this 8th are from the same conductor. His 6th is very good. I don't have the others. Maybe the disappointment with the 8th stopped me in my tracks. 

Listened to Gielen's Fifth earlier today.  I agree with your assessment of the performance.

[kishnevi]

Crosspost from the main listening thread

Last night, I started this set with the First. Currently, I am listening to the Second.
[asin]B01ET5D54Y[/asin]
Heretofore, Karajan has been the only conductor who has produced performances in which I am interested out of B1-B3.  He now has a companion in Gielen, at least for the First and Second.

Curiously, this studio recording from 1968 was never released before. Neither was the performance of the First, although a bit less curiously there (recorded in live performances in 2009).  That fact may make this set a must buy for Cato, Andre, and other Brucknerites.

Update, having finished this set earlier today

Strong points
1-3,5,6, final movement of 8

Weak points
third movement of 8

In between
4,7, the first two movements of 8 (and 8 overall), 9

Overall rating:good buy, perhaps essential.

The 8 may require a bit of explanation. The first two movements were good, but could have been produced by anyone.  The third was too mellow and a bit flaccid for my taste. The final movement more than made up for it, being essentially a long slow burn that lost no intensity along the way. As pointed out earlier in the thread, this was the first version of the symphony.

[Jo498]

I find is somewhat strange that they did not include the recording of the "standard" version of the 8th. Granted, it is probably not that special (it is maybe the weakest/least distinctive of the ones (3, 4-8) I have heard) but I had the impression that they went for completeness in these boxes.
I am surprised that you did not find the 7th more distinctive. I am not a huge Brucknerian and have not heard all that many (although around 10 of this piece) but for me this is the best "fleet/lean" reading of the piece I know. Even if one does not favor such an approach it seems to me more distinctive than his other Bruckner (except maybe the 5th).

[André]

I find is somewhat strange that they did not include the recording of the "standard" version of the 8th. Granted, it is probably not that special (it is maybe the weakest/least distinctive of the ones (3, 4-8) I have heard) but I had the impression that they went for completeness in these boxes.
I am surprised that you did not find the 7th more distinctive. I am not a huge Brucknerian and have not heard all that many (although around 10 of this piece) but for me this is the best "fleet/lean" reading of the piece I know. Even if one does not favor such an approach it seems to me more distinctive than his other Bruckner (except maybe the 5th).

+ 3 (re: the 7th, the final version of 8 and the 5th)