Bruckner's Abbey

[Cato]

Cato, are you referring to that comment ? 

« The 4th has a somewhat problematic finale (he made various versions and revisions). For me a performance that nails the coda is a successful one. Unfortunately not very many achieve that. You must hear clearly the pulsating viola figurations underneath the brass chorales and violins. That can only be achieved when the tempo is slow and rock steady. Try Celibidache, Ballot or Hrusa to hear that coda properly handled «

That seems close to what I saw!

I do not know the performances Ballot or Hrusa, but will need to find those! 

[André]

That seems close to what I saw!

I do not know the performances Ballot or Hrusa, but will need to find those! 

I'm the one who wrote this comment, in the What Are You Listening To thread, a few days ago in response to a post by Iota, who wrote « there's plenty I do like about the symphony, the first movement for example, and the rest of the symphony has all sorts of Bruckner goodies to enjoy, but somehow it just doesn't quite hang together for me«. 

[Cato]

I'm the one who wrote this comment, in the What Are You Listening To thread, a few days ago in response to a post by Iota, who wrote « there's plenty I do like about the symphony, the first movement for example, and the rest of the symphony has all sorts of Bruckner goodies to enjoy, but somehow it just doesn't quite hang together for me«.

Aha!  I had a false memory that it was from elsewhere, FaceBook or another website like comments on YouTube.

I have had no time to visit your other two recommendations, but hope to do so soon!  Many thanks!

Here is a link to the Remy Ballot performance:


https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_kYIzPoCM5yk7So-e0uIyWDnjahdMWTL-E

[Cato]

I'm the one who wrote this comment, in the What Are You Listening To thread, a few days ago in response to a post by Iota, who wrote « there's plenty I do like about the symphony, the first movement for example, and the rest of the symphony has all sorts of Bruckner goodies to enjoy, but somehow it just doesn't quite hang together for me«.

Hi again Andre' !  And everyone else! 

I recall, when I first heard the symphony many decades ago, that it seemed abrupt, and at times "quirky."

I also listened with the score, and still found it, as you do, problematic.

As the years went by, it struck me that there were a good deal of subtle connections to the earlier movements, and that Bruckner might have been "compressing" his otherwise expansive style in this Finale.

I think of Nikolai Tcherepnin's works, where the developments of material can be rather subtle and not obvious upon first hearing.

And I think that the criticism can be made that such subtleties are too subtle, and not the fault of the listener!

In short, I hear the Finale these days with more satisfaction, but it took a while! 

And you are right about the Remy Ballot performance (see the link above)!

Here is a link to part of Jakob Hrusa's conducting of the Fourth Symphony:

[André]

The finale is a fine achievement in itself, but it doesn't sound as organic as the first movement, arguably the finest composed by Bruckner until then. Bruckner laboured a lot on this movement, discarding it totally in favour of the 'Volkfest' finale in 1876, which in turn was promptly dumped and replaced by a reworking of its first version, then 2 subsequent reworkings. The seams in the musical fabric are more apparent than in most of the composer's works. The recap and especially the coda however are magnificent - especially when handled in a way that reveals all its intricate layers (violins screeching in alt, underpinned by those obstinate viola figures, massive brass chorales, gleaming trumpets piercing the skies above, etc.

[Cato]

The finale is a fine achievement in itself, but it doesn't sound as organic as the first movement, arguably the finest composed by Bruckner until then. Bruckner laboured a lot on this movement, discarding it totally in favour of the 'Volkfest' finale in 1876, which in turn was promptly dumped and replaced by a reworking of its first version, then 2 subsequent reworkings. The seams in the musical fabric are more apparent than in most of the composer's works. The recap and especially the coda however are magnificent - especially when handled in a way that reveals all its intricate layers (violins screeching in alt, underpinned by those obstinate viola figures, massive brass chorales, gleaming trumpets piercing the skies above, etc.

Excellent summary of the background! 

Your emphasis on being able to hear the lines of the instruments in the Finale reminds me of a performance I heard (in person) of Schoenberg's Pelleas und Melisande by Claudio Abbado and the Berlin Philharmonic.

It is a famously dense score, but Abbado and Company made it sound like chamber music with all the lines clearly delineated!  The performance, therefore, was a powerful one of a powerfully dramatic work.

Do you have the "3 Versions" CD by Hrusa above?  Is it worthwhile?  Obviously you liked Hrusa's performance of the one version!

[Cato]

We have bought tickets for the Cincinnati Symphony performance of Bruckner's Symphony #9 in November!

The reconstructed Finale is not included, but...

Marek Janowski will be the conductor.


See:


https://audienceaccess.co/show/HNCR-11850

[brewski]

We have bought tickets for the Cincinnati Symphony performance of Bruckner's Symphony #9 in November!

The reconstructed Finale is not included, but...

Marek Janowski will be the conductor.


See:


https://audienceaccess.co/show/HNCR-11850

Methinks you are going to have a great time! I was at the Music Hall for the first time last February, and was very impressed, both with the sound and with the beauty of the details after the restoration.

-Bruce

[André]

Excellent summary of the background! 

Your emphasis on being able to hear the lines of the instruments in the Finale reminds me of a performance I heard (in person) of Schoenberg's Pelleas und Melisande by Claudio Abbado and the Berlin Philharmonic.

It is a famously dense score, but Abbado and Company made it sound like chamber music with all the lines clearly delineated!  The performance, therefore, was a powerful one of a powerfully dramatic work.

Do you have the "3 Versions" CD by Hrusa above?  Is it worthwhile?  Obviously you liked Hrusa's performance of the one version!

Didn't see your post earlier, sorry! Yes, I have the Hrusa B4s set. It's a splendid achievement, whichever version you prefer. Hrusa's Bruckner breathes, the finale's long phrases and paragraphs unfold with the feeling of inevitability.

[Cato]

Didn't see your post earlier, sorry! Yes, I have the Hrusa B4s set. It's a splendid achievement, whichever version you prefer. Hrusa's Bruckner breathes, the finale's long phrases and paragraphs unfold with the feeling of inevitability.

Thanks for the comment!  I am looking forward to hearing that set!

Methinks you are going to have a great time! I was at the Music Hall for the first time last February, and was very impressed, both with the sound and with the beauty of the details after the restoration.


-Bruce

Oh yes!  We were there back in May for the Mahler Symphony #8 conducted by James Conlon.  A wonderful sound and experience!

[Cato]

From the What Are You Listening To? topic:

This recording was given a negative review ("Empty" and "Sterile").

I listened to the Finale: the orchestra sounds thin, but otherwise I would not call it empty or sterile!

There is a certain clarity now and then, which is nice, but I do have a problem with the brass.

Overall, not bad!

Does anybody here have an opinion on the recording or of other Bruckner recordings by Herreweghe and his orchestra?

[Roasted Swan]

From the What Are You Listening To? topic:

This recording was given a negative review ("Empty" and "Sterile").

I listened to the Finale: the orchestra sounds thin, but otherwise I would not call it empty or sterile!

There is a certain clarity now and then, which is nice, but I do have a problem with the brass.

Overall, not bad!

Does anybody here have an opinion on the recording or of other Bruckner recordings by Herreweghe and his orchestra?

Perhaps I'm too imprinted with "big" Bruckner - but I just cannot equate what I hear on this recording with what I want to hear.  With so many versions I love or at least respect, no need to bother with a version that - for me - misses the mark completely.

[Cato]

Perhaps I'm too imprinted with "big" Bruckner - but I just cannot equate what I hear on this recording with what I want to hear.  With so many versions I love or at least respect, no need to bother with a version that - for me - misses the mark completely.

Thanks for the quick reply!

Yes, I suppose this (experiment?) is something of an acquired taste.  Again, everything sounded "thin." 

DGG used sketches of Baroque church architecture on its album covers for the Eugen Jochum set to symbolize the architectonic aspect of Bruckner's music.

And certainly Bruckner knew the music of the Baroque quite well!

But he did not compose for Baroque orchestras.

[André]

This week I listened to a reduction by Mahler for piano 4-hand of Bruckner's 3rd symphony. I was fascinated by how clear the structure was thus revealed. Stripped of its flesh and muscle, the musical skeleton and tendons allowed an absorbing new angle. I definitely recommend the experience.

[calyptorhynchus]

This week I listened to a reduction by Mahler for piano 4-hand of Bruckner's 3rd symphony. I was fascinated by how clear the structure was thus revealed. Stripped of its flesh and muscle, the musical skeleton and tendons allowed an absorbing new angle. I definitely recommend the experience.

Which version?

[André]

Which version?

This one:

[Cato]

Article about Bruckner being "more popular than ever" these days!


https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/arts/music/bruckner-200th-anniversary.html?unlocked_article_code=1.V04.3kdk.iOoGpKGO3WOl&smid=url-share

"...Why do his symphonies, the expression of a deep Catholic faith, resonate so loudly in an increasingly secular age? How have these long, complicated works grown so remarkably in stature while our attention spans have become so brief? In interviews, seven conductors offered their thoughts; here are edited excerpts from those conversations....

"Manfred Honeck:

"You can be Catholic, you can be Christian, you can be Jewish, Muslim, whatever, Bruckner's music is for everybody here, because he always looks up — not with one eye, with both eyes. There is enormous honesty in his spirituality; there is nothing which is artificial. I believe in our time, when�, at least in the Western part of the world, we have reduced religious practice, we find this practice in Bruckner's music. There are a lot of people who don't regard themselves as spiritual or religious, but when it comes to listening to Bruckner, they are longing for something.

"And I think that's one of the reasons Bruckner might get even more popular. If you go to a concert and are open, you will always, always be touched by him, captured by the spirituality. Humans generally have this longing for something, or at least they ask: "Why? Why are we here? Where do we go?" That's the same question Bruckner asked himself. His answer was God in religion, of course, and he gave the answer through music."

[DavidW]

I honestly think that is an odd take. If the audience was seeking spirituality, then why are the masses listened to, recorded, and performed far less often? The symphonies are far more abstract. I don't think the narrative is true. People listen to Bruckner because his symphonies are great art. They don't listen to his music because they are covertly seeking God... it is a lazy narrative. Honeck should have tried harder IMO.

It also strips away the genius and hard work Bruckner put into his music by making him just a vessel for his faith. It is completely unfair. Other composers like Bach, known for their sacred output, are still discussed in terms of their compositional skills and their genius.

[NumberSix]

I honestly think that is an odd take. If the audience was seeking spirituality, then why are the masses listened to, recorded, and performed far less often? The symphonies are far more abstract. I don't think the narrative is true. People listen to Bruckner because his symphonies are great art. They don't listen to his music because they are covertly seeking God... it is a lazy narrative. Honeck should have tried harder IMO.

It also strips away the genius and hard work Bruckner put into his music by making him just a vessel for his faith. It is completely unfair. Other composers like Bach, known for their sacred output, are still discussed in terms of their compositional skills and their genius.

I read it more simply than that. I take from the comment that regardless of one's perspective on spirituality and religion, there's something about Bruckner's music that speaks to the soul. People feel something in a way that not all music makes them feel.

But I might be imposing my own interpretation.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I honestly think that is an odd take. If the audience was seeking spirituality, then why are the masses listened to, recorded, and performed far less often? The symphonies are far more abstract. I don't think the narrative is true. People listen to Bruckner because his symphonies are great art. They don't listen to his music because they are covertly seeking God...

Worth asking: if you didn't know Bruckner himself was religious, could you guess it from his music?

My first impression of Bruckner symphonies was "cosmic space music." Or "primeval nature music." That's what I liked about it.

The other cliche is that Bruckner was writing "organ music for orchestra." I think people say this because they know he was an organist. I figure if he wanted to write organ music, he would have done so.