Bruckner's Abbey

[calyptorhynchus]

I am studying the Ninth, of which more anon. However, one funny thing I have noticed is this: I have the Eulenburg minature score (1951 Nowak, revised 1994); I have also dowloaded a PDF of the score from www.abruckner.com which seems to be a Eulenburg score printed between 1934 and 1956 in that it is not the Loewe edition, but seems to be almost identical to the 1951/94 score.

However, there is one interesting difference. In the Scherzo there is a note that the third flute alternate with a 'kleiner floete' when indicated. I assume this is a piccolo. I have listened to the recordings I have and they don't seem to use a piccolo, though the passages indicated are all loud tuttis, and I'm not sure that you would even hear it.

Does anyone have any information on this? As I said, I don't think it's a Loewe-ism.

[Cato]

I am studying the Ninth, of which more anon. However, one funny thing I have noticed is this: I have the Eulenburg minature score (1951 Nowak, revised 1994); I have also dowloaded a PDF of the score from www.abruckner.com which seems to be a Eulenburg score printed between 1934 and 1956 in that it is not the Loewe edition, but seems to be almost identical to the 1951/94 score.

However, there is one interesting difference. In the Scherzo there is a note that the third flute alternate with a 'kleiner floete' when indicated. I assume this is a piccolo. I have listened to the recordings I have and they don't seem to use a piccolo, though the passages indicated are all loud tuttis, and I'm not sure that you would even hear it.

Does anyone have any information on this? As I said, I don't think it's a Loewe-ism.

My "official" Nowak score from 1951/1965 published by the International Bruckner Society has nothing about a "kleine Floete"  in the Scherzo.

[Moonfish]

Any thoughts on Sinopoli's Bruckner recordings? Recommended?

[jlaurson]

Any thoughts on Sinopoli's Bruckner recordings? Recommended?

Yes. His Fifth is a dark-horse recommendation so widely recommended, it's not at all a dark horse anymore. The rest is insightful to great!
The set is becoming increasingly affordable, Japanese-origined though it is: http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-survey-of-bruckner-cycles.html

[calyptorhynchus]

I have written an essay on why the reconstructed finale of the Ninth works, which might interest some.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/a899bg9g47sjtbz/Why_the_Reconstructed_Finale_of_the_Ninth_Works.pdf

I would welcome any comments or criticisms. Probably best to message me off the forum.

Enjoy.

[calyptorhynchus]

'Nother question:

I read in an early account of Bruckner's life that in his house in Vienna he had a piano and a chamber organ. Do anyone know how a chamber organ of the 1870s or 80s operated. Did Bruckner still need someone to pump, or had they become mechanised by some means by this stage?

[jlaurson]

'Nother question:

I read in an early account of Bruckner's life that in his house in Vienna he had a piano and a chamber organ. Do anyone know how a chamber organ of the 1870s or 80s operated. Did Bruckner still need someone to pump, or had they become mechanised by some means by this stage?

Foot-operated billows instead of pedals.

[calyptorhynchus]

Foot-operated billows instead of pedals.

Thank you!

[André]

Three recently heard versions of the 9th: Sinopoli and the Staatskapelle, Dresden; Dudamel and the Gothenburg Symhony; Thielemann and the Munich Philharmonic. All three stem from live concerts.

The Sinopoli is solid, unflamboyant, slightly constipated. Magnificently performed by an orchestra that never veers from their trademark sound. On DGG

Dudamel leads a magnificent version, sensitive yet volatile, powerful and massive. The Gothenburg play as if possessed. They outdo their own great self in the next climax. The sound is close, almost saturated. The Gothenburg hall is one of the best concert venues in Europe. DGG and a clear winner.

A tired, self-obsessed and languid version by the Münchner Philharmoniker under Thielemann, who easily clocks in as the longest of the three. Even Klemperer is faster and much lighter. The orchestra plays very well, but without audible involvement.

Dudamel moves in the top 10 or 15 versions. The others are best left aside.

[André]

Another 9th: Zubin Mehta and  the wiener Philharmoniker. Live from May 2009.

45 years after their epoch-making Decca recording, here is a live interpretation where the mestro ought to have had everything 'click' just as before. Some gestures are similar, tempi are broadly the same (the scherzo is slower), but the orchestral sound is now quite different : beefed up, more sonorous and equalized, less sanguine  (those 1965 horns and wagner tuben!). At first listen, some of the ol' fire seems to have gotten out of the Indian maestro's belly.

I will re-listen to that 1965 recording soon - 'twas my first ever B9 way back when.

[Drasko]

The Sinopoli is solid, unflamboyant, slightly constipated. Magnificently performed by an orchestra that never veers from their trademark sound. On DGG

That is one of my favorite 9ths. I love its non-ostentatiousness, focus and almost blueprintish clarity.

[calyptorhynchus]

Bruckner said that the second subject of the first movement of the 4th was based on the song of the Great Tit (Parus major, a chickadee).

Here are some recordings of the Great Tit's many songs and calls.

http://www.xeno-canto.org/explore?query=great+tit+cnt%3A%22Germany%22

The twentieth recording (by "Sonnenburg" .23 seconds), seems to have the right rhythm for the 4th.

[André]

The Dudamel 9th I had listened to was a download, with compressed and sometimes distorted sound. I liked  it enough to purchase it in its original format (3 discs, DGG. Comes with Nielsen 4 and 5, and Sibelius 2). A re-listen confirms it as an important interpretation. It also unmasks some weird noises I was thinking were patches of swish or distortion: I can now hear clearly those big breath intakes the conductor indulges in in moments of excitement. The Dude is one big sniffer.

[jlaurson]

Bruckner said that the second subject of the first movement of the 4th was based on the song of the Great Tit (Parus major, a chickadee).

Here are some recordings of the Great Tit's many songs and calls.

http://www.xeno-canto.org/explore?query=great+tit+cnt%3A%22Germany%22

The twentieth recording (by "Sonnenburg" .23 seconds), seems to have the right rhythm for the 4th.

Very nice!

[merlin]

I am wondering about Simone Young's interpretations.  From what I have read, she uses more-or-less original versions of the symphonies, prior to editing by others, including Bruckner himself.

[merlin]

I just listened to the 8th at Naxos Music Library. What a terrific performance, and excellent SQ even with headphones and PC audio.

I could discern differences between this edition and the others I have heard, but in no way did they lessen the impact.

Marvellous, in all respects!

[Cato]

I just listened to the 8th at Naxos Music Library. What a terrific performance, and excellent SQ even with headphones and PC audio.

I could discern differences between this edition and the others I have heard, but in no way did they lessen the impact.

Marvellous, in all respects!

That would be...the Simone Young CD mentioned earlier?

[merlin]

Yes.  One major difference between the version she uses and others I have heard is the ending of the first movement.  Rather than fading away, there is a loud tutti with strong brass.

Also, the fourth movement reprise and coda are a bit different from later editions.

Here is a detailed examination of both the original version and subsequent edited one.

http://www.oehmsclassics.de/artikel.aspx?voeid=3500

Definitely worth a listen.

[calyptorhynchus]

Re: the versions of Bruckner symphonies. This is a very complicated topic. I myself subscribe to the Robert Simpson thesis: that where different versions of symphony exist the earliest version is the best, and that while Bruckner may have improved certain passages in his symphonies by revision, he did not improve any symphony overall. (It is important to read the 1992 edition of The Essence of Bruckner for the latest version of Simpson's ideas, not the 1960s initial version, because in the later work he improved his account by discussing editions that had appeared subsequent to the first version of his work. It is unfortunate that the 1960s version was printed and reprinted in large print runs, and most libraries have one of these, the 1992 version was only printed in a small print run and is quite difficult to get hold of).

With the symphonies 00, 0, 5, 6, 7, 9 there are only unimportant differences between versions, (ignoring outright falsifications like the Schalks' version of 5, or Löwe's version of 9).
With symphonies 1, 2, 3 the earliest versions are preferable.

HOWEVER, there are two exceptions to the Simpson rule, 4 and 8, where the first versions are weaker. With 4 Bruckner produced a work that had a very weak scherzo, and first and last movements that were improved in subsequent revisions such that the 1880 version is the most satisfactory. In the case of 8 the all movements were revised with advantage after the first version and the trio of the scherzo was replaced.

How do we account for this? I think that in the cases of both these symphonies Bruckner was feeling unusually confident when he undertook their composition, and produced the first versions very quickly. In the case of 4 Bruckner had just produced 3 (first version of course), which he must have known was a major breakthrough for him (and he had not yet experienced the humiliating set-backs with the performance of it), and he wrote the first version of 4 in little more than a year. In the case of 8 he had just produced 7, and as he was writing 8 7 was successful in various performances. This symphony he completed in around 2 years.

In both cases I would argue that Bruckner presented the world with a pre-first version which did need to be revised, as unwonted confidence caused him to rush the composition process and overlook flaws that his normal process would have revised away. In the case of 4 we should regard the 1880 version as the first version (and remember that subsequent to 1880 Bruckner again revised this symphony, this time ruining it in the usual way of his later revisions). As for 8, the Haas version probably represents something like a first version in that it contains Bruckner's initial revisions to the 1887 version, but doesn't make all the changes that Bruckner made in the 1890 version (ed Nowak). This 1890 version shows Bruckner beginning to slip down the slide of ruining this symphony with revisions.

[merlin]

Having just compared Simone Young's recording of the original version of Bruckner 8 with Pierre Boulez's Haas, the latter is clearly better, for me.  The pianissimo ending to the first movement in the revision is far more moving than the triple forte of the original.

Also, the recapitulation and coda of the revision is a big improvement over the original.  Much more frissons and emotions.

The different trio is not such a big deal, however.