Bruckner's Abbey

[Drasko]

I just read a very thorough and illuminating french review of the Klemperer Cologne recording. Here's an extract, in which I highlight those words that have the same root and meaning in French or English. It just so happens that they perfectly illustrate the whole review:

From what I could tell, with [little] help from babel-fish translator, that's pretty much a rave. And I think I agree with most: austère, sentiment d’urgence, constance de la tension.

If I guessed right one of reviewers top favorites is Van Beinum. Never heard it. Disliked Van Beinum's 5th, I like urgent 5ths but he flogged it into permanent breathlessness, with very little repose. But then again 8th is different kind of animal, probably should try it.

Andre, have you heard Van Beinum's 8th?   

[Lilas Pastia]

Yes, I have two of them. I think I wrote about it some time ago. There's the official June 1955 Philips recording, and another one from April of the same year, both with the Concertgebouw. I prefer the earlier one, but the sound (from Berky's site is mediocre).

Here's how Berky presents it:

This performance by Eduard van Beinum and the Concertgebouw Orchestra was given in the Concertgebouw on April 21, 1955. The concert was recorded on Pyral (acetate discs) for later broadcast. At some point, the discs were discarded by the Dutch Radio but apparently they never made it to the trash bin. Someone took them home and they were eventually discovered in a flea market by an astute collector. While this transfer is offered for download, a nicely processed commercial release is available through Tahra Records.

Timings are practically identical, but I hear more flexibility in the April concert. If I can find a second hand copy of the Tahra issue I'll
certainly try it. It's a fine performance, very intense.  Beinum's kind of podium control could rival Toscanini's or Mrawinsky's, so it may not be to everyone's taste.  It's still available for download on the Bruckner site.

[Drasko]

Yes, I have two of them. I think I wrote about it some time ago.

Couldn't find anything. The new search engine gave me this very exchange as only mention of Van Beinum in Bruckner's Abbey. Hard to believe that, I'm probably doing something wrong there.

There's the official June 1955 Philips recording, and another one from April of the same year, both with the Concertgebouw. I prefer the earlier one, but the sound (from Berky's site is mediocre).....It's still available for download on the Bruckner site.

Thanks fir the tip, I've downloaded it, will give it a spin later.

[Lilas Pastia]

A very interesting interpretation from the very uneven Knappertsbusch. I used to have the Westminster lp set of the Munich performance and never warmed to it - bloated, turgid, in bad need of a viagra shot and cavernously recorded.

The 08.01.1951 from Berlin (6cd set on Andromeda) is a totally different affair. The orchestra, for one, is much better, and to my ears, better recorded. The sound is actually very decent for its early vintage. I also noticed that there is a definite kinship between the sound made by the orchestra and that heard from the Bayreuth pit. Strings play with a density of sound not associated with them unde Furtwängler. Also, the brass has a kind of 'Bayreuth' feel to them: brilliant and round, with a slightly 'covered' sound

The interpretation is pretty much of a piece. Not as emotional as Furtwängler, not as volcanic as Abendroth, but a good compromise. Speaking of compromise, Knappertsbusch uses a different edition. Either through that or personal textual adjustments, there are strange editorial choices here. Some of the louder outburst begin piano, then rapidly swell to the volume level we're accustomed to. Also very strange, but quite effective is the 'deathwatch' trumpet calls tacked on  the first movement's grinding climax: instead of playing a sustained, stentorian fff, they are down to mf, no more. Startling but very effective all the same because at that point the whole orchestra is silent except for the trumpets.

I found it a patient, noble, emotionally engaged interpretation. Timings are middle of the road (approx. 15, 14, 27 and 22.5 minutes). At this point we're nearing the 80 minutes mark, and a certain gigantism - probably inherent to the work - starts to creep in. Interpretations that keep the work under 75 minutes (say, 14-14-24-21) achieve a very different result.

Worth hearing for its special qualities of dedication, concentrated playing and emotional engagement.

[vandermolen]

Next Saturday (21st November) BBC Radio 3 are discussing the different versions of Bruckner's 5th Symphony in their 'Buiding a Library' feature at 9.30am (GMT).

[Lilas Pastia]

Hi, Jeffrey!

Let us know what the outcome of the discussion is. I imagine these would be fairly 'central' recommendations.

[vandermolen]

Hi, Jeffrey!

Let us know what the outcome of the discussion is. I imagine these would be fairly 'central' recommendations.

Hi Andre 

The Wand version on RCA is my favourite (how about you?) I don't know whether I'll be able to listen in, but if I do I'll be sure to let you know.

[Lilas Pastia]

Herbert Kegel was an East Germany conductor much active in Dresden and in particular in Leipzig for over 30 years (both with the Radio symphony orchestra and at the Gewandhaus). Like Celibidache, he seems to have been a 3-9 conductor. His Bruckner discography shows a strong and continued interest in Bruckner, which he conducted troughout his long carreer. I have his 3rd (1986), 6th, and 8th (the Pilz issue).

These records show the east german orchestras as masters of the Bruckner idiom, but in a quite different way from their western counterparts. The overall sound of the leipzigers (both orchestras) is substantially darker, with a truly formidable brass complement. Strings have a dense, almost gritty sound of considerable power. I suppose these players can produce silky, refined tone at will, but in Bruckner they go for a deep soundstage, and they never stint on the decibels. Of course this might just happen to be Kegel's conducting, but I think what one hears on these discs is fairly representative of their considerable brucknerian art.

The 8th symphony under Kegel is patient, formidable, stern, with a very strong sense of continuity. There's no volatility of tempo or mood (Jochum), no sense of joy and fantasy (Matacic), no irresistible outbursts of exalted triumph (Païta, Tennstedt) and very little tenderness (Jochum again).  Lest that sound like a recipe for a depressive listening experience, I hasten to add that it's a very moving, absorbing reading, powerfully put across. It's not as neurotic and intuitively tragic as Furtwängler, but it inhabits pretty much the same saturnine, pessimistic psychological world.

A section of the Finale that often comes across as a jarring intrusion is the big outburst 5-6 minutes in. With its overbearing, pounding timpani and raging brass, it often makes me feel this is a passage that Bruckner should have had second thoughts about. Not so here. Kegel's conducting here stresses nobility and grandeur without ever inducing any sense of cheap drama. The same goes for pretty much the rest of the symphony, but I was glad to hear this passage placed in its proper musical context within the overall structure (Knappertsbusch too is very convincing here).

Kegel's 3rd and 6th are also from the same general ethos, but it seems to find its fullest expression in the 8th. The sound (radio broadcast) is okay, somewhat better in the soft passages (nice depth of soundstage). Not a first recommendation, but a top contender for the dedicated collector who already has half a dozen versions and wants to delve deper into Bruckner's titanic score.

[Lilas Pastia]

Nézet-Séguin's 8th is out in the stores. I won't listen to it before a while (it's a Christmas present), but here's a sneak preview. The church you see in the video is the recorded venue of that team's Bruckner recordings (7-9).

[Drasko]

Next Saturday (21st November) BBC Radio 3 are discussing the different versions of Bruckner's 5th Symphony in their 'Buiding a Library' feature at 9.30am (GMT).

Let us know what the outcome of the discussion is. I imagine these would be fairly 'central' recommendations.

His final choice was Barenboim/Berlin, he was also very keen on Furtwangler's '42 recording.
You can listen to programme online till Saturday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nydth

[Renfield]

His final choice was Barenboim/Berlin, he was also very keen on Furtwangler's '42 recording.
You can listen to programme online till Saturday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nydth

The Barenboim is actually well worth the plaudit - I woudn't choose it over that Furtwängler, or Karajan, but its possibly his best Bruckner.

And I wonder if the Horenstein on BBC Legends was mentioned; that would also contend for my top pick.

[Lilas Pastia]

Maazel, Szell and Dohnanyi are the latest I heard. Kubelik, Furtwängler 1954 and Böhm should be nxt. After that, I'll embark on the 80 minutes+ readings

The Cleveland Orchestra is the common thread that binds the three versions I listened to. Maazel's is with the Berlin Philharmonic, but he succeeded Szell and preceded Dohnanyi in Cleveland.

Much of what Maazel does is absolutely remarkable, especially in I, which strikes me as an unqualified success. Aided immensely by the incredible playing of the berliners, and the very good recorded sound, he shapes the movement in one continuous arc, with no tempo changes. The slow episode I sometimes refer to in this movement (about 5-6 minutes in) displays fantastic control and incredible concentration and refinement of tone by the Berlin strings. Magnificent climax and coda, marred only by the last minute sinking into inaudibility - which hides the thematic connection with the coda of IV. I'm no score reader, but I know that the markings for the end of the movement call for pp throughout the last page or so - no diminuendo, and certainly nothing like the pppp I hear in this reading. Doubts crept in with the scherzo. All I heard was a scherzo. Some conductors achieve incredible tension, imparting a malevolence and almost psychotic rage that I find more in character than the purely symphonic edifice heard here - however sonorously played. It's as if Maazel was just beating the stick. The Deutsche Michel in this movement is one placid fellow. Great playing, though, which keeps the interest alive. The recording allows for much space around the sound, something that is often sorely missing. It's often made to sound like there are more decibels in the effusive Trio section than anywhere else in the symphony. The saturation one often hears is quite unpleasant. Not so here.

I thought the Adagio paced to perfection. Incredible control of tempo - very difficult in this multiple paragraphs, polysectional movement. But there isn't much emotion. It's rather marmoreal and apollonian in mood - no tragic undercurrents. The beautiful slow section I love so much is indeed very beautiful here (about 14-16 minutes in). It's amazingly zen-like, as if we are lost in beauty that is truly wondrous (again the control is amazing). But I also noticed that the strings were not bringing the same concentration and refinement of dynamics they had brought to the similar passage in I. More generic. I like when there's a slight pause, an hesitation before launching the next paragraph. Here I think a tape edit mars the effect I love so much. It's tacked right on to what precedes, something I don't think Maazel may have intended. I base that remark on the multiple occasions where he sligthly holds the long notes for emphasis - sometimes a full blown ritard, but often just holding back. This is particularly obvious in the loud outbursts of I and IV. He clearly milks everything for maximum impact, but always within the boundaries of taste. I can't think he would have missed that spot where a meaningful, minute adjustment of the pause is so obviously called for. Make that a full second, instead of a direct segue. Big difference!

The finale is mightily imposing, but it's almost merely that. Maazel's sure hand makes the whole cohere so that this difficult movement holds remarkably well as a whole (it often falls apart in seemingly unconnected sections). There are some moments of pure magic from the orchestra. The climax of I is awesome. Perfectly integrated trumpets that sound their calls in noble, regal fashion, easily towering over the huge orchestra below, yet never making one feel they're engaged in mortal combat with the rest of the orchestra. Awesome in the way objective technical perfection blends into  subjective artistic impressions. The loud bit 6 minutes into IV is a place that often makes me cringe in some hands. It's the pounding of the timpani that upsets me.  I know that sounds iconoclastic, but I wish someone or other had advised Bruckner to have a second look here. Under Maazel it's not underplayed, but everything is so well balanced that, like that first movement climax, there's an integration of all the strands that makes more musical sense than usual. Plus, the recording is so good there that every orchestral choir is clearly defined - no mush, no mess. Thanks to the ultra-lucid recording, I could actually imagine the passage sans timpani. The imaginary effect was truly wondrous. Noble, triumphant, airborne. It's the timps that mar the effect. Try to hear it that way, factoring out the percussion - just strings and brass.

In the end, I could recommend this as a first choice on many grounds. But there is more to the inner movements than Maazel finds in them. Even the finale sounds slightly perfunctory. But with incredible playing and powerful, transparent sound (on one mid-price disc), it's hard to beat.

The Szell is a very special recording. I recall hearing it as a teenager and not liking it much. Too cool, too slow, too level-headed. What I now hear is much, much better. As a matter of fact, although not everything is perfect, I think this recording epitomizes *one* of the approaches that works totally in this symphony. The architecture of the whole seems to make perfect sense. The verticality of Bruckner's sound world is superbly achieved (not so well conveyed by the recording, but that's another matter). By verticality, I mean the building up of the sonic edifice from the low end of the sonic spectrum (basses, low wwinds, trombones, Wagner tubas and timpani) to its high end (violins, flutes, trumpets). In between is the 'flesh' of the orchestra: violas, cellos, oboes, clarinets, horns). I'll quote here what my good friend Nigel has explained to me recently on the subject:

the arrangement of musical structures - what I describe as "layers", with a foundation, substructure, superstructure, all with different time periods, that get longer the deeper down you dig.

.

This organization of the sonic structure is amazingly obvious here. Note for instance the cadaverous basses digging deep under the orchestra in the exposition of the themes in the Adagio. Note also the passage I wish Bruckner would have revised in IV: Szell begins it with mf timpani, only increasing in volume later on. It's the striding strings and lofty trumpets that mark the character here. Szell was a martinet, but he was not exactly a purist. He sometimes touched up scores when he felt there were trouble spots. I have no idea what's actually written in the score. Be that as it may, much better this than the vulgar, mindless pounding heard most of the time. As a matter of fact, the timpani are more discreet than usual throughout the symphony.

This version also has the rather idiosyncratic conception of a brisk first movement, followed by a slower sherzo. Most of the time, timings in these two movements are almost identical. When they are not, it's the scherzo that's swifter. In any case, it all works perfectly here. Szell's tempo in II may be moderate (as per the score), but the articulation is biting (compare that to Karajan's treacly way with an identical timing). The finale is excelllently laid out. One area in which Szell is comparable to Maazel is the iron grip on tempos - they are as stable as could be imagined - the very antithesis of Jochum or Furtwängler for example. Where Szell is more 'wilful' than Maazel is in his treatment of loud phrase ends. He's not immune to italicizing, most obviously in the last movement, where there are a couple of decidedly emphatic ritards.

The best being the enemy of the good, the least satisfactory aspect of this tremendous performance is the coda, which sounds simply too controlled. It erupts mightily, but it never exults.

A word about the orchestra: I normally prefer my Bruckner to emanate from germanic countries. The sonic foundation is something
these musicians have in their blood. No matter how the upper reaches of the orchestra sounds, their instrumental "foundation, substructure" can be counted on to deliver the goods (except in Berlin since Abbado emasculated their collective sound). Hearing a Munich Celi performance is all about the orchestra's 'basement' leading the parade. In the case of Szell's clevelanders, it's all there, but the layers sound distinct. There is no overlap, no muffling. It's all perfectly audible throughout the spectrum. While I'd count this as a perfect sound in Beethoven and Mendelssohn, it may impart a feeling of glassiness in rhe romantic or late-romantic repertoire. I'm not talking about the genres, more about the increasingly thick orchestration. I think the composers expected a certain blurring of those sonic boundaries, and wrote the lines (the horizontal ones, the music's rythmic foundation) accordingly. Szell presents everything with immense power, but total clarity. The horns can play extremely softly while retaining an amazing presence in the sonic fabric. This is very, very hard to achieve. Bruckner ruthlessly exposes his horny band in many passages. It's normal to expect a clam (in concert) or a slightly fuller horn sound in many of the work's quieter passages. What they achieve here is an almost supernatural control of dynamics.

And a last word, this time about the recording: I don't know where this was taped (it's obviously not live), but it does seem not emanate from Severance Hall or the Masonic Auditorium. There is a much greater depth to the sound than what one is accustomed in other Szell-Sony productions. It's also airier, blander, more echoey. It could be that it was recorded by different engineers, but I doubt it. You can't add or substract reverberation to a recording. Well, not in those days, I think. Anyone has an answer on that?

On to the Cleveland Dohnanyi. I'll be more succinct on that one. The sound is much more alluring, warm and impactful. Dohnanyi reverses the timings in I and II (16-14 instead of Szell's 14-16), but the other movements clock in at almost the same. The ochestra is definitely a great one, but the more glamorous sound robs off the edges. It's more 'beautiful', while still retaining a bronzen 'buzz' to the brass. Timpani are nicely assertive too. But that's about the only hint of 'rusticity' I hear in this 'Cleveland nouveau' sound. When it comes to the architecture of the recording, I think Dohnanyi makes all the right moves. This is a very solid, 'grounded' reading. It's also rather uneventful. Where Szell makes the occasional jaw dropping ritard, Dohnanyi makes a more modest move, almost as if 'in passing' ('please don't mind me'). It's very solid, very well done, but ultimately a tad low key. Even the orchestra is not as personable as it was under Szell (just listen to the horns and double basses).  I don't think a low key Bruckner 8th has much future.

[Sergeant Rock]

And a last word, this time about the recording: I don't know where this was taped (it's obviously not live), but it does seem not emanate from Severance Hall or the Masonic Auditorium. There is a much greater depth to the sound than what one is accustomed in other Szell-Sony productions. It's also airier, blander, more echoey. It could be that it was recorded by different engineers, but I doubt it. You can't add or substract reverberation to a recording. Well, not in those days, I think. Anyone has an answer on that?

I have the original LP release. Unfortunately it doesn't say where it was recorded. The engineers were Edward Graham and Raymond Moore, Andrew Kazdin producing. Rosenberg's book on the orchestra, The Cleveland Orchestra Story: Second to None,  doesn't mention the recording venue either. He does say, after first referring to Szell's bone cancer,  "Whatever Szell may have been feeling this fall, he made one of his greatest Cleveland recordings in October, an elevating performance of Bruckner's Symphony No.8. The recording stands as a summation of Szell's art. It vibrantly reflects the score's grandeur, lyricism, and earthiness and the orchestral playing claims a luminous quality rarely heard in Bruckner."

Thank you for these "Cleveland" reviews. I've been waiting with much anticipation for your opinion. Maazel and Szell are my favorite Bruckner Eighths. It's gratifying that you gave them positive reviews. About Szell's slow tempo in the Scherzo one reviewer I read in 1970 likened it to "the engine of heaven." Good description of a stunningly powerful performance.

Agree about Dohnányi's Eighth: an also ran. His best Bruckner in Cleveland is, I believe, the Fifth: swift and dramatic it totally convinces me that this is how that symphony should go.

Sarge

[MN Dave]

Hello Brucknerians,

I have Karajan's cycle from the 38-disc symphony box. What do you think of that one?

Also, how is Wand's boxed cycle?

Thanks.

[Renfield]

Hello Brucknerians,

I have Karajan's cycle from the 38-disc symphony box. What do you think of that one?

Also, how is Wand's boxed cycle?

Thanks.

Hello Minnesotan,

Karajan's cycle is Very Good (TM). I would hazard an estimation along the lines of 'best integral cycle', though Jochum's (DG) might also qualify for that accolade. In general, the late 70s recordings (e.g. 7th, 8th) come off as more 'mean and lean' than the symphonies recorded in the early 80s (e.g. 3rd); and the overall keynote of the set is momentum.

The Wand is... I have it, and either Karajan or Jochum draw my attention from it every time. Some of the performances in there are quite excellent, mind; just not possessed of what, IMO, constitutes Wand's best Bruckner.

(Mainly the sort of hushed awe resonating around the Berlin Philharmonic 4th and 8th, or the 'pristine' quality of the Berlin 9th.)

[Sergeant Rock]

The Wand is... I have it, and either Karajan or Jochum draw my attention from it every time. Some of the performances in there are quite excellent, mind; just not possessed of what, IMO, constitutes Wand's best Bruckner.

I agree. Wand seemed to get better as he aged. Perhaps I'm being too harsh but some of the performances from Köln seem anonymous to me, lacking any personality (that might be a selling point for some). There are exceptions, a marvelous Second, for example, still a favorite of mine. If I had to choose between the three cycles mentioned by you and Renfield...I'd take Barenboim 

Sarge

[MN Dave]

I think Barenboim may have initially scared me away from Bruckner. Maybe I just wasn't ready. I no longer have the recording.

[Sergeant Rock]

I think Barenboim may have initially scared me away from Bruckner. Maybe I just wasn't ready. I no longer have the recording.

As a first choice I wouldn't actually recommend him. His interpretations are controversial and the Seventh and Eighth not all that special...which makes the box less compelling. I basically cut my teeth on Karajan and Jochum's Bruckner. They're both good starter sets, I think, although I prefer Jochum's DG recordings and Karajan's EMI and early DG recordings.

Sarge

[Renfield]

If I had to choose between the three cycles mentioned by you and Renfield...I'd take Barenboim 

His interpretations are controversial and the Seventh and Eighth not all that special...which makes the box less compelling.
Sarge

You made my comment before I did, on why I didn't mention Barenboim.

Neither Karajan nor Jochum have any unremarkable performances of the late symphonies (though they do of the 6th; especially Karajan's must be one of the most unremarkable recordings he's ever made). Edit: Though I grant that Barenboim does have a very remarkable 5th.

[Sergeant Rock]

Edit: Though I grant that Barenboim does have a very remarkable 5th.

Agreed. Glad to see the BBC thinks so too. (Jens has a radically different opinion.) I like Barenboim's First, Second, Sixth and Ninth too, and the Third and Fourth are decent although not among my favorites. In other words, like most cycles it has hits and misses.

Sarge