GMG Classical Music Forum

The Music Room => Great Recordings and Reviews => Topic started by: gmstudio on November 26, 2007, 09:44:43 AM

Title: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: gmstudio on November 26, 2007, 09:44:43 AM
I've had this in my shopping cart for a few weeks, and am thinking about getting it:

(http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/9720000/9729302.jpg)

I don't have a complete set of Bruckner, the closest I have is Cleveland/Dohnanyi, but he didn't finish the cycle.

I like this one because it's about $35 and seems to be getting raves on Amazon...thoughts?

Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on November 26, 2007, 10:12:50 AM
That's a no-brainer. You might consider this:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/613NZR4CHXL._AA240_.jpg)

which has Skrowaczewski's recording of Sym#0 (not in the EMI box) but is othewise the same as the EMI box.

In any case an obvious first-choice for it's price as a certerpiece of any Bruckner collection.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on November 26, 2007, 11:02:07 AM
You can't go wrong with this one, IMO - the peroration at the end of the grand Finale of the Fifth, especially, is overwhelming.

Jochum has sometimes been criticised for his brusque tempo changes, but I find he's a very natural Brucknerian.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lethevich on November 26, 2007, 11:20:30 AM
Jochum has sometimes been criticised for his brusque tempo changes, but I find he's a very natural Brucknerian.

They must be some dumb critics :P His middle-ground tempi are welcome (and as for wild changes, he's hardly van Beinum...) - this ultra-slow-all-the-time stuff is a recent development, and still something of a novelty in the greater scheme.

To answer the original question: this is one of the best cycles, and also one of the best introductions - plus it's the cheapest. Perfect :)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Mark on November 26, 2007, 11:26:37 AM
How does the EMI set differ from the DG one, and which is preferable? ???
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lethevich on November 26, 2007, 12:04:44 PM
How does the EMI set differ from the DG one, and which is preferable? ???

I haven't heard the DG for a while, but to be very simple, and possibly slightly innacurate - the EMI has very slightly better sound, and the brass is more... feisty :P Interps in both seem similar to me.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: mahlertitan on November 26, 2007, 12:12:32 PM
How does the EMI set differ from the DG one, and which is preferable? ???

The difference is slight, on one hand you get Berliner and Bavarian, on the other you get S.Dresden. Different orchestras, different sounds, different interpretations... the best thing to do really, is to get them all if you can.

And i agree with the previous posters, you can't go wrong with Jochum, EMI or DG. Although, I TOO, prefer the EMI one over the DG (not saying that DG is inadequate in anyway). But, for 35 dollars, it's a bargain, and be sure to pick up that "0"th symphony and the "00" symphony, either Skrowaczewski or Tintner should be fine.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: gmstudio on November 26, 2007, 12:24:04 PM
Well, you've all convinced me to part ways with my hard-earned $35.   ;D
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on November 26, 2007, 01:00:04 PM
I think the Barenboim/Berlin/Teldec set is also very cheap, like around $35, maybe even cheaper in Europe. I guess if you want DDD sound you'll go for that one.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Mark on November 26, 2007, 01:15:06 PM
I think the Barenboim/Berlin/Teldec set is also very cheap, like around $35, maybe even cheaper in Europe. I guess if you want DDD sound you'll go for that one.

How is Barenboim with Bruckner? Not as deathly slow as he can be with Beethoven, one would hope.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on November 26, 2007, 01:23:33 PM
How is Barenboim with Bruckner? Not as deathly slow as he can be with Beethoven, one would hope.
I haven't heard Barenboim's Bruckner except for his earlier DG 4th and 7th with the Chicago Symphony. I remember #4 being magnificent, scintillatingly good with bold, brassy chorales and powerful strings. Don't remember #7 much though. One thing I know they are NOT slow. I think they are faster or at least in the same ball-park tempo-wise as Chailly, K. Sanderling, etc.. I have been thinking about getting Barenboim's Berlini remake but right now I am not in a big hurry for more Bruckner.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on November 26, 2007, 02:11:07 PM
How is Barenboim with Bruckner? Not as deathly slow as he can be with Beethoven, one would hope.

Barenboim is certainly not on the slow side. Appropriately flexible and romantic, you might say.

I haven't heard Barenboim's Bruckner except for his earlier DG 4th and 7th with the Chicago Symphony. I remember #4 being magnificent, scintillatingly good with bold, brassy chorales and powerful strings. Don't remember #7 much though. One thing I know they are NOT slow. I think they are faster or at least in the same ball-park tempo-wise as Chailly, K. Sanderling, etc.. I have been thinking about getting Barenboim's Berlin remake but right now I am not in a big hurry for more Bruckner.

His Berlin set has a lot going for it in terms of color and atmosphere over the CSO set and the interpretations have gestated a bit from the earlier 70s take with the CSO. The sound from Teldec isn't always ideal (due to being recorded live in the Philharmonie which isn't an ideal recording venue), but some of the discs from that set are among my favorites: 2, 3, 5 and 9 in particular. It's generally a top caliber cycle in every way. Like in many other things, Barenboim tries to find the middle ground between emotion and structure, which means that the cycle may not appeal to everyone, as it is neither purely a driven affair like Jochum, Schuricht or Furtwängler, nor a purely cerebral structural analysis a la Dohnanyi (to exaggerate a slight bit).

The CSO set is also interesing in that it offers a very different Bruckner than what you get from most others. It's youthful, bold and brassy and the climaxes gleam with gorgeous clarity. Yet there is much more warmth and color than Solti ever got in this repertoire. 0 (which Barenboim curiously didn't remake with the BPO), 4 and 9 are among the best, IMHO. The complete cycle is no longer available. I have the original on LP; 4 & 7 are available on a remastered DG twofer, 4, 7 and 9 are available individually on the eloquence label and (I think) 0 and 1 are still around on DG's Galleria label.

Back on topic: I too prefer Jochum EMI over Jochum DG. The interpretations are just a tad more daringly typical Jochum and the orchestral playing is just a notch better, at least as far as the symphonies I have heard from those cycles, which I don't own in complete form.

They must be some dumb critics :P His middle-ground tempi are welcome (and as for wild changes, he's hardly van Beinum...) - this ultra-slow-all-the-time stuff is a recent development, and still something of a novelty in the greater scheme.

It's actually a vaild criticism. Jochum's tempos are not exactly middle ground but tend to the faster side of the spectrum. He has a habit of making accelerandos where none are indicated in the score, or even when Bruckner asks for the opposite. But he's convincing anyway, so few would really fault him for it. I'd have to admit that personally for me Jochum is not first choice, since I look for something else in Bruckner. Jochum prefers to treat Bruckner as if it were a Beethovenian struggle. But in that vein I find Schuricht and Furtwängler more convincing.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: BorisG on November 26, 2007, 04:04:15 PM
The Bruckner set I probably have the fewest disagreements with, is
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HKYBRRRRL._SS500_.jpg)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: mahlertitan on November 26, 2007, 04:16:59 PM
The Bruckner set I probably have the fewest disagreements with, is
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HKYBRRRRL._SS500_.jpg)

I think i have it, but haven't listen to it. How is this set?
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on November 26, 2007, 04:49:15 PM
The Bruckner set I probably have the fewest disagreements with, is
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HKYBRRRRL._SS500_.jpg)
Fewest disagreements about what? About how boring it is or how good it is?
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lethevich on November 26, 2007, 10:30:37 PM
Jochum prefers to treat Bruckner as if it were a Beethovenian struggle. But in that vein I find Schuricht and Furtwängler more convincing.

I think I went a little overkill in my advocacy for J - you're right, it's certainly not middle-ground in so far as letting the music play itself. I've heard some poor quality mp3 broadcasts of Schuricht in Bruckner, which were engaging despite their low quality, but nothing on CD - could you recommend one?

The Bruckner set I probably have the fewest disagreements with, is
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HKYBRRRRL._SS500_.jpg)

It feels like a complete cliche to agree with this, due to his generally objective style, but this IS one of the least offensive cycles I've heard. It took me a while to try it, because I subconsciously suspected that it may be boring, but it's actually beautifully played and never becomes lethargic - he hardly lets the music play itself, but it does sound more "straight" than Jochum, or Asahina (f.eg.) although I wouldn't call it better. I am probably biased though. The sound quality is also better than Jochum IMO, despite, IIRC, being recorded at roughly the same time - but the sound on J's recordings isn't even approaching a hiderance.

Edit: Sorry for all the edits :P
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: david johnson on November 27, 2007, 01:55:22 AM
go emi or brilliant classics for a set.

dj
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Drasko on November 27, 2007, 01:58:33 AM
I've heard some poor quality mp3 broadcasts of Schuricht in Bruckner, which were engaging despite their low quality, but nothing on CD - could you recommend one?

No.3 '65 WP is very good but ultimately nothing to write home about (on Preiser)

No.5 '63 live WP is excellent (on japanese Altus or long oop DG)

No.7 '38 BP is one of my favorite 7ths (in best transfer on Profil)
No.7 '64 Hague Philharmonic, very nice, bit sloppy but much better sound (last seen in Scribendum box)

No.8 '63 WP is excellent and probably easiest to find (EMI or Great Conductors double)

No.9 '61 WP is widely lauded but I don't like it one bit
No.9 '43 Berlin State Orch. like it more but sound is primitive (Urania, Arlecchino...)

Of his Stuttgart recordings on Hanssler heard only 5th which isn't competitive with live Wiena one.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lethevich on November 27, 2007, 04:39:56 AM
No.3 '65 WP is very good but ultimately nothing to write home about (on Preiser)

No.5 '63 live WP is excellent (on japanese Altus or long oop DG)

No.7 '38 BP is one of my favorite 7ths (in best transfer on Profil)
No.7 '64 Hague Philharmonic, very nice, bit sloppy but much better sound (last seen in Scribendum box)

No.8 '63 WP is excellent and probably easiest to find (EMI or Great Conductors double)

No.9 '61 WP is widely lauded but I don't like it one bit
No.9 '43 Berlin State Orch. like it more but sound is primitive (Urania, Arlecchino...)

Of his Stuttgart recordings on Hanssler heard only 5th which isn't competitive with live Wiena one.

Wow, thank you very much :D - this will make looking into his recordings much easier. I had heard the Hague 7th (which was better than I expected from an orchestra I hadn't heard of before...) and one of the 9s. I hope a respectable label tries remastering the Berlin 9th - Urania is so horrible, and knowing the, they could be the reason it sounds so bad...
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on November 27, 2007, 07:50:53 AM
No.3 '65 WP is very good but ultimately nothing to write home about (on Preiser)

No.5 '63 live WP is excellent (on japanese Altus or long oop DG)

No.7 '38 BP is one of my favorite 7ths (in best transfer on Profil)
No.7 '64 Hague Philharmonic, very nice, bit sloppy but much better sound (last seen in Scribendum box)

No.8 '63 WP is excellent and probably easiest to find (EMI or Great Conductors double)

No.9 '61 WP is widely lauded but I don't like it one bit
No.9 '43 Berlin State Orch. like it more but sound is primitive (Urania, Arlecchino...)

Of his Stuttgart recordings on Hanssler heard only 5th which isn't competitive with live Wiena one.

What he said. Though I might add that the '63 8th with the VPO is one of the most stupendous and gripping performances of that piece I have ever heard.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: sidoze on November 27, 2007, 08:36:57 AM
What he said. Though I might add that the '63 8th with the VPO is one of the most stupendous and gripping performances of that piece I have ever heard.

My take too, though I don't know the piece all that well TBH.

Quote
No.9 '61 WP is widely lauded but I don't like it one bit

I'm surprised. The first movement isn't my favourite but the finale is totally overwhelming (partly because it's so swift). Any particular reason you don't like it?
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Drasko on November 27, 2007, 10:58:02 AM
My take too, though I don't know the piece all that well TBH.

I'm surprised. The first movement isn't my favourite but the finale is totally overwhelming (partly because it's so swift). Any particular reason you don't like it?

 ::) You already asked me that same question (and in exact those same words) and I replied something like: I'm sure the wind section of WP found it overwhelming experience as well sice they fail to articulate properly at that speed and not only them, everything is undercooked (just fraction more relaxed tempo would made all the difference, mere minute overall). But it is not just that, relations between movements don't make any sense, double digits lumbering Scherzo cannot preface 20 minutes Adagio and add to that strangely non flowing laborious first movement.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: sidoze on November 27, 2007, 11:01:51 AM
you know me by now, i never remember anything, 9/10 of my dinners get burned, i misplace everything and am never on time. but thanks for the answer all the same. don't forget to save it for next time.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Drasko on November 27, 2007, 11:06:26 AM
you know me by now, i never remember anything, 9/10 of my dinners get burned, i misplace everything and am never on time. but thanks for the answer all the same. don't forget to save it for next time.

Yes I know, and you told me to tell you to fuck off in situations like this but I just can't.
I'm too fucking nice to say that in public.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Renfield on November 27, 2007, 09:20:32 PM
How is Barenboim with Bruckner? Not as deathly slow as he can be with Beethoven, one would hope.

Well, I do have his cycle, and I'll mostly agree with O Mensch about it: generally middle-ground. Perhaps too much for my taste, though a few of the performances really are good.

Concerning Jochum, I have the DG cycle and am still perplexed on whether to buy the EMI as well, or not. Suffice to say, I likely will. ;)


But the reason I'm making this post, more than anything else, is the Haitink cycle above: so it really is worth its price, then? Because I've been teetering on the brink of purchasing it for a while, but just aren't sure if I need it, or if it would simply be a nice "bauble" for my hoard, so to speak.

The reason I even bought the aforementioned Barenboim was how cheap I found it, and due to wanting to confirm my suspicion about its highs and lows.

Yet with Haitink, I don't really have any suspicions: I know what to expect. :P
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: BorisG on November 27, 2007, 09:37:58 PM
Well, I do have his cycle, and I'll mostly agree with O Mensch about it: generally middle-ground. Perhaps too much for my taste, though a few of the performances really are good.

Concerning Jochum, I have the DG cycle and am still perplexed on whether to buy the EMI as well, or not. Suffice to say, I likely will. ;)


But the reason I'm making this post, more than anything else, is the Haitink cycle above: so it really is worth its price, then? Because I've been teetering on the brink of purchasing it for a while, but just aren't sure if I need it, or if it would simply be a nice "bauble" for my hoard, so to speak.

The reason I even bought the aforementioned Barenboim was how cheap I found it, and due to wanting to confirm my suspicion about its highs and lows.

Yet with Haitink, I don't really have any suspicions: I know what to expect. :P

Though the Haitink is my pick for the most even cycle, I would not recommend that people buy it, unless they were satisfied with just one cycle, or of course, a glutton for Bruckner listening.

Singles is the way to go. None of Haitink's symphonies from this set are amongst my favorites. Only two of my favorites are from full cycles (1 - 9).

Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: mahlertitan on November 27, 2007, 09:39:16 PM
What about the ones Haitink did with WP? Any thoughts on those?
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Renfield on November 27, 2007, 09:54:29 PM
What about the ones Haitink did with WP? Any thoughts on those?

I very recently got the 3rd and 8th, on Gramophone's recommendation for the 3rd. And a very intricately crafted performance, that one is. It doesn't "supplant" my favourite (Karajan), but it is certainly a Bruckner 3rd to hear, and I will second Gramophone's recommendation of it, with one word of caution: it is delicate, versus shattering.

(Which is why I prefer the Karajan.)

The 8th is... "Not very nice at all, my love" - to quote Gollum. Too unsettled, to fuzzy, too fussy. Something like Jochum's DG reading, which I also dislike, only more low-key.


Otherwise, about the Haitink/Concertgebouw cycle, my main issue is whether it's worth picking up another cycle just for the sake of listening to Haitink "being smooth about it" as he usually is/does. To buy, or not to buy? :P
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: canninator on November 28, 2007, 03:34:06 AM
The Bruckner set I probably have the fewest disagreements with, is
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HKYBRRRRL._SS500_.jpg)

I have only heard the 4th from this cycle and it is one of the weakest 4ths I have heard, thin and washed out, unbelievably dull. On that basis alone I would urge anyone to take the Jochum over this cycle. As said, it is a good reliable middle ground for a complete cycle although he is beaten in individual symphonies by others. Not a lot to tell between the EMI and DG so unless you are a completist or have more money than sense go for the cheapest.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Hector on November 28, 2007, 04:59:37 AM
Avoid.

Frequently earthbound the best you can say is that he certainly likes to hang around and admire the view on occasion.

If you must absolutely have a complete set rather than picking out individual recordings then it's Karajan, although he is not as strong in the earlier symphonies as others. That is, also, if you like your Bruckner grand and cathedral-like.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: gmstudio on November 28, 2007, 06:09:53 AM
Avoid.

Frequently earthbound the best you can say is that he certainly likes to hang around and admire the view on occasion.


Are you refering to the Jochum in the original post?
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on November 28, 2007, 06:23:43 AM
I think Hector is referring to the Haitink set... As most posters have said (me included), Jochum is very good, and the Brillant/EMI set is the preferred one.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on November 28, 2007, 06:25:04 AM
My feeling as far as complete sets go is that you probably can't go wrong with Wand. God knows how many times he recorded these works but I have the 4th (Berlin PO), 5th and 6th (NDR), 8th (NDR and Berlin) and each and every one is great in it's own way. It is almost as if he is able to differentiate between each and every tempo and instrumentation change more than anybody else (including Jochum). At times the sound is unbearably grand and at times it sounds like chamber music. His complete box cycle is entirely with the NDR and I am not even sure whether they are the same recordings as the ones I own with the NDR but from his body of work I'd say he is a first choice as far as complete sets go.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: DarkAngel on November 28, 2007, 07:45:39 AM
If you just have one complete set I would go with older Jochum/DG set, I like it just a bit more than the later EMI set although both are very very good, performance style did not change much but I sense a touch more intensity and drama with DG set.......best to own both since prices are low  ;)

For 2nd choice if your primary focus are symphonies 4-9 then the Karajan/DG set is very hard to beat, supplement this with his final VPO 7th & 8th and you have a fabulous set.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Drasko on November 28, 2007, 08:42:18 AM
His [Wand] complete box cycle is entirely with the NDR

No, Köln
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: BorisG on November 28, 2007, 08:55:58 AM
Avoid.

Frequently earthbound the best you can say is that he certainly likes to hang around and admire the view on occasion.

If you must absolutely have a complete set rather than picking out individual recordings then it's Karajan, although he is not as strong in the earlier symphonies as others. That is, also, if you like your Bruckner grand and cathedral-like.

Disagree. Karajan's best 4, 7, 8, 9 are not in that set, which makes the Haitink set a better buy.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on November 28, 2007, 09:00:50 AM
No, Köln

Of course you are right. I guess RCA don't sell the Köln set as separate releases? Every individual Wand Bruckner out there I see is either NDR or Berlin.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on November 28, 2007, 09:53:06 AM
My feeling as far as complete sets go is that you probably can't go wrong with Wand. God knows how many times he recorded these works but I have the 4th (Berlin PO), 5th and 6th (NDR), 8th (NDR and Berlin) and each and every one is great in it's own way. It is almost as if he is able to differentiate between each and every tempo and instrumentation change more than anybody else (including Jochum). At times the sound is unbearably grand and at times it sounds like chamber music. His complete box cycle is entirely with the NDR and I am not even sure whether they are the same recordings as the ones I own with the NDR but from his body of work I'd say he is a first choice as far as complete sets go.

I'd have to say that the NDR performances on DVD are Wand's best. They have a spontaneity that the studio efforts often lack. Some of his studio recordings, while meticulous and fantastically nuanced as you observe, to me come off a tad too micromanaged and stiff.

As to the Haitink set, it is uneven. I do like the 7th and find the 6th quite excellent (though there is a recent Dresden 6th of his on Hänssler that sounds spectacular from the excerpts I've heard). The rest is just very solid, unfussy and well played, but not necessarily first choice. His Vienna 3rd I find just stupendous. It's a fantastic performance. Broad, without dragging, grand and with all the glorious colors of the VPO. There is a new Haitink 7th with the CSO on the CSO Resound label which Hurwitz gave a 10/10 FWIW. I haven't heard the disc yet, but attended one of the concerts from which the dics was made and found it uneven. It's possible that I just heard the weakest evening of the run and that the disc is indeed better than that particular performance.

For 2nd choice if your primary focus are symphonies 4-9 then the Karajan/DG set is very hard to beat, supplement this with his final VPO 7th & 8th and you have a fabulous set.

I would disagree with that, mostly due to the unrealistic, thick sound of the DG discs. So many inaudible voices. I find Karajan's EMI performances more convincing. For 4-9 (minus 6) I would instead get Wand/BPO. These are individual discs, but some have been reissued cheaply and performance and sound wise are very much at the top.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on November 28, 2007, 10:50:17 AM
I'd have to say that the NDR performances on DVD are Wand's best. They have a spontaneity that the studio efforts often lack. Some of his studio recordings, while meticulous and fantastically nuanced as you observe, to me come off a tad too micromanaged and stiff.

Hmmm, I am not sure whether ANY of Wand's Bruckner I have is studio. This Berlin 4th

(http://www.classicstoday.com/images/coverpics/1070_coverpic.jpg)

is live.  This one:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/417JSZTEVNL._AA240_.jpg)
I am not sure whether is live or studio.

The Luebeck 8th is live, so are the NDR 5th and 6th I have.

One thing I have to give credit to the German audience, they are mouse-quiet. I mean you hear no coughing, clearing their throats, yapping of any kind. It is almost as if they are literally awed into silence or maybe Germans know how to behave better. You listen to these and you listen to some La Scala live recordings and boy those Italians are a rowdy bunch ;)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: BorisG on November 28, 2007, 10:51:33 AM
Of course you are right. I guess RCA don't sell the Köln set as separate releases? Every individual Wand Bruckner out there I see is either NDR or Berlin.

All the Cologne singles are available at Amazon Germany. 1 - 5, 7 at MDT and Crotchet. You are welcome.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: mahlertitan on November 28, 2007, 10:53:26 AM
The 8th is... "Not very nice at all, my love" - to quote Gollum. Too unsettled, to fuzzy, too fussy. Something like Jochum's DG reading, which I also dislike, only more low-key.


Haitink's 8th with WP is one of the better Bruckner's 8th i have ever heard, one of the more "clear" "transparent" recordings. I don't care what people say about Haitink's "interpretation", but the flawless way the WP executed this 8th immediately made me to place it above both Albrecht and Barenboim (I love them both).

I don't know what's so unsettling about it, maybe you can explain.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on November 28, 2007, 10:54:22 AM
Hmmm, I am not sure whether ANY of Wand's Bruckner I have is studio. This Berlin 4th

Sorry, you're right. I still think the videos are better.

One thing I have to give credit to the German audience, they are mouse-quiet. I mean you hear no coughing, clearing their throats, yapping of any kind. It is almost as if they are literally awed into silence or maybe Germans know how to behave better. You listen to these and you listen to some La Scala live recordings and boy those Italians are a rowdy bunch ;)

How true. I swear I was in the company of 200 bronchitis patients at the Met last weekend!
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on November 28, 2007, 10:58:21 AM
Sorry, you're right. I still think the videos are better.

How true. I swear I was in the company of 200 bronchitis patients at the Met last weekend!
Well knowing the average age of a typical MET season subscriber they are probably coughing up a lung !

I don't know who Gollum is, but he/she is dead wrong.

Gollum is that creepy imp from Lord of the Rings (the one with the hunched back, big eyes, bad teeth, and eats raw fish)

All the Cologne singles are available at Amazon Germany. 1 - 5, 7 at MDT and Crotchet. You are welcome.
Thanks. That means I have to pay in Euro. What is the exchange rate now for the dollar? Even the complete set is costing more and more on Amazon.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: mahlertitan on November 28, 2007, 11:04:05 AM
Thanks. That means I have to pay in Euro. What is the exchange rate now for the dollar? Even the complete set is costing more and more on Amazon.

Not good.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on November 28, 2007, 11:07:30 AM
Well knowing the average age of a typical MET season subscriber they are probably coughing up a lung !

Actually, it being Julie Taymor's Magic Flute, the audience was reasonably young.

Gollum is that creepy imp from Lord of the Rings (the one with the hunched back, big eyes, bad teeth, and eats raw fish)

And not known as a knowledgeable Brucknerian, despite the resemblance to Harnoncourt.  ;)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on November 28, 2007, 11:14:58 AM
Actually, it being Julie Taymor's Magic Flute, the audience was reasonably young.

And not known as a knowledgeable Brucknerian, despite the resemblance to Harnoncourt.  ;)
Now that you mentioned it, let's see:

(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:gRCgbJ4J_xVBYM:http://www.ewallpaper.ru/Img/gollum.jpg)  (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4185KFKVRYL._AA240_.jpg)

Talking about The Magic Flute, a coworker almost beat me up when I said I don't like it as much as Wagner and Strauss. Incidentally he went to the same performance you did and raved about it, and he rarely praises anything or anybody.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lethevich on November 28, 2007, 11:26:22 AM
My feeling as far as complete sets go is that you probably can't go wrong with Wand. God knows how many times he recorded these works but I have the 4th (Berlin PO), 5th and 6th (NDR), 8th (NDR and Berlin) and each and every one is great in it's own way. It is almost as if he is able to differentiate between each and every tempo and instrumentation change more than anybody else (including Jochum). At times the sound is unbearably grand and at times it sounds like chamber music. His complete box cycle is entirely with the NDR and I am not even sure whether they are the same recordings as the ones I own with the NDR but from his body of work I'd say he is a first choice as far as complete sets go.

There seem to be many good recordings by him (I have also mostly only heard the Berlin and NDR recordings), but there are also some notably inferior ones as well... This one I was a bit disappointed by (although by any other standards it is very good):

(http://cover6.cduniverse.com/MuzeAudioArt/Large/87/972687.jpg)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: DarkAngel on November 28, 2007, 01:17:41 PM
I would disagree with that, mostly due to the unrealistic, thick sound of the DG discs. So many inaudible voices. I find Karajan's EMI performances more convincing. For 4-9 (minus 6) I would instead get Wand/BPO. These are individual discs, but some have been reissued cheaply and performance and sound wise are very much at the top.

I like the recent Wand/BPO/RCA Bruckner performances more than I did when first released......at first they didn't impress me greatly but over time I appreciate them more, they have aged well like fine wine

The Karajan/DG set is not greatest sound quality, I find it to be brightly lit and lacking some fullness and body, I sometimes cheat and EQ the sound to compensate. The quality of the performances make such shortcomings seem minor however, especially the 7,8,9. A remastered set would be greatly welcomed!

I agree the Karajan/EMI 4,7 are very good as well......I have the early EMI 8th as well but not as impressessed as later two versions for DG, prefer the faster tempos in later versions.

The final Karajan/VPO/DG 7th is just amazing, I think best Bruckner performance ever captured for Karajan and may be best Bruckner performance on CD by any conductor ever.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Renfield on November 28, 2007, 06:23:17 PM
The final Karajan/VPO/DG 7th is just amazing, I think best Bruckner performance ever captured for Karajan and may be best Bruckner performance on CD by any conductor ever.

Seconded. :)

Haitink's 8th with WP is one of the better Bruckner's 8th i have ever heard, one of the more "clear" "transparent" recordings. I don't care what people say about Haitink's "interpretation", but the flawless way the WP executed this 8th immediately made me to place it above both Albrecht and Barenboim (I love them both).

I don't know what's so unsettling about it, maybe you can explain.


Well, perhaps(?) I was being more than a little unfair to Haitink, previously.

But as my Gollum reference was meant to illustrate (with apologies for throwing around Lord of the Rings quotes, something which I am wont to do), I found his performance, like Jochum's DG 8th before it, distasteful.

Musically, it works well enough: and I'll even get back to you once I've gone through it again to make sure that my "gripe" was purely stylistic. Yet according to my own "taste" for Bruckner 8th's, the lighter textures both of these conductors use(d) comes off as inappropriate for that specific work.

It just doesn't work for me, played that way, which might have a lot to do with the fact that my favourite Bruckner 8ths are the "shattering/monumental/cathartic", call them what you will, readings of the Karajan/Furtwangler variety.

And Barenboim is another "offender" in this piece for me, for the same reason (plus some sloppy playing, IIRC).


So more of a personal thing, all in all: and the sweeping nature of my above disimissal was, true enough, uncalled for. :(
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lilas Pastia on November 28, 2007, 06:56:41 PM
I have only heard the 4th from this cycle and it is one of the weakest 4ths I have heard, thin and washed out, unbelievably dull. On that basis alone I would urge anyone to take the Jochum over this cycle. As said, it is a good reliable middle ground for a complete cycle although he is beaten in individual symphonies by others. Not a lot to tell between the EMI and DG so unless you are a completist or have more money than sense go for the cheapest.

If the 4th is all you heard form that cycle, you should abstain from commenting. Every cycle has a low point or two, and you just hit Haitink's.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: canninator on November 29, 2007, 02:42:23 AM
If the 4th is all you heard form that cycle, you should abstain from commenting. Every cycle has a low point or two, and you just hit Haitink's.

Lighten up. Maybe you should abstain from telling people what they can post on a public board. My post contravenes no posting guidelines and my statement was qualified with respect to my knowledge of the cycle. No point of the Jochum cycle sinks as low as that Haitink 4th therefore it is perfectly reasonable to suggest the Jochum as a purchase.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lilas Pastia on November 29, 2007, 05:29:26 AM
"Urging" anyone to choose A over B based on that 1/10 listening experience is flippant, to say the least. But that's your privilege, it's a free board. Case closed.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Hector on November 29, 2007, 05:40:10 AM
I think Hector is referring to the Haitink set... As most posters have said (me included), Jochum is very good, and the Brillant/EMI set is the preferred one.

And gmstudio.

I am referring to the Jochum set, although many Jochum/Bruckner admirers prefer the DG set.

I like Haitink's earlier Concertgebouw set but not as much as Karajan.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: mahlertitan on November 29, 2007, 11:11:24 AM
My post contravenes no posting guidelines
yeah, saying stupid things is not against the guidelines.

my statement was qualified with respect to my knowledge of the cycle.

your knowledge of the cycle is 1/10, like Lilas Patias said. A knowledge of 1/10 of anything doesn't qualify anyone to make any statements. Especially a foolish statement like that.

No point of the Jochum cycle sinks as low as that Haitink 4th therefore it is perfectly reasonable to suggest the Jochum as a purchase.

and stay away from Haitink forever? Did you know that he recorded many excellent Bruckner symphonies? Well, I guess you won't know that since you are only concerned with judging the 4th from every symphonic cycle... Well, i can tell you that you are a complete idiot in real life, based on the sole statement you made above. Now, is that a fair thing to say?
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: canninator on November 30, 2007, 03:47:59 AM
Well, i can tell you that you are a complete idiot in real life, based on the sole statement you made above. Now, is that a fair thing to say?

Yes, I am a real idiot, a slathering dolt, but at least I'm not so tightly wound my ass squeaks when I walk. Now go away insignificant whelp and remember teh internets is serious biznis.

And please, if anyone else feels the need to inflate their pitifully tiny sense of self-worth by launching tirades against people using the anonymity of the internet as cover then please use this as an excellent opportunity.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: mahlertitan on November 30, 2007, 10:28:36 AM
Yes, I am a real idiot, a slathering dolt, but at least I'm not so tightly wound my ass squeaks when I walk. Now go away insignificant whelp and remember teh internets is serious biznis.

And please, if anyone else feels the need to inflate their pitifully tiny sense of self-worth by launching tirades against people using the anonymity of the internet as cover then please use this as an excellent opportunity.

the exact same can be said about you. You made a foolish statement, instead of making an apology, and showing any regrets of making a mistake, you continue to attack others.... If this is how you deal with others, then, it is safe to say that GMG does not welcome people like you!
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Brewski on November 30, 2007, 10:42:28 AM
Gentlemen, please, no further insults, and back on topic.  Besides, Jochum is missin' your love.  ;D   Thank you... $:)

--Bruce
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Cato on November 30, 2007, 10:48:46 AM
I re-listened to both Jochum cycles last spring twice each.  The similarities were many, but the main thing is that the later cycle with the Dresdner group had a "rawer" sound, which was not always a bad thing, since there were moments in e.g. the Fifth and Eighth Symphonies where I thought they had more excitement than in the DGG set.

Ultimately you cannot go wrong with either set, but I would still choose the DGG set, even with its older, 1960's sound.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lethevich on November 30, 2007, 10:50:54 AM
I re-listened to both Jochum cycles last spring twice each.  The similarities were many, but the main thing is that the later cycle with the Dresdner group had a "rawer" sound, which was not always a bad thing, since there were moments in e.g. the Fifth and Eighth Symphonies where I thought they had more excitement than in the DGG set.

Ultimately you cannot go wrong with either set, but I would still choose the DGG set, even with its older, 1960's sound.

I wish there were bigger differences between the two. Jochum certainly varied his interpretations more in solo recordings. I've encountered an 8th and 9th on Operashare which were both much more expansive than his cycle recordings...
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lilas Pastia on November 30, 2007, 05:20:21 PM
I wish there were bigger differences between the two. Jochum certainly varied his interpretations more in solo recordings. I've encountered an 8th and 9th on Operashare which were both much more expansive than his cycle recordings...

Same here. There's much more individuality and depth of feeling in his later (1980s) performances of the 5th with the Concertgebouw (1986), 8 (Bamberg Symphony, 1982), close to being my favourite among the 40 or so versions I own, and his valedictory 9th with Celibidache's Munich Philharmonic (1987). I haven't heard his contemporaneous Amsterdam 6th, 7th and 8th but I would vouch that they are on the same high level. All these show Jochum freed from the constraints of his longtime vision (his interpretations varied very little between 1930 and 1980). Something must have happened to him. Gone are the wilful, annoying accelerandos that marred the musical discourse (very noticeable in 4:IV, 7:II, 8:III and 9:I). They are replaced by a more organic buildup that brings tremendous, awe-inspiring climaxes.

Had I known Jochum's Bruckner only through the two official cycles, I would not have thought highly of him as a Bruckner interpreter. Some of these versions are quite flawed, whereas most have a frustrating way of hinting at what might have been great readings but come up short in the process. The best of them (for my taste) are the DG 1-3 and 5-6, and the EMI 3, and 5-8.

In any case, as has been rightly pointed out earlier in this thread, there is no single cycle that makes a useful compendium for this composer. There's nothing wrong in having them (I own only two cycles), but it's best to collect individual interpretations. With all the downloads and reissues out there, money is not an overriding factor.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: ChamberNut on December 06, 2007, 06:15:54 AM


(http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/9720000/9729302.jpg)



I have this set as well, and absolutely love it!  Bruckner is my 2nd favorite symphony composer after Beethoven.

It took awhile to warm up to Bruckner's music, but his symphonies become more powerful and enthralling with each listen.  Great, great music!
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Diletante on July 08, 2009, 01:45:08 PM
Hello there.

I'm completely new to Bruckner and I haven't heard a single symphony by him. I have read that intepretations are very important with Bruckner, because of the different versions and whatnot.

My question is: How would you rate the following symphony cycles, especially in terms of interpretation and sound quality?


Thanks in advance for your help.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Scarpia on July 08, 2009, 01:51:51 PM
Originally I considered the Karajan/BPO to be the definitive cycle.  I still hold it in high regard, but the Haitink/RCO has gradually supplanted it as my preferred one.  Haitink has a reputation for being very neutral, but the Bruckner/RCO set, some of which was recorded when he was very young (as early as 1960) is very committed, to my ears.  Solti/CSO is extraordinary, but it is considered by many to be inordinately aggressive.  I have it and enjoy it (especially for the early symphonies) but don't consider that it gets to the essence of Bruckner.  Another to seriously consider is one of the two Jochum cycles.



Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: George on July 08, 2009, 02:03:27 PM
How would you rate the following symphony cycles, especially in terms of interpretation and sound quality?

  • Karajan & BPO - DG
  • Wand & Cologne Radio Symphony Orchestra, and Kolner Rundfunk Sinfonie Orchester
  • Solti & CSO

Thanks in advance for your help.

Of the three that you mentioned, I have only heard the HvK and didn't like it nearly as much as I'd hoped. I usually only like Karajan's recordings from the sixties and the Bruckner was unfortunately recorded later. The only two other sets I have heard I would recommend, though, both for SQ and performance. Jochum's DG set is excellent and I am happy to have it, but Celibidache's incomplete (he didn't record 1 or 2) EMI set is far and away my favorite. Sure, he slows things down and may not be very many people's idea of a good first set, but after hearing him, I honestly have no desire to hear anyone else's Bruckner. Celibidache's Bruckner recordings profoundly move me every time I hear them.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 02:21:32 PM
I'll have to consider Haitink since I love both Jochum loves and Karajan (for different reasons, they take different approaches).  It looks like Scarpia and I are on the same wavelength for Bruckner.  Unless he posts to affirm his love for Celibidache recordings that is... ;D  Sorry George I just had to.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Coopmv on July 08, 2009, 04:38:11 PM
I'll have to consider Haitink since I love both Jochum loves and Karajan (for different reasons, they take different approaches).  It looks like Scarpia and I are on the same wavelength for Bruckner.  Unless he posts to affirm his love for Celibidache recordings that is... ;D  Sorry George I just had to.

Here are the two Brucker's cycles I have ...

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31170QM1M9L._SL500_AA180_.jpg)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BVPD6N2wL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

I also have the third cycle by Karajan in this set, which I am still looking for time to listen to ...

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41hawrjnETL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: George on July 08, 2009, 04:45:48 PM
I wonder if and when the Celibidache set will be in an EMI budget box (or perhaps on Brilliant Classics) like that Jochum set.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Coopmv on July 08, 2009, 05:13:40 PM
I wonder if and when the Celibidache set will be in an EMI budget box (or perhaps on Brilliant Classics) like that Jochum set.

I have heard of Celibidache and do not have a single recording by him. 
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Scarpia on July 08, 2009, 05:17:02 PM
I wonder if and when the Celibidache set will be in an EMI budget box (or perhaps on Brilliant Classics) like that Jochum set.

The Celibidache recordings were licensed from Celibidache's estate in a special deal.  I think it is unlikely it will find its way to a budget release.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: George on July 08, 2009, 05:22:02 PM
The Celibidache recordings were licensed from Celibidache's estate in a special deal.  I think it is unlikely it will find its way to a budget release.

Thanks, that's good to know.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Coopmv on July 08, 2009, 05:22:27 PM
The Celibidache recordings were licensed from Celibidache's estate in a special deal.  I think it is unlikely it will find its way to a budget release.

But was Celibidache the Alfred Cortot of the conductors?  I think George knows what I mean ...    ;D
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 05:54:09 PM
As a Brucknerian for over 45 years   :o    I always recommend the original DGG stereo recordings with Eugen Jochum conducting with one caveat.

(http://www.classical-and-c.com/JochumBavariaBru5.jpg)

At the end of the Finale of the Fifth Symphony, Jochum basically halves the rhythm, which is not indicated in the score.  I have always been skeptical of this: there is a case to be made for an accelerando, rather than a grand slowdown.

Otherwise, a great set of performances!  Jochum's later EMI recordings are also excellent, although the playing has a "rawer" sound from the Dresden Staatskapelle.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Taxes- on July 08, 2009, 06:47:51 PM
I haven't heard the earlier Jochum cycle, but the Dresden one is indeed quite good.

And this is another set that one might want to consider.
(http://www.musicweb-international.com/classRev/2008/July08/Bruckner_Furtwangler_CD1209.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/Furtwangler-Conducts-Bruckner-Symphonies-5/dp/B0012XIGZU)
Most of those are outstanding, and the sound is adequate throughout. The sixth is missing the first movement though, and there's obviously a lot of Bruckner symphonies that he never performed, so it doesn't really replace a true cycle.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on July 08, 2009, 07:34:29 PM
Chailly's is a fine investment, more 'mellifluous' than others but with that Concertgebouw sound it's irresistible.


(http://www.papamedia.com/image.php?file=imgbooks/large/B0000CESR7.jpg)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: eyeresist on July 08, 2009, 08:30:55 PM
If you are new to Bruckner, I'd really recommend NOT starting with a boxset. Each individual symphony is a monolith, and attempting to digest 9+ of the things might turn you off for a long time. You should start off with a couple of discs of individual recordings.

Of the sets:

I enjoy Karajan's complete set (1 and 3 are my top picks for those works), but he did better in other recordings.

Wand is very good and reliable, though not always the acme of inspiration.

Jochum seems to me very overrated. I've only heard his EMI set (also on Brilliant, either way the cheapest complete set now available), but I dislike the way he pulls the tempos about at the expense of the broader structure (broad structure is a vital element in Bruckner's symphonies). Also, the Dresden orchestra were not on top of their game at that time, and the brass sound pretty raw.

The Furtwangler incomplete set mentioned above is really excellent, and the ancient sonics have cleaned up surprisingly well IMO.
 
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on July 08, 2009, 10:22:35 PM
Another vote for Jochum, but also consider the Skrowaczewski set, on Arte Nova or whatever their knockoff label is called. Cheap and good.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Novi on July 08, 2009, 10:31:32 PM

Jochum seems to me very overrated. I've only heard his EMI set (also on Brilliant, either way the cheapest complete set now available), but I dislike the way he pulls the tempos about at the expense of the broader structure (broad structure is a vital element in Bruckner's symphonies). Also, the Dresden orchestra were not on top of their game at that time, and the brass sound pretty raw.
 

I like the rougher and darker brass in the Dresden set though.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: DavidW on July 09, 2009, 03:28:03 AM
If you are new to Bruckner, I'd really recommend NOT starting with a boxset. Each individual symphony is a monolith, and attempting to digest 9+ of the things might turn you off for a long time. You should start off with a couple of discs of individual recordings.

+1

I failed to note the completely new part of the OP.  Oops.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: George on July 09, 2009, 03:38:27 AM
If you are new to Bruckner, I'd really recommend NOT starting with a boxset. Each individual symphony is a monolith, and attempting to digest 9+ of the things might turn you off for a long time. You should start off with a couple of discs of individual recordings.

For this approach I will add that a decent public library can be helpful.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Scarpia on July 09, 2009, 04:05:32 AM
If you are new to Bruckner, I'd really recommend NOT starting with a boxset. Each individual symphony is a monolith, and attempting to digest 9+ of the things might turn you off for a long time. You should start off with a couple of discs of individual recordings.

This doesn't make much sense to me.  There is no law that says when you get a box set you have to listen to the entire thing. 
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: DavidW on July 09, 2009, 04:07:48 AM
This doesn't make much sense to me.  There is no law that says when you get a box set you have to listen to the entire thing. 

Well it's cheaper.  If money is not an issue, then it doesn't matter as much.  I would hate to buy a box set of music if I didn't even know if I would like it.  Buying in mass quantity only makes sense in special cases.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on July 09, 2009, 04:21:09 AM
Chailly's is a fine investment, more 'mellifluous' than others but with that Concertgebouw sound it's irresistible.


(http://www.papamedia.com/image.php?file=imgbooks/large/B0000CESR7.jpg)


Forgot to mention that not everything in the Chailly set is with the Concertgebouw - syms 0, 1, 3, and 7 are with the Radio Symphony Orchestra, Berlin.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Drasko on July 09, 2009, 04:45:50 AM
Hello there.

I'm completely new to Bruckner and I haven't heard a single symphony by him.


I have an extra copy of Jochum's Dresden 9th on EMI. If you want it you can have it, for free. Just PM me your address.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on July 09, 2009, 07:55:15 AM
  • Karajan & BPO - DG
  • Wand & Cologne Radio Symphony Orchestra, and Kolner Rundfunk Sinfonie Orchester
  • Solti & CSO


I would skip all three of these.

The Karajan set suffers from the congested glossy sound typical of all 1970s DG/BPO/Karajan endeavors. In any case, Karajan's best Bruckner performances were with the VPO.

Wand is perhaps one of the most meticulous and enlightening Brucknerians out there, if perhaps not always the most spontaneous. But I would steer clear of the somewhat rough Cologne set and try to collect instead his DVDs with the NDR Symphony Orchestra. Those live performances are a good deal more spontaneous and the quality of the playing of the NDR orchestra is several notches above that of the two Cologne bands. However, those DVDs only cover symphonies 4-9. Then again, there are those who swear by the Wand/Cologne set, so you might just fall in love with it, too. In any, case of the three you list, that one is probably the better recommendation.

The Solti/CSO is a very mixed bag. Some of the earlier recordings (e.g. the 4th) are downright horrendous in their aggressivness and overpowering brassiness, while some the symphonies he recorded late in life (e.g. 1st, 7th & 8th) are really superb. But the unevenness of the conductor's insight into these works doesn't make this set a worthwhile investment.

If you like your Bruckner more brisk and edgy, you can't go wrong with either of the two Jochum sets (Dresden on EMI/Brilliant or Bavarian Radio Symphony on DG).

If you prefer a more grand, sweeping, interpretation either Barenboim/BPO or Chailly/RCO/DSO would be a good choice. Of those two, Barenboim is a bit more consistent, both interpretively and in terms of the quality of the playing. On the other hand when Chailly is on, he is truly great. However, there are some duds in Chailly's set, e.g. a very perfunctory 9th. The Chailly set has better sound. Some of the recordings in the Barenboim set are oddly boomy, though not too terribly so.

For a no-nonsense, middle of the road approach, the Haitink set is a safe bet.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: jwinter on July 10, 2009, 05:49:29 AM
Another vote for Jochum, but also consider the Skrowaczewski set, on Arte Nova or whatever their knockoff label is called. Cheap and good.

Seconded.  I've enjoyed the Skrowaczewski for quite a while, a very consistent set.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Sergeant Rock on July 10, 2009, 07:26:14 AM
My favorite cycles (as opposed to individual choices in each symphony) are Barenboim and Celibidache...but both are controversial and have been the subjects of heated debate in this forum. I hesitate to recommend either to a Bruckner neophyte.

Of the three you've asked us to comment on, I'd go with Karajan...although, in my opinion, his performances on EMI and in Vienna are more interesting.

Since you know nothing of Bruckner at this point, I'd recommend simply buying the cheapest cycle available. If you live in Europe, that would be Jochum/Dresden, just €20 at JPC (other cycles are 45 and more).

Sarge
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Scarpia on July 10, 2009, 11:47:13 AM
My favorite cycles (as opposed to individual choices in each symphony) are Barenboim and Celibidache...but both are controversial and have been the subjects of heated debate in this forum. I hesitate to recommend either to a Bruckner neophyte.

Of the three you've asked us to comment on, I'd go with Karajan...although, in my opinion, his performances on EMI and in Vienna are more interesting.

Since you know nothing of Bruckner at this point, I'd recommend simply buying the cheapest cycle available. If you live in Europe, that would be Jochum/Dresden, just €20 at JPC (other cycles are 45 and more).

Sarge

Can't argue with Jochum/Dresden.  In the US, it is about the same price as Haitink/RCO ($38).  Of the two I have a preference for Haitink.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Daverz on July 13, 2009, 03:58:39 AM
I very much like all the Skrowaczewski recordings I've heard: 00, 0, 6-9.  The orchestra has a wonderful Bruckner sound, and the sonics beat even the Bruckner Linz Orchestra set on Camerata.  Archivmusic has a good price on it.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: eyeresist on July 13, 2009, 06:34:59 PM
Can't argue with Jochum/Dresden. 
Can and did.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lilas Pastia on July 14, 2009, 04:39:07 PM
Most cycles are wanting in one way or another. But if consistency of approach, playing and sound are important (provided that they are at a high enough level), then only the Haitink RCO qualifies IMO. But it would need to be supplemented by another recording for symphonies 5 and 6, and a couple others for symphonies 4, 7, 8 and 9. Next would come the Jochums, but their shortcomings are different, so I find it impossible to recommend one over the other. The DG is more consistent in interpretation, but the sound of most BRSO recordings is thin, and symphonies 4 and 9 are disppointingly supercficial. The EMI is inconsistent in sound and playing, and there are some real misses here (4 and 9 again, but this time they sink hard). Jochum was one of the great Bruckner interpreters, but he found a state of grace only later, and his 1980s recordings are of various (live) provenances and miss 0-3, so no cycle. I haven't heard the Masur and I don't know all of Wand's recordings. I've never been thrilled by anything Masur ever did - either in Europe or in New York. For my money he's one of the dullest conductors ever to mount a podium. Still, I'd like to hear what he does with Bruckner.

As a second choice I can recommand the Karajan, despite many minor and some major disappointments. The Tintner is marred by the beefy, brassy orchestral playing and some strange editorial choices (sometimes only the original versions were recorded (2, 3 and 8 and that will simply not do). The Skrowaczewski is mostly fine, but I wouldn't want to have it as a first cycle. The Saarbrücken orchestra is mostly very good, but the competition is too strong in that department. When I hear them I have the feeling I'm doing my Christmas shopping at Wal-Mart. Good for everyday consumption, but you'll soon crave more power, distinction and personality.

The two Barenboims are mostly uninspired despite occasional successes. Solti's orchestra play quite badly. Bruckner is not Prokofiev. I can't think of a single interpretation where I'd count Solti among my top 5. There are other cycles out there, some available only as expensive imports.

In the end, the only justification for buying Bruckner symphonies in a set is the practicality, consistency and cost. Other than that, cast a wide net and get as many different interpretations you can find. You have many years to do it. Bruckner was a very patient composer.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on July 17, 2009, 12:21:42 PM
The two Barenboims are mostly uninspired despite occasional successes.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with that. Both Barenboim cycles offer up wonderful gems in terms of details of phrasing, structure and color upon repeated listening that few others can match. I personally count the CSO 0 and 9 and the Berlin 2, 6 & 5 among the top available recordings for those symphonies. Like all cycles, there are some that are less compelling, but none that are uninteresting or less than superbly played by the bands in question.

Solti's orchestra play quite badly.

You should really refrain from such nonsensical, silly, overbroad generalizations. Yes, Solti was pretty clueless, especially in his earlier years, when it came to producing a traditional "Bruckner-sound" with any orchestra (see, e.g. his 1969 VPO 8th which is terrible), but you can't blame the CSO for that. After all it sounded perfectly superb in Bruckner during those same years for Barenboim and Giulini. That being said, some of the later contributions to Solti's cycle, e.g. his 1st and 8th are quite respectable and the 8th is actually very good, unrecognizable compared to his first recorded effort from 1969.

Most cycles are wanting in one way or another. But if consistency of approach, playing and sound are important (provided that they are at a high enough level), then only the Haitink RCO qualifies IMO.

See, I find that one rather uninteresting compared to Barenboim. The most frustrating thing is that Haitink made better recordings of many of those, e.g. his stupendous 3rd with VPO or the recent magnificent 7th with CSO.

Next would come the Jochums, but their shortcomings are different, so I find it impossible to recommend one over the other. The DG is more consistent in interpretation, but the sound of most BRSO recordings is thin, and symphonies 4 and 9 are disappointingly superficial. The EMI is inconsistent in sound and playing, and there are some real misses here (4 and 9 again, but this time they sink hard). Jochum was one of the great Bruckner interpreters, but he found a state of grace only later, and his 1980s recordings are of various (live) provenances and miss 0-3, so no cycle.

I would agree with this. The orchestra is not consistent in Jochum's EMI recordings. But in the DG cycle, the problem is not the orchestra, it's DG's sound. Listen to the rich sound of the BRSO in Bruckner with Kubelik on Sony and Orfeo. It's a world of difference. (Those are also some of the finest recordings of 3, 4 & 9, BTW)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Scarpia on July 17, 2009, 12:36:15 PM
I'd have to respectfully disagree with that. Both Barenboim cycles offer up wonderful gems in terms of details of phrasing, structure and color upon repeated listening that few others can match. I personally count the CSO 0 and 9 and the Berlin 2, 6 & 5 among the top available recordings for those symphonies. Like all cycles, there are some that are less compelling, but none that are uninteresting or less than superbly played by the bands in question.

I'm confused, has Barenboim's CSO cycle ever been released on CD at all (except for a few bits and pieces)?
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Bulldog on July 17, 2009, 01:03:09 PM
I'm confused, has Barenboim's CSO cycle ever been released on CD at all (except for a few bits and pieces)?


I'm not aware of it being released on cd, but nos. 0, 4, 7 and 9 have been on cd.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Scarpia on July 17, 2009, 01:05:28 PM
I'm not aware of it being released on cd, but nos. 0, 4, 7 and 9 have been on cd.

I see, I have the 4,7 set, I've never seen the others.  Irritating that the major labels will release the same things over and over again with different cover art and leave this cycle on the shelf.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lilas Pastia on July 17, 2009, 03:03:21 PM
I'd have to respectfully disagree with that. Both Barenboim cycles offer up wonderful gems in terms of details of phrasing, structure and color upon repeated listening that few others can match. I personally count the CSO 0 and 9 and the Berlin 2, 6 & 5 among the top available recordings for those symphonies. Like all cycles, there are some that are less compelling, but none that are uninteresting or less than superbly played by the bands in question.

You should really refrain from such nonsensical, silly, overbroad generalizations. Yes, Solti was pretty clueless, especially in his earlier years, when it came to producing a traditional "Bruckner-sound" with any orchestra (see, e.g. his 1969 VPO 8th which is terrible), but you can't blame the CSO for that. After all it sounded perfectly superb in Bruckner during those same years for Barenboim and Giulini. That being said, some of the later contributions to Solti's cycle, e.g. his 1st and 8th are quite respectable and the 8th is actually very good, unrecognizable compared to his first recorded effort from 1969.

See, I find that one rather uninteresting compared to Barenboim. The most frustrating thing is that Haitink made better recordings of many of those, e.g. his stupendous 3rd with VPO or the recent magnificent 7th with CSO.

I would agree with this. The orchestra is not consistent in Jochum's EMI recordings. But in the DG cycle, the problem is not the orchestra, it's DG's sound. Listen to the rich sound of the BRSO in Bruckner with Kubelik on Sony and Orfeo. It's a world of difference. (Those are also some of the finest recordings of 3, 4 & 9, BTW)

Come on, why don't you admit that the CSO under Solti plays with as different a sound as could be from what is heard in the german-speaking countries? It's plain bad, period. Nothing to do with the orchestra's technical level - stupendous as always -  everything to do with the blatty, garish, unsubtle orchestral balances. What's nonsensical, silly and overbroadly generalized is to ignore the gulf between what Solti-CSO offer and the great, really cultured playing offered by much lesser european orchestras (in Cologne, Stuttgart, Baden-Baden, Bamberg for example  - and I'm not mentioning Hamburg or Munich). Mind you, I don't like the Berlin Philharmonic's sound either, but that's another story. To my ears, Solti's Chicago recordings tire the ears and assault the senses. Maybe I'm just an old foggy, but my conception of how Bruckner should sound (and I have very catholic tastes) doesn't include the poppers-laden type. I know this is silly, overbroad generalization, but I'm sure you get my drift.

Barenboim's CSO cycle had 2 gems among them - oft mentioned by yours truly in older posts - the 4th and 9th. Not coincidentally, these were the first recorded in the cycle (with much better orchestral balances than the Decca Solti recordings). After that, I'm afraid the sausage machine took over. Everything sounds more or less the same.

I've just finished listening to the 6 Arnell symphonies and other symphonic works. The distance between the musical language of the first and last works is amazing. And of course the same goes with Mahler, Beethoven, Arnold, Sibelius, Vaughan-Williams, etc. There's no way you could adopt the same sound world to suit all symphonies. The composer would be the first to be horrified. There has to be differences, and yet there has to be an aesthetic continuity. Conductors who didn't think they could connect with a work stayed away from it (Klemperer, Kubelik, Böhm, Keilberth, Leitner, Walter, Sawallisch for example). Of those who recorded the whole lot anyway (like Wand, Karajan, Jochum), it should be noted their concerts featured only the works they totally identified with. Which brings us back full circle: why go for a cycle from a conductor who never plays some of the symphonies in concert?

I agree that there are quite a few better Haitink concerts that came after the Philips studio recordings. Same with Jochum or Karajan, whose real Bruckner can be heard in live concerts. BTW I listened to a short clip of the 8th's Finale under Karajan (BPO in concert in London, 1979). Well, if this would appear on cd, I'd pay premium dollars to get it. It's simply out of this world.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on July 17, 2009, 03:41:43 PM
Come on, why don't you admit that the CSO under Solti plays with as different a sound as could be from what is heard in the german-speaking countries? It's plain bad, period. Nothing to do with the orchestra's technical level - stupendous as always -  everything to do with the blatty, garish, unsubtle orchestral balances. What's nonsensical, silly and overbroadly generalized is to ignore the gulf between what Solti-CSO offer and the great, really cultured playing offered by much lesser european orchestras (in Cologne, Stuttgart, Baden-Baden, Bamberg for example  - and I'm not mentioning Hamburg or Munich). Mind you, I don't like the Berlin Philharmonic's sound either, but that's another story. To my ears, Solti's Chicago recordings tire the ears and assault the senses. Maybe I'm just an old foggy, but my conception of how Bruckner should sound (and I have very catholic tastes) doesn't include the poppers-laden type. I know this is silly, overbroad generalization, but I'm sure you get my drift.

Yes, this was certainly easy enough for me to decipher from your Solti/Chicago comments, Lilas. I didn't take it to mean that anything was lacking technically on their part.

Perhaps when it comes to "overbroad" it more aptly applies to those who don't read carefully enough before slinging arrows...
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on July 17, 2009, 03:45:14 PM
I'm confused, has Barenboim's CSO cycle ever been released on CD at all (except for a few bits and pieces)?

There once was a complete release on CD long ago, very much OOP. Every now and then a copy shows up on ebay and is instantly bid up to three digit prices.

I'm not aware of it being released on cd, but nos. 0, 4, 7 and 9 have been on cd.

You are missing No.1.

4, 7, 9 were reissued on eloquence, 4 & 7 were reissued as a DG twofer, 0 and 1 were reissued in the DG Galleria series.

Come on, why don't you admit that the CSO under Solti plays with as different a sound as could be from what is heard in the german-speaking countries? It's plain bad, period. Nothing to do with the orchestra's technical level - stupendous as always -  everything to do with the blatty, garish, unsubtle orchestral balances. What's nonsensical, silly and overbroadly generalized is to ignore the gulf between what Solti-CSO offer and the great, really cultured playing offered by much lesser european orchestras (in Cologne, Stuttgart, Baden-Baden, Bamberg for example  - and I'm not mentioning Hamburg or Munich). Mind you, I don't like the Berlin Philharmonic's sound either, but that's another story. To my ears, Solti's Chicago recordings tire the ears and assault the senses. Maybe I'm just an old foggy, but my conception of how Bruckner should sound (and I have very catholic tastes) doesn't include the poppers-laden type. I know this is silly, overbroad generalization, but I'm sure you get my drift.

I agree with you. I find Solti's aggressive, edgy tone extremely tiring. It is just that in your original post you phrased it as "Solti's orchestra play badly", which is not correct. Now that you have explained yourself better and clarified that it is the conductor, not the orchestra's abilities, you find wanting, I take no issue with your statement. I still think some of his late recordings from the 90s are quite decent, e.g. the 8th and the 1st, if certainly not first choices by any stretch. The 1980 Bruckner 4th is plain horrible, as is the 6th, a video of which can be found on youtube.

Barenboim's CSO cycle had 2 gems among them - oft mentioned by yours truly in older posts - the 4th and 9th. Not coincidentally, these were the first recorded in the cycle (with much better orchestral balances than the Decca Solti recordings). After that, I'm afraid the sausage machine took over. Everything sounds more or less the same.

I again beg to differ. While there are some flops (the 8th in particular), some of the later recordings in that cycle are superb, especially 0 (which I just listened to again this afternoon). Again, I think Barenboim's Bruckner merits a few listens if it doesn't click immediately. I always find new things to discover.

Which brings us back full circle: why go for a cycle from a conductor who never plays some of the symphonies in concert?

Absolutely! The fun with Bruckner in any case is the vast variety of plausible and compelling interpretive approaches. Mix and match, I say! Also, there is always the question: live or studio? So many conductors sound better live than in studio. That's why my favorite Bruckner recordings right now are Wand's late videos with NDR.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: DavidW on July 17, 2009, 03:51:03 PM
Tanuki are you still seeking a box set, or do you want an individual cd?  Or have you already made your purchase? :D
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on July 17, 2009, 03:53:26 PM
I agree with you. I find Solti's aggressive, edgy tone extremely tiring. It is just that in your original post you phrased it as "Solti's orchestra play badly", which is not correct. Now that you have explained yourself better and clarified that it is the conductor, not the orchestra's abilities, you find wanting, I take no issue with your statement.

What, you need a road map or something? :D

I had no trouble understanding what he meant. Then again I try not to jump to conclusions without first ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION. Try it sometime...
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: George on July 17, 2009, 03:55:13 PM
I just picked up the DG Celibidache set on sale. I look forward to seeing how it compares to the EMI set. I have read that the tempos are quicker, if still slower than the norm.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: DavidW on July 17, 2009, 03:58:39 PM
Hey George what do you think of Karajan's 70s cycle? I've heard the 80s cycle, but see that the 70s is so cheap, and possibly better playing?
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on July 17, 2009, 03:58:54 PM
What, you need a road map or something? :D

I had no trouble understanding what he meant. Then again I try not to jump to conclusions without first ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION. Try it sometime...

I'm not sure what you think gives you the right to this attitude. He wrote "Solti's orchestra play quite badly." That is prima facie a negative statement about the orchestra, not the conductor. Since Lilas and I have resolved our differences in this point anyway, I'm not sure why you see a need to unnecessarily meddle.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Renfield on July 17, 2009, 04:01:49 PM
Hey George what do you think of Karajan's 70s cycle? I've heard the 80s cycle, but see that the 70s is so cheap, and possibly better playing?

The Bruckner cycle? There's only one of those via Karajan, spread across the two decades.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on July 17, 2009, 04:02:09 PM
Hey George what do you think of Karajan's 70s cycle? I've heard the 80s cycle, but see that the 70s is so cheap, and possibly better playing?

Are there two complete Karajan cycles? I am aware only of one, recorded between 1975 and 1981. see: http://www.abruckner.com/discography/fullsets/
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: George on July 17, 2009, 04:06:17 PM
Hey George what do you think of Karajan's 70s cycle? I've heard the 80s cycle, but see that the 70s is so cheap, and possibly better playing?

I have the set that is in the mega-symphony HvK box released recently by DG. It's the 70s cycle. I was dissapointed by it, as I had waited a very long time to finally get it and had read tons of good things in the interim. I just didn't connect with much of it. I am beginning to think that I only like 1960's HvK recordings, as the Beethoven in that set (also 70s) didn't do it for me either.

I prefer Jochum's Bruckner (DG, haven't heard the EMI) for a more traditional interpretation, as his set moved me a great deal more than the HvK.  
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: DavidW on July 17, 2009, 04:24:40 PM
Oh I was confused, thought there were two cycles.  I guess he only recorded two or three symphonies with the VPO later?
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on July 17, 2009, 04:26:01 PM
I'm not sure what you think gives you the right to this attitude.

The same right that gave you the open door to slam Lilas (no pun intended...). ::)

Quote
He wrote "Solti's orchestra play quite badly." That is prima facie a negative statement about the orchestra, not the conductor.

To you, maybe, but in evaluating the statement I came to exactly the conclusion Lilas intended. AT WORST I would've asked for clarification first before slashing away! :D

Quote
Since Lilas and I have resolved our differences in this point anyway, I'm not sure why you see a need to unnecessarily meddle.

I see nothing that resembles absolution from Lilas on this point! :D :D Just your backtracking to cover your arse...

Anyway, meddling is what I do when I feel someone I respect is being treated unfairly. If that's a crime then sue me...
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: DavidW on July 17, 2009, 04:27:33 PM
I have the set that is in the mega-symphony HvK box released recently by DG. It's the 70s cycle. I was dissapointed by it, as I had waited a very long time to finally get it and had read tons of good things in the interim. I just didn't connect with much of it. I am beginning to think that I only like 1960's HvK recordings, as the Beethoven in that set (also 70s) didn't do it for me either.

I prefer Jochum's Bruckner (DG, haven't heard the EMI) for a more traditional interpretation, as his set moved me a great deal more than the HvK.  

That's a huge box set!  You must have been quite disappointed with it to find that consistently you disliked the post-60s recordings.  Or were there alot of 60s stuff in there as well?
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: George on July 17, 2009, 04:32:03 PM
That's a huge box set!  You must have been quite disappointed with it to find that consistently you disliked the post-60s recordings.  Or were there a lot of 60s stuff in there as well?

Nope, its all 70s and 80s, I believe. My taste may change, but for now I can clearly hear many of the criticisms that folks have about HvK. Especially the blenderized sound. I also hear a great deal of mellowing in his style (in the 70s and 80s stuff) that I really don't like. I keep wanting the fire from the 60s, but it rarely comes.

Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Renfield on July 17, 2009, 04:37:41 PM
Oh I was confused, thought there were two cycles.  I guess he only recorded two or three symphonies with the VPO later?

There are earlier Karajan BPO Bruckner recordings as well, also possibly more recommendable than their equivalents in the cycle.

But yes, the recordings in question are likely the VPO 7th and 8th on DG - though there are additionally an excellent earlier VPO 5th and 9th, and even earlier 8th from the Salzburg Festival to be found (and highly recommended, with the caveat of the recorded sound). :)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: DavidW on July 17, 2009, 04:44:51 PM
I'm going to have to contact the poster that had hooked me up with those Karajan recordings to remind me which year I was listening to! :D  All I know was that I liked what I heard.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on July 17, 2009, 04:55:08 PM
I'm going to have to contact the poster that had hooked me up with those Karajan recordings to remind me which year I was listening to! :D  All I know was that I liked what I heard.

You can find complete Bruckner discography info here: http://www.abruckner.com/discography
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lilas Pastia on July 17, 2009, 05:05:09 PM
Hey, guys, relax.. ;).

I like to think I'm usually balanced and objective in my opinions, but every now and then, I like to poke ribs as hard as anyone  >:D. So, take my remark about the CSO in that context. No harm done.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Drasko on July 18, 2009, 12:24:47 AM
Of those who recorded the whole lot anyway (like Wand, Karajan, Jochum), it should be noted their concerts featured only the works they totally identified with. Which brings us back full circle: why go for a cycle from a conductor who never plays some of the symphonies in concert?

Now I find this much more interesting point than The Solti Epic which developed. Namely, can a musician produce a satisfactory performance/recording of the piece he dislikes? For instance Gunter Wand went on record saying that first and second symphonies are weak (I think he even used the word ill at one point) and that he has absolutely no intention in re-recording them with NDR. I think I had this discussion with M some time ago and seem to recall he argued that it is possible on account of high musicianship, professionalism etc. I think maybe proficient routine performance is possible but without conviction and belief in piece greatness is nowhere near. So why would someone be satisfied with Wand's Koln Bruckner 2nd when can have Stein or Giulini who both believed in piece enough to record it as a standalone.
I'm pretty positive every cycle has an example of this (no conductor likes everything), and not only in Bruckner - Karajan's recordings of Tchaikovsky's first three symphonies are perfect example, proficient routine run-through recordings of pieces he never once played in concert.
Piecemeal is the best way to go in my opinion, my only Bruckner set is Jochum/Dresden mostly because I like the sound of the orchestra (and the cheapness is beyond belief - 15 euros from amazon.de). 
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on July 18, 2009, 05:24:48 AM
Hey, guys, relax.. ;).

I like to think I'm usually balanced and objective in my opinions, but every now and then, I like to poke ribs as hard as anyone  >:D. So, take my remark about the CSO in that context. No harm done.

And no offense taken. I thought we discussed our differences quite amicably. Of course, if some want to, Faux News-style, see controversy where there is none, I can't help it.

Now I find this much more interesting point than The Solti Epic which developed. Namely, can a musician produce a satisfactory performance/recording of the piece he dislikes? For instance Gunter Wand went on record saying that first and second symphonies are weak (I think he even used the word ill at one point) and that he has absolutely no intention in re-recording them with NDR. I think I had this discussion with M some time ago and seem to recall he argued that it is possible on account of high musicianship, professionalism etc. I think maybe proficient routine performance is possible but without conviction and belief in piece greatness is nowhere near. So why would someone be satisfied with Wand's Koln Bruckner 2nd when can have Stein or Giulini who both believed in piece enough to record it as a standalone.
I'm pretty positive every cycle has an example of this (no conductor likes everything), and not only in Bruckner - Karajan's recordings of Tchaikovsky's first three symphonies are perfect example, proficient routine run-through recordings of pieces he never once played in concert.
Piecemeal is the best way to go in my opinion, my only Bruckner set is Jochum/Dresden mostly because I like the sound of the orchestra (and the cheapness is beyond belief - 15 euros from amazon.de). 


Seconded. Too many cycles feel in part like someone just trying to check off boxes for completeness' sake.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: George on July 18, 2009, 05:30:57 AM
Anyone know if Celibidache omitted the first two symphonies because he didn't like them?
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on July 18, 2009, 06:40:17 AM
Anyone know if Celibidache omitted the first two symphonies because he didn't like them?

I am not aware of any quotes of his regarding Nos. 00 through 2, but from context it appears that he considered the 3rd the beginning of the 'real' Bruckner. In the liner notes for his Munich 3rd, the following appears:

"He was especially fond of the Third Symphony: "This is the first manifestation of great, spacious, broad-plane thinking -- incredibly extended -- representing the essence of his later symphonic writing.""
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on July 18, 2009, 07:13:18 AM
And no offense taken. I thought we discussed our differences quite amicably. Of course, if some want to, Faux News-style, see controversy where there is none, I can't help it.

Well, hey, it's not my fault you make headlines with your mouth! :D

If you spit in the eye of someone don't be surprised when someone calls you out. That simple.

Anyway, nothing is gained by this petty, under-the-table carping of yours. Either bring it all back out in the open or clam up already...
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on July 18, 2009, 07:22:19 AM
Well, hey, it's not my fault you make headlines with your mouth! :D

If you spit in the eye of someone don't be surprised when someone calls you out. That simple.

Anyway, nothing is gained by this petty, under-the-table carping of yours. Either bring it all back out in the open or clam up already...

WTF are you talking about?! I interpreted Lilas' statement by its literal meaning and never attacked him personally, much less spit in his eye. We resolved our disagreement amicably, thereby rendering your rude and uncalled-for intervention completely superfluous. What are you? Some kind of underemployed attack dog? Are you a member of the local Self-Righteous Hypocrites and Amateur Judges Brigade? Unless you have something substantive to contribute on the subject of Bruckner cycles, please take your OT nonsense into some thread in the Diner. If Lilas feels offended by anything I said, I'm sure he can speak for himself.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on July 18, 2009, 07:31:35 AM
WTF are you talking about?! I interpreted Lilas' statement by its literal meaning and never attacked him personally, much less spit in his eye. We resolved our disagreement amicably, thereby rendering your rude and uncalled-for intervention completely superfluous. What are you? Some kind of underemployed attack dog? Are you a member of the local Self-Righteous Hypocrites and Amateur Judges Brigade? Unless you have something substantive to contribute on the subject of Bruckner cycles, please take your OT nonsense into some thread in the Diner. If Lilas feels offended by anything I said, I'm sure he can speak for himself.

Blowing hot air doesn't an argument make! :D Now kindly PM me if it's your intent to pursue this...
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Drasko on July 18, 2009, 07:36:31 AM
Seconded. Too many cycles feel in part like someone just trying to check off boxes for completeness' sake.

There is one point from which pro-cycles stand can be argued and that is they allow the listener better grasp at one composers totality of output and relations between works within it by using one musicians/conductors consistent approach. And that stands, but my feeling is that as a listener you're setting yourself for acres of listening tedium that way. 
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Scarpia on July 18, 2009, 07:48:49 AM
Hey George what do you think of Karajan's 70s cycle? I've heard the 80s cycle, but see that the 70s is so cheap, and possibly better playing?

As was mentioned below, there was only 1 cycle, with many other individual recordings over the years.  To get the best of Karajan you have to pick and choose.  His recording of 8 in 1989 is one of the great recorded performances, ever.  It was made during a time when Karajan seemed to be reconnecting with the directness of some of his early recordings.  However, the 8 from the DG cycle (1976) is also a magnificent recording.  What impresses me is the extent to which he shapes climaxes with dynamics, sonority and phrasing which seems to impart an emotional poignancy to Bruckner's "granite blocks" of sound.  The recording of #6 from the cycle is also a revelation to me, particularly the slow movement, similar comments for 5.  For 4 Karajan is served by better sound in the EMI recording, made just a year before.  I really don't much like 7 or 9 from that cycle at all, there is the alternative from EMI.  For 1 and 2 Karajan seems to be going through the motions to complete the set.  #3 is fun, but the early digital sound is a bit harsh.  In any case, I consider his cycle well worth having, but not the last word, by any means.  I think with any cycle a typical listen will find weak recordings that he or she will want to supplement with other choices.


Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lilas Pastia on July 18, 2009, 08:04:40 AM
To get an idea of a conductor's interest in the early symphonies, a look at Berky's discography will provide hints. If one discounts appearances in complete sets, individual performances recorded live indicate an actual effort to bring them to the public. Typically, these have only been issued on obscure labels (Sardana, En Larmes, etc).

Among the Big Guys, here are those that are on record (litterally) on behalf of symphonies 00-2

- 00: nobody
- 0 : Asahina, Skrowaczewski, van Beinum, Leitner,
- 1: Abbado, Asahina, Haitink, Horenstein,  Leinsdorf, Ozawa, Muti, Rozhdestvensky.
- 2 : Chailly, Horenstein, Skrowaczewski, Giulini  (both different performances than their studio recordings), Muti, Haitink (in 1959 - nothing since), Kempe, Konwitschny, Masur, Stein (18 years after his splendiferous Decca recording), Scherchen (heavily cut finale).

Note: NO Jochum, NO Karajan, NO Solti, NO Barenboim, NO Tintner, NO Wand (they all recorded the cycle, twice for Jochum and Barenboim).

NO Celibidache, Klemperer, Furtwängler, Walter, Böhm, Blomstedt, Szell, Kubelik, Knappertsbusch, Stein, Harnoncourt, Kempe, Boulez, Keilberth, Schuricht, Mehta, Sanderling, Suitner, Tennstedt, Barbirolli, Mrawinsky or Sawallisch - conductors usually regarded as high priests of the Bruckner religion.

Where does that leave us ? On top of the individual performances noted above, only Asahina, Chailly, Haintink, and Skrowaczewski have recorded a complete cycle. All four are distinguished conductors, but none of their cycles is unanimously regarded as a benchmark. My preference for the Haitink is qualified. And among the other conductors noted, a good half are viewed as among the most important figures of the podium in the 20th century.

Obviously, the conclusion is that no conductor who did a complete cycle has held every symphony - or even half ! - into his repertoire on a consistent basis. In the past 15 years, Haitink has programmed the 7th, 8th and 9th again and again, with an occasional 4th or 6th. And he's generally regarded as the foremost Bruckner advocate in the concert hall of the last two decades. Pretty much the same pattern emerges for all the others (Karajan never programmed the 3rd or 6th, let alone the early symphonies).

Another conclusion that emerges is that many iconic performances (like Mehta's WP 9th, Bongartz or Keilberth 6th, Klemperer 5, Blomstedt 7, Furtwängler 8, Giulini 9, Böhm or Kubelik in 3 and 4, Suitner 4, etc - provide your own examples) - are the product of the conductor's deep association with the classic germanic repertoire, identification with german culture (the romantic movement in particular), and an inbred understanding of, and respect for their orchestra's sound, musical culture and capacities. Something I rarely hear with the 'new breed' conductors such as Salonen, Nagano.

So, why is it that such obviously committed brucknerians steadfastly refused - or failed to - approach the so-called 'lesser' symphonies (that's 0-2 and sometimes even 3 and 6). It could be due to concert hall or orchestra management conservatism (read: fear of poor box office sales). It could also be due to a conductor's high standards (such standards have disapeared). Barbirolli for example is famously on record to declare that it took him years to understand a score (I think he was referring to the Mahler 6th). No problem with score reading, but he had to appropriate (internalize) a work's whole ethos - not just the notes - before he felt ready to perform it.

In the end, it all comes down to this (again): complete cycles are actually 'incomplete' from the artistic standpoint.

Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Scarpia on July 18, 2009, 08:14:16 AM
Anyone know if Celibidache omitted the first two symphonies because he didn't like them?

This seems to imply that Celibidache had an intention of recording a Bruckner cycle.  In fact he detested the idea of recordings, never made commercial recordings and forbid any recordings of his live performances from being released.  The recordings were issued after his death against his expressed wishes by his son, who evidently wanted the cash.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: George on July 18, 2009, 08:29:21 AM
This seems to imply that Celibidache had an intention of recording a Bruckner cycle.

Really? That certainly wasn't my intention. I just wanted to know if he had negative feelings about the works.

Quote
 In fact he detested the idea of recordings, never made commercial recordings and forbid any recordings of his live performances from being released.

Yes, I was aware of this.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on July 18, 2009, 12:00:37 PM
Note: NO Jochum, NO Karajan, NO Solti, NO Barenboim, NO Tintner, NO Wand (they all recorded the cycle, twice for Jochum and Barenboim).

Do you mean by "NO" that these guys didn't ever record 00-2, since you omitted them in your list? ???  Because at least some of them did some of those. These are omitted in your list:

00: Tintner
0: Solti, Barenboim (CSO only), Chailly
1: Tintner, Barenboim (x2), Jochum (x2), Karajan, Solti, Wand
2: Tintner, Jochum (x2), Karajan, Solti, Barenboim (x2), Wand

One note on no.2: Muti seems to be emerging as a new believer in No.2. He did the work to great acclaim in Vienna last season (a live broadcast can be found on operashare and concertarchive) and has scheduled it for next season with the CSO.

Also, Haitink is due out with another 3rd with Dresden on Profil.

Otherwise, it is sadly true that 00-2 are underrepresented in the concert hall, as well as in recordings. Which is sad, as I am rather fond of 0 and 2.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: DavidW on July 18, 2009, 12:21:23 PM
I think that Andre is saying that they are not on record as supporting those symphonies as great works, and thus their recordings might not have as much love and effort put into them as some of the other symphonies.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Drasko on July 18, 2009, 12:27:39 PM
[What] Do you mean by "NO"


To get an idea of a conductor's interest in the early symphonies, a look at Berky's discography will provide hints. If one discounts appearances in complete sets, individual performances recorded live indicate an actual effort to bring them to the public....

.....Note: NO Jochum, NO Karajan, NO Solti, NO Barenboim, NO Tintner, NO Wand (they all recorded the cycle, twice for Jochum and Barenboim).
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lilas Pastia on July 18, 2009, 12:45:17 PM
Thanks, Milos!  

Quote
If one discounts appearances in complete sets(...)
could also have been quoted. ;)

NO meant that these conductors are not on record for ever having programmed them in concert.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on July 18, 2009, 02:33:54 PM
Oh, OK. I was just confused because you did list Haitink individually, despite his recordings being part of a complete set. Sorry.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lilas Pastia on July 18, 2009, 08:04:51 PM
That's because he did conduct some of the early symphonies in the concert hall (like Masur) besides recording a complete studio cycle. That was the point of my argument: most of the 'cyclists' recorded them because it was part of their recording contract - not because they had any affinity with the works.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Renfield on July 19, 2009, 10:34:56 AM
Speaking of affinity, it has always struck me as particularly jarring how completely Karajan seemed to disregard the 6th symphony. His recording reeks of nonchalance to my ears, an 'oh well, since we have to do them all' attitude I'm not used to, in his work.

(Then again, there aren't many who seem to actually have something to say on the 6th - this being another interesting thing to note.)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Taxes- on July 19, 2009, 12:32:09 PM
Interestingly, after recording the last three on ATMA classique (though the 8th has not been released yet, I believe), the next symphony that Yannick Nézet-Séguin will be tackling is the first.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Renfield on July 19, 2009, 12:49:12 PM
Interestingly, after recording the last three on ATMA classique (though the 8th has not been released yet, I believe), the next symphony that Yannick Nézet-Séguin will be tackling is the first.

Whichever one he's tackling, I'm still inclined to ask, 'why?' He's not a bad conductor as such, but I don't think waiting a decade or two would've hurt him; unless he's going to pull a Jochum, and do a second cycle later on.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Taxes- on July 19, 2009, 01:08:39 PM
Whichever one he's tackling, I'm still inclined to ask, 'why?' He's not a bad conductor as such, but I don't think waiting a decade or two would've hurt him; unless he's going to pull a Jochum, and do a second cycle later on.
Why not? It's with discs like those that he's managed to get known outside of the Montréal area, and I don't see his age as problematic either, his personality seems perfectly adapted to a composer like Bruckner to me. And on the contrary, I'd be very glad to see him conduct more than one cycle, there seemed to be a hell lot of Giulini in that 8th I heard, I'd be very interested to compare it with his approach from a few decades in the future.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Renfield on July 19, 2009, 01:17:50 PM
Why not? It's with discs like those that he's managed to get known outside of the Montréal area, and I don't see his age as problematic either, his personality seems perfectly adapted to a composer like Bruckner to me. And on the contrary, I'd be very glad to see him conduct more than one cycle, there seemed to be a hell lot of Giulini in that 8th I heard, I'd be very interested to compare it with his approach from a few decades in the future.

Still, the logistics of a complete cycle so early make it seem ill-advised, to me. Not that I wouldn't welcome being proven wrong.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lilas Pastia on July 19, 2009, 05:32:16 PM
So far all the NZ recordings were taped during concerts. The 8th was given 4 times in 4 different venues last June. I don't know which one was taken down on disc, but I'd bet it's the one given in the same church 7 and 9 originate from (I was there when they did/taped the ninth). I suppose the First will similarly be the product of live performances.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Taxes- on July 19, 2009, 06:05:36 PM
So far all the NZ recordings were taped during concerts. The 8th was given 4 times in 4 different venues last June. I don't know which one was taken down on disc, but I'd bet it's the one given in the same church 7 and 9 originate from (I was there when they did/taped the ninth). I suppose the First will similarly be the product of live performances.
Yes, that's where and when they recorded it. They won't be done with all the symphonies in a while anyway, he's doing one Bruckner per season with the métropolitain and that's it.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Lilas Pastia on July 20, 2009, 06:37:39 PM
Thanks, Taxes. I really wish I could have attended the 8th, esp. in Saint-Nom-de Jésus church in East end Montreal. It has very good acoustics. I'm glad that's the one that'll end up on that forthcoming cd. I've had that 9th on my shelves ever since it came out, but there's so much stuff waiting to be listened to... Also, I'm almost afraid to confront the audio product with my memories of that concert.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: jlaurson on January 18, 2013, 02:03:55 PM

Finished this, a few minutes ago. (Days of work, if it is to be believed!)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aRBqVEFm6bU/UPm2FsFICBI/AAAAAAAAF8M/EMaiDsgkkPE/s1600/Anton_Bruckner_II_laurson_600.jpg)
A Survey of Bruckner Cycles
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-survey-of-bruckner-cycles.html (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.)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: mc ukrneal on January 18, 2013, 02:23:07 PM
Finished this, a few minutes ago. (Days of work, if it is to be believed!)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aRBqVEFm6bU/UPm2FsFICBI/AAAAAAAAF8M/EMaiDsgkkPE/s1600/Anton_Bruckner_II_laurson_600.jpg)
A Survey of Bruckner Cycles
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-survey-of-bruckner-cycles.html (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.)
Very useful. Thanks.

Though clicking on Sinopoli gets you to Sibelius (Gibson)!
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: jlaurson on January 18, 2013, 02:58:53 PM
Very useful. Thanks.

Though clicking on Sinopoli gets you to Sibelius (Gibson)!
Thanks! Precisely the kind of catch I need.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Octave on January 18, 2013, 10:13:49 PM
Yes, thanks for that, Jens.  These kinds of critical/comparative synopses are extremely helpful to me as a beginner with both ears and feet wet. 
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: aukhawk on January 19, 2013, 02:44:57 AM
I recently bought the Simone Young 3rd (I've also got Haitink/Concertgebouw) and I really like it - broad tempi and sumptuous sound quality. 
I find coarse sound is a problem with many of the important Bruckner cycles such as Wand, making the lengthy loud passages hard to listen to.  A silky-smooth modern recording really helps.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Fafner on January 19, 2013, 03:23:16 AM
Just adding my thanks for the survey. A complete Bruckner cycle is on my list of planned purchases for this year.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: OrchestralNut on January 19, 2013, 06:09:09 AM
Just adding my thanks for the survey. A complete Bruckner cycle is on my list of planned purchases for this year.

Thumbs up!  8)  Still my favourite symphony composer!  :)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: jlaurson on January 19, 2013, 02:59:04 PM
Nice survey Jens. :)

Of course it's inevitable that some smartass will come along and mention things that aren't in it. ;D  Two that I wouldn't want to be without, and seem to drift in and out of print, are:

The Rozhdestvensky is, I believe, only available currently as a super-cheap set of MP3 downloads missing 1 & 2.  Which is a shame, because the 2nd is one of the best things in the full set, which also includes both Linz and Vienna 1sts, and three different versions of both the 3rd and the 4th.

Inevitable, indeed.  ;)

Which is where this comes in:

Quote
There are several incomplete, out of print, hard to get, and just plain obscure (at least in the West) Bruckner Symphony cycles that are not listed below. This includes all but the third of six (!) complete and partial cycles of the Japanese conductor, founder of the Osaka Philharmonic Orchestra, and Furtwängler-inspired Bruckner-nut Takashi Asahina. (His Sixth and last, from within months of his death, can be found here.) That also includes the once ultra-inclusive Gennadi Rozhdestvensky cycle on Melodiya, which has been cobbled together from various, dubious sources as a sketchy MP3 offering on Amazon. While some incomplete and unboxed cycles have been included (Norrington, because I think his traversals are worthwhile), others (Roegner, on Edel) have not. There is no particular logic to that decision.

I originally wanted only to include extant cycles... but then included a few OOP ones, anyway. Even where I knew they were not likely coming back (like Jochum Bros.). That leaves the end-result rather a hodge-podge. Eichhorn/Sieghart/Guschlbaur (which also exists [except it doesn't] as an anniversary BOLinz cycle with several from Davies added) is very much on my radar but not possible to get, it seems. Ditto the Eichhorn-only cycle. With the next overhaul (i.e. finished Young and Bolton), I might include the pictures, though. Thanks for the watchful eye. Appreciated!

Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: MishaK on February 06, 2013, 12:58:00 PM
I recently bought the Simone Young 3rd (I've also got Haitink/Concertgebouw) and I really like it - broad tempi and sumptuous sound quality. 
I find coarse sound is a problem with many of the important Bruckner cycles such as Wand, making the lengthy loud passages hard to listen to.  A silky-smooth modern recording really helps.

I used to like Young... before I knew anything about the original versions of 2, 3, 4 and 8. Then I heard Inbal and Schaller and never listened to Young again. Simply not on the same level. You can perform a piece in a way that makes it sound like an abortive first attempt at composition, or you can believe in the concept as a whole and present it convincingly as a masterpiece. Young is simply not in the latter camp.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: jlaurson on January 14, 2014, 07:05:11 AM


A Survey of Bruckner Cycles

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aRBqVEFm6bU/UPm2FsFICBI/AAAAAAAAF8M/EMaiDsgkkPE/s1600/Anton_Bruckner_II_laurson_600.jpg)
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-survey-of-bruckner-cycles.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-survey-of-bruckner-cycles.html)

Updated to include the Profil catch-all box & new Tintner box.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Leo K. on January 21, 2014, 11:39:55 AM
I recently bought the Simone Young 3rd (I've also got Haitink/Concertgebouw) and I really like it - broad tempi and sumptuous sound quality. 
I find coarse sound is a problem with many of the important Bruckner cycles such as Wand, making the lengthy loud passages hard to listen to.  A silky-smooth modern recording really helps.

I'm a big fan of Simone Young's Bruckner. A well mastered recording can make the appreciation of a work go up a few notches that's for sure! I also love her tempo choices and thoughtful showing of details in the score. 
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Moonfish on May 27, 2014, 11:45:31 AM
Finished this, a few minutes ago. (Days of work, if it is to be believed!)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aRBqVEFm6bU/UPm2FsFICBI/AAAAAAAAF8M/EMaiDsgkkPE/s1600/Anton_Bruckner_II_laurson_600.jpg)
A Survey of Bruckner Cycles
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-survey-of-bruckner-cycles.html (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.)

Great resource and survey of cycles. Thank you!   :)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: jlaurson on May 28, 2014, 12:24:53 AM
Great resource and survey of cycles. Thank you!   :)

Thanks kindly for the appreciation!

These things are a bit of work to do and so it's always gratifying when someone finds them useful.

I'm planning a DSCH-Symphony Cycle Survey next.

Up already are:

 Dvořák Symphony Cycle Survey
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GEp8pryRAMU/UU-BUrZ64WI/AAAAAAAAGV0/SbfbpphxIjc/s1600/Antonin_Dvorak_laurson_600.jpg) (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-survey-of-dvorak-symphony-cycles.html)

 Sibelius Symphony Cycle Survey
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qwx038uONik/UO2fRX1CKLI/AAAAAAAAFiQ/lG1oNnrnjOU/s1600/Sibelius_standard_laurson_600.jpg) (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2009/05/survey-of-sibelius-cycles.html)

 Bach Organ Cycle Survey
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-thtV3npwdYY/UdP62-OpysI/AAAAAAAAGk4/s4r7zdpJuxs/s600/BACH_Portrait_original_laurson_600.jpgg) (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-survey-of-bach-organ-cycles.html)

And the first one, a little different (more complex) in format:
 Beethoven Piano Sonata Cycle Survey
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VYQWtbpDv9Q/UPQjw3NPXEI/AAAAAAAAFro/1OCHnnTJ3H8/s1600/Beethoven_basic_laurson_600.jpg) (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2009/05/beethoven-sonatas-survey-of-complete.html)
(which needs monthly updating, really...)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: bigshot on May 28, 2014, 07:12:00 PM
Dvorak says continued below the jump and no jump
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Moonfish on May 28, 2014, 07:15:48 PM
It is just a spacer in the web page.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: jlaurson on May 28, 2014, 11:02:16 PM
It is just a spacer in the web page.
hmmm..
How does one phrase that properly, so as to avoid confusion...?

"Continued below the jump - unless you have navigated directly to this page" ??
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Moonfish on May 28, 2014, 11:07:10 PM
hmmm..
How does one phrase that properly, so as to avoid confusion...?

"Continued below the jump - unless you have navigated directly to this page" ??

Does it appear as a half-page if one approaches it differently?
Wouldn't "Continued below" be sufficient?
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: jlaurson on May 29, 2014, 03:40:11 AM
Does it appear as a half-page if one approaches it differently?
Wouldn't "Continued below" be sufficient?

It would appear only up to that sentence if one went to the ionarts-page instead via direct link. But in truth, that's unlikely -- because it would take clicking-through pages upon pages and all traffic by now will necessarily be direct. I think I'll add a very small "continued below"... thanks for the input.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: SonicMan46 on February 06, 2020, 02:46:33 PM
BOY - has been nearly 6 years since a contribution to this thread!  ???

Being more of a 'chamber music' fan, listening to symphonic music is down on my list - just me, I guess; BUT, over the years of buying and culling, I've acquired the 3 'cycles' (as used in the tread's title) of Bruckner's Symphonies, i.e. the ones shown below.  For my infrequent need to hear Anton's orchestral works, one or two sets would do - SO, just wondering what the thoughts may be on these performances, and of course others, especially newer releases in the last half dozen or more years - Bruckner (along w/ Mahler) have kind of gathered 'cobwebs' on my shelves -  ::) :laugh:  Dave
.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71zzdGwGlsL._SL1500_.jpg)  (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/513BGiP61hL.jpg)  (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51mCiSHkusL.jpg)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: Roasted Swan on February 06, 2020, 03:18:51 PM
BOY - has been nearly 6 years since a contribution to this thread!  ???

Being more of a 'chamber music' fan, listening to symphonic music is down on my list - just me, I guess; BUT, over the years of buying and culling, I've acquired the 3 'cycles' (as used in the tread's title) of Bruckner's Symphonies, i.e. the ones shown below.  For my infrequent need to hear Anton's orchestral works, one or two sets would do - SO, just wondering what the thoughts may be on these performances, and of course others, especially newer releases in the last half dozen or more years - Bruckner (along w/ Mahler) have kind of gathered 'cobwebs' on my shelves -  ::) :laugh:  Dave
.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71zzdGwGlsL._SL1500_.jpg)  (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/513BGiP61hL.jpg)  (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51mCiSHkusL.jpg)

Still 3 of the best and the available at such low prices.  Personally I've always liked Barenboim's 1st cycle with Chicago which connoisseurs will tell you is much too brash (perhaps I like brash!).  I must admit the recent remastering of Karajan onto hi-res blu-ray is tempting and also Gerd Schaller's survey of just about every possible variant is very good without being quite the "last word" some acolytes might suggest.  But if you are not that fussed anyway your 3 sets are as good as most - so enjoy!
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: André on February 06, 2020, 04:15:30 PM
I think the Jochum set has become dated both in conception and sound. Jochum’s best Bruckner performances come from the very last years of his life. Nos 5, 7 and especially 8 and 9 from Amsterdam, Bamberg, Munich are among the greatest ever made.

The Wand is a good spic&span cycle, but his later recordings with the NDR (Hamburg) on RCA probe much deeper. I’m not too keen on his last recordings from Berlin, where his view is impressive but the results appear close to fossilization.

I enthusiastically recommend the Haitink set. Nos 4 and 9 are not his best takes on the work, but the rest is prime Bruckner.

This very inexpensive set is one of the best for most of the symphonies (except an old, mono 2nd), superbly played and recorded:

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61dr4aslyxL._AC_.jpg).

Buy another no 2 and a no 0 (not included here) to supplement.

Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: SonicMan46 on February 08, 2020, 07:41:46 AM
I think the Jochum set has become dated both in conception and sound. Jochum’s best Bruckner performances come from the very last years of his life. Nos 5, 7 and especially 8 and 9 from Amsterdam, Bamberg, Munich are among the greatest ever made.

The Wand is a good spic&span cycle, but his later recordings with the NDR (Hamburg) on RCA probe much deeper. I’m not too keen on his last recordings from Berlin, where his view is impressive but the results appear close to fossilization.

I enthusiastically recommend the Haitink set. Nos 4 and 9 are not his best takes on the work, but the rest is prime Bruckner.

This very inexpensive set is one of the best for most of the symphonies (except an old, mono 2nd), superbly played and recorded:

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61dr4aslyxL._AC_.jpg).

Buy another no 2 and a no 0 (not included here) to supplement.

Hi André - thanks for your comments above - I read several reviews on the Rögner Brilliant Box, a compilation - also, several commenters on Amazon mentioned 'audience coughs' - are some of these performances 'live' and is there a lot of audience noise, especially applause after each symphony?  Just me, but have never enjoyed a lot of audience input on my CDs - thanks for any comments.  Dave :)
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: André on February 08, 2020, 07:46:29 AM
Hi Dave! Except for no 2, all of these recordings are from a recording studio. No applause, no coughs, no extraneous noises. No 1 is conducted by Neumann, no 2 by Konwitschny (live), no 3 by Sanderling and the rest by Rögner in excellent digital sound.
Title: Re: Bruckner's cycles
Post by: SonicMan46 on February 08, 2020, 08:55:55 AM
Hi Dave! Except for no 2, all of these recordings are from a recording studio. No applause, no coughs, no extraneous noises. No 1 is conducted by Neumann, no 2 by Konwitschny (live), no 3 by Sanderling and the rest by Rögner in excellent digital sound.

1+ - thanks again!  Dave