Bruckner's Abbey

[DavidRoss]

So far Kempe's Bruckner (4,5 and strikes me as efficient and objective, with some effort toward coaxing nice climaxes. [...] That's because the music is left to speak for itself and the conductor lets his players have a musical hard-on where it counts. At that point the music simply wells up to an almost unbearable degree. Kempe's Bruckner is totally bearable.

In the event of an erection lasting more than four hours....

[CriticalI]

In the event of an erection lasting more than four hours....

That Celibidache - he was a machine.

[Cato]

I recently listened for the first time in several years to the completion of Schubert's Tenth Symphony (by Brian Newbould).

More than once there was a hint of Bruckner and even Mahler in the music, i.e. the Austrian countryside Bruckner and Mahler rather than the Bruckner of angelic assaults or the Mahlerof Freud's couch.

[CriticalI]

Over the weekend I listened to some of my new Celibidache/Munich box, as well as Matt conducting the Dm Mass (a reissue on Brilliant).

First I listened to Celi conducting the Fm Mass. Interesting, but probably not one for the ages. The slow tempos are sometimes revelatory, but just as often just too slow. As for the performance, the mass outbreak of coughing when the choir enters is offputting, the tenor is too tremulous in the Qui Tollis, and to be honest I'm not sure the Munich is a first rate orchestra. They manage the notes, but without notable style or colour.

After this, I listened to the Dm Mass, which I enjoyed much more. I thought the sound and playing were better. The choir was small and a bit backward (as was Celi's), but the soloists are nicely upfront. I think this will supercede the Best recording for me.

Symphonies 3, 4 and 5: In 3 and 4, I thought the slow tempos made the structure fairly nebulous. This was particularly a problem in the 4th's finale, which seemed incoherent and interminable. On the other hand, the 5th really worked. The slow movement especially was hugely enjoyable. Looking forward to hearing what happens in the later symphonies.

A note on the CD layout: 7 and 9 are split across CDs unnecessarily.

[Lilas Pastia]

Over the weekend I listened to some of my new Celibidache/Munich box (...)

A note on the CD layout: 7 and 9 are split across CDs unnecessarily.

This is a real annoyance and a total disrespect to the buyer/listener. The extra tracks of applause bring the timing over the normal duration of a single CD.  Were it not for that crass marketing ploy both symphonies would have fit on a single disc.  I have downloaded the files (widely available on the net), and burned onto cd the music only.
For that reason alone I do not recommend purchasing the EMI set. Especially sonce Celi's Bruckner can hardly be termed a first recommendation. Admittedly indispensable for the die-hard brucknerite, but not for general consumption. The man is dead, and he did not approve of recordings as a représentation of his work. Shame on EMI !

[CriticalI]

Maybe Celi expressed a philosophical dislike of recordings, but I doubt these recordings could have been made without his knowledge and approval.

"Say, what's with the mixing desk, and those microphones all over the stage?"
"We're just, er, testing the equipment."
"What, again?"

[jlaurson]

1.) Celi did not approve of the release of these MPhil recordings -- no two ways about it. They are MPhil cuts of the concerts that EMI later released after Celi had died and once the son relented to fight the increasingly brisk business with Celi pirated copies in bad quality. It wasn't just a philosophical thing.

The splitting of symphonies is annoying to those (like me) who hanker for the physical product. But the price was never hiked by EMI, if I remember correctly, only because an extra CD was needed... so there's no disrespect or anything going on. Aside, who wouldn't want to take a tea break in the middle of Celi's Bruckner? 

[calyptorhynchus]

I've just been listening to Celibidache recordings of 4 and 7. I thought 4 was wonderful, particularly the way that his slow tempi in the finale make the second subject group less twittery. I thought 7 was sublime, the best recording of 7 I have heard. Once again his slow tempi make the music much more grounded and substantial; with the 7th I often hear recordings where the first two movements sound substantial, the scherzo and finale rather light-weight, not with Celibidache!

I don't mind the EMI packaging of the Symphonies or the applause tracks, which, after all, you can choose to listen to or not.

[Cato]

The radio was recently playing Bruckner's Ninth.  I missed the introduction about the conductor and orchestra.

The opening was played rather dreadfully: the fortissimo statement of the main theme by the 8 horns and other brass seemed to miss the third note (?!) or at least to smear it into the next one, and such lack of incisive playing continued.

I missed the rest of the movement, the Scherzo, and the opening of the Adagio.  The Adagio's climax was as odd as the opening: beats seemed to be missing, and the balance emphasized the woodwinds and strings with the brass...basically in the background!

And so, I waited to hear who was responsible for this:

"A recording from 1970: the New Philharmonia Orchestra, Otto Klemperer conducting."

Perhaps it was a badly made CD.

[jlaurson]

A Survey of Bruckner Cycles
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-survey-of-bruckner-cycles.html

(Help with broken links or wrong information or mix-ups always much appreciated.)

[Leo K.]

A Survey of Bruckner Cycles
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-survey-of-bruckner-cycles.html

(Help with broken links or wrong information or mix-ups always much appreciated.)

This type of exploration is usual for me; typically, I explore a composer's symphonies (and other works) piecemeal. It would be difficult to pick a favorite so far; there is enough variation in each cycle that I might pick a different one depending on my mood. However, for some reason I felt a deeper emotional connection with Tintner.  Much more than emotional; at times all is a funeral march, it takes a while but passages take on a more positive mood starting with no.5. His no. 5 seems to be heading in a different direction; the Wagnerian grandeur is much diminished, and it is replaced by a more austere, introspective mood. I sense a great deal of emotional depth here, and after only one hearing, I feel like I have barely scratched the surface and there is likely a lot more to be discovered. There are frequent shifts of mood. In particular, the scherzo.

When I get ready to buy more recordings of Bruckner's symphonies, I'll have to go back through all of the recommendations here.

[Leo K.]

This type of exploration is usual for me; typically, I explore a composer's symphonies (and other works) piecemeal. It would be difficult to pick a favorite so far; there is enough variation in each cycle that I might pick a different one depending on my mood. However, for some reason I felt a deeper emotional connection with Tintner.  Much more than emotional; at times all is a funeral march, it takes a while but passages take on a more positive mood starting with no.5. His no. 5 seems to be heading in a different direction; the Wagnerian grandeur is much diminished, and it is replaced by a more austere, introspective mood. I sense a great deal of emotional depth here, and after only one hearing, I feel like I have barely scratched the surface and there is likely a lot more to be discovered. There are frequent shifts of mood. In particular, the scherzo.

When I get ready to buy more recordings of Bruckner's symphonies, I'll have to go back through all of the recommendations here.

Thoughts on Tintner's 5.

It's built slowly, as is clear right from the introduction, which is laid out spaciously but with very pointed details. Suffice to say that it's one of the most successful I've heard. IMO Klemperer builds a hotter head of steam, but to other ears he sounds dyspeptic, so there you have it: slow tempi can either sound majestic, granitic, and inevitable or OTOH comatose, arthritic and dispirited. To my ears this 5th has all of the former attributes, and none of the latter. Tempi being all on the slow side, there's a certain stoic quality to I and II. The orchestra always seem to have lots of extra tone, lung or muscle power in reserve. They never force. The scherzo is also slower than usual, but very sharp and animated. The Finale recording, where balances can be fine-tuned in different ways. Also, the finale can be played when the players are still fresh. The unusual prominence of the strings in that recording is indeed noticeable. I don't feel it's just that the recording is clear - there's more to it. Not that the brass are slighted, just that the strings have more presence than usual in the complex, loud passages. And the coda does blaze more and show an extra oomph without necessarily sounding louder. It sounds fuller. For example, where strings and brass play ff, the brass have no problem being heard, but the strings tend to lose presence. Tintner asks the brass to play slightly softer so the important string lines are clearly heard. Also, in the coda of IV (where in a live performance the brass are at the limit of their forces) are asked to produce that roof-raising final climax.

[Que]

Ah, that's good stuff!
All his late RCO Bruckner is, really.

Very satifying indeed. I know there is some late Jochum Bruckner with the RCO on Tahra, do you have any specific rec?

Q

[jlaurson]

Very satifying indeed. I know there is some late Jochum Bruckner with the RCO on Tahra, do you have any specific rec?

Q

For starters I was confused -- because this is 'just' the famousish 1964 Fifth when the cover mislead me to assume it was a mid-80s recording. A good midway point between BRSO (58, which I really like, actually), and Dresden (80, which I'm not that keen on). I guess there's a 1938 Hamburg 5th out there, too, but I've never heard it nor any particular inclination to do so... one need not have heard everything.

Yes, I am mostly thinking of that December 1986 recording -- great and overrated in equal measure, if you know what I mean. I was also thinking of two radio broadcasts that I encountered on the Georg Ludwig / Eugen box: The Sixth from 1980 and the 8th from 1984. The latter included in the -- I kid you not -- "Eugen Jochum Tower Recods Supremacy Selection"! (Japan-release, obviously... more precious than the innocently excited Philips "Super Best 50" collection.



Anton Bruckner
Symphony No.5
E.Jochum / RCO
(December 4th, 1986)
Tahra

[mahler10th]

I have Bruckner #1 BLARING and twinkling away around me, and I'm surprised to find it - well, it's a wee bit messy, sounds unattractively patched together in some way, etc.  It seems rife with an inconsistency I can't quite put my finger on.  Anyone agree with this shocking revelation about my favorite composer?   Even Hans Rotts first and only symphony was better than this!  It's Chailly with the RCO I'm listening to.  I will play Haitink with the same band, the same piece, in a wee while, see if I can figure it out.  Or Wand.  Something must be wrong... 

[Mirror Image]

Bruckner really came into his own in the 4th. Some will argue the 3rd, but the 4th begins the progression of one great symphony after the other.

[bhodges]

I have Bruckner #1 BLARING and twinkling away around me, and I'm surprised to find it - well, it's a wee bit messy, sounds unattractively patched together in some way, etc.  It seems rife with an inconsistency I can't quite put my finger on.  Anyone agree with this shocking revelation about my favorite composer?   Even Hans Rotts first and only symphony was better than this!  It's Chailly with the RCO I'm listening to.  I will play Haitink with the same band, the same piece, in a wee while, see if I can figure it out.  Or Wand.  Something must be wrong... 

No, you're on the right track. I have Chailly's (which I haven't heard in a very long time), but more recently heard Georg Tintner's version of No. 1 (1866, Linz version) - it is really quite startling, harmonically. I wrote it up awhile back on Amazon, here.

So...nothing's wrong  ; you're just experiencing the visionary side of Bruckner - the side that some felt the need to smooth over or "correct."

--Bruce

[Cato]

I have Bruckner #1 BLARING and twinkling away around me, and I'm surprised to find it - well, it's a wee bit messy, sounds unattractively patched together in some way, etc.  It seems rife with an inconsistency I can't quite put my finger on.  Anyone agree with this shocking revelation about my favorite composer?   Even Hans Rotts first and only symphony was better than this!  It's Chailly with the RCO I'm listening to.  I will play Haitink with the same band, the same piece, in a wee while, see if I can figure it out.  Or Wand.  Something must be wrong... 

No!  Nothing is wrong!   

As Bruce mentioned, this is the young(ish) Bruckner unchained, a premonition of the future Bruckner where he uses planets as stepping stones into the eternity of the music of the spheres!

I have the Jochum version on DGG.  The First Symphony has always been a favorite: still startling after so many decades!

[Karl Henning]

Okay! I'm on it!

[mahler10th]

How superb.  This will occupy my entire night, listening to the first by different conductors, including the RSNO with Tintner and the Jochum with Staatskapelle Dresden, which I shall listen to next.  Thanks for that!