# Bruckner Symphony Cycles. Again.



## Subutai

I've been going through a Bruckner fix of late. I have a bunch of single symphonies as well as a bunch of complete cycles. As much as I try I honestly can't distinguish between any of the symphonies, as much as I try to stay neutral. I believe there be gold in them thar hills. For the moment I haven't found any nuggets. I'm beginning to think Anton composed the worlds longest Symphony in 35 movements (sorry).
The question I therefore pose is which is the cycle that is 'perfect' the whole way through with no weak links.Every cycle I own seems to have one or two symphonies which just don't sound right. So in essence, the PERFECT Bruckner Symphony cycle. Not your favourite. The one that you deem to be perfect throughout the whole 9 symphonies. 
Thanks in advance.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Subutai said:


> I've been going through a Bruckner fix of late. I have a bunch of single symphonies as well as a bunch of complete cycles. As much as I try I honestly can't distinguish between any of the symphonies, as much as I try to stay neutral. I believe there be gold in them thar hills. For the moment I haven't found any nuggets. I'm beginning to think Anton composed the worlds longest Symphony in 35 movements (sorry).
> The question I therefore pose is which is the cycle that is 'perfect' the whole way through with no weak links.Every cycle I own seems to have one or two symphonies which just don't sound right. So in essence, the PERFECT Bruckner Symphony cycle. Not your favourite. The one that you deem to be perfect throughout the whole 9 symphonies.
> Thanks in advance.


Move on to another composer Bruckner is not for you. Don't waste your time, life's too short and there are so many amazing composers out there just waiting for you.

I'm lucky in that I simply adore Bruckner, but your mileage, as we say, differs enormously!


----------



## Merl

I agree with Henry. Walk away for a while and come back in 6 months time, minimum. Discovering someone else might make you appreciate him on your return. As for 'perfect' Bruckner cycles there perhaps isn't one and what any of us recommend won't be right for you as I don't think you're in the 'Bruckner zone' yet. Btw, that's not a criticism. It's just not worth wasting yer time trying to like something when you might love something else at first go. Good luck.


----------



## Becca

There is no such thing as a perfect cycle so if you are looking for one, you are wasting your time. The reality is that no conductor is equally good in all the symphonies so you are better off by picking and choosing particularly good versions of each symphony ... which then leads to the inevitable Brucknerian question of 'which version of the symphony'! And, of course, if you ask people for such good versions, you will get at least as many suggestions as posts (and probably more!)


----------



## mbhaub

Listen to Becca: she's right. There is no perfect set of symphonies for any composer, by any conductor or orchestra. However...

I have my share of Bruckner cycles, the famous ones: Jochum, Karajan, Solti, Wand, Chailly...but the set that really stands out is from Camerata featuring the Bruckner Orchestra Linz, and three conductors - mostly Kurt Eichorn and Martin Sieghart. The sound is spectacular, the playing superb and there's not a weak performance in the set. You also get a 4-movement 9th from Cohrs, Mazucca and company. The versions used are all the standard ones, whatever that means in Bruckner (Nowak, mostly). I don't know if the whole box is still available anywhere. It used to be on Berkshire Record Outlet for $100. When the time comes to start thinning the collection down I will give up all the other Bruckner I have but not this set! It's superb.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

No one cycle can have it all. My recommendations for an initial collection if you’re trying to like them are the following:

Nos. 1-9, Karajan/BPO 1970s
Nos. 3-4, Bohm/VPO
Nos. 4-9, Furtwängler (Music & Arts box)
No. 5, Haitink/BRSO 2010
No. 8, Wand/BPO 
No. 9, Giulini/VPO


----------



## Knorf

For me, the closest to a perfect Bruckner cycle is probably Skrowaczewski, especially since it includes the two unnumbered symphonies, but really I agree with the others here: there's no such thing as a truly "perfect" Bruckner cycle.


----------



## Subutai

Thanks for.the input, though I half expected as much. Trust me, I have a whole bunch lof classical works I have listened to and moved away from.
Bruckner is my latest addiction, as I prize symphonies above all other forms of symphonic Works. 
I currently hold Skrowaczewski's cycle to be top dog, yet I feel there are others. 
Dear listener's, I realise all art is subjective, so please answer, Your top 3 Bruckner Symphony cycles, that for.you hold no ( or very little) weak spots.


----------



## Merl

I'll give you 3 different sounding ones that I rate.. 

Stan the man
Gielen
Karajan

(but you will get lots of pleasure from Jochum - both, Barenboim/CSO, Chailly and Janowski too). Go and have a listen on streaming / YouTube. I'm sure if you are intent on sticking with Bruckner you'll find something you like.


----------



## Knorf

If we take the word "perfect" to mean what it's supposed to mean, for me a perfect Bruckner cycle should of course be immaculately performed and recorded, and have no weak interpretations, but it should also include the unnumbered D minor and C minor symphonies and a four-movement Ninth, at least accepting the best completions we currently have (I'm still holding out hope that a few of the still missing pages will be found and future completions will be even better.)

As such, thinking about this more, yeah: there are no perfect Bruckner cycles. Skrowaczewski is the closest, since it features terrific performances and recordings, honestly has no weak spots, and includes the unnumbered symphonies. 

I haven't heard the Gielen, but I trust Merl on this; I'm sure it's great. I need to hear it.

What I've heard from Simone Young is very impressive, but she exclusively recorded the first versions, which is a mistake in my opinion, since many of the revisions were authentically undertaken by Bruckner himself, voluntarily. (I know, the version situation is a mess.)

For straight forward cycles of the First through a three-movement torso of the Ninth, I remain very fond of Karajan and Blomstedt, but there are many excellent cycles out there, and nothing remotely close to genuine critical consensus, which is fine with me.

I will mention that I was very impressed with the Berliner Philharmoniker Bruckner "Frankencycle" on their own label, featuring different conductors. It misses the unnumbered symphonies, but includes a four-movement Ninth with Rattle, perhaps the best Bruckner he's ever released in recording. It's splendidly recorded and played, and none of the others are weak; perhaps the closest to weak is a "just ok" Thielemann Seventh. (One other cavil: Blomstedt does the first version of the Third, which I think is a mistake, since it's one where Bruckner himself wisely decided to remove most of the unnecessary Wagner quotations. But considering that, it's a blistering performance.)

I'll mention a cycle I had hoped would be special, but in the end was disappointingly ordinary: Gergiev/Münchner Philharmoniker. I'll probably revisit it, just in case I missed something. And it's not at all bad, really not, just kind of ordinary.

TL;DR—my favorite three are Skowaczewksi, Karajan, and Blomstedt.


----------



## Becca

If I had to collect a single conductor cycle (which I won't), which I think comes closest to ideal (which almost certainly doesn't) and which is complete (hmmm...*), then it would probably be Gerd Schaller

* - it has both the 1874 & 1889 versions of the 3rd, but not the 1873
- it even includes an organ transcription of the 9th!!


----------



## Knorf

Becca said:


> If I had to collect a single conductor cycle (which I won't), which I think comes closest to ideal (which almost certainly doesn't) and which is complete (hmmm...*), then it would probably be Gerd Schaller


I really like what I've heard from Schaller. I certainly have it on my list to hear more!


----------



## ansfelden

Wand / KRSO from recent observation is the most balanced cycle.

all time favs are the Jochums, Masur / GWOL and Chailly with DSOB and RCOA.


----------



## Kiki

It really depends on what one wants.

I like earthy, passionate Bruckner. Inbal/Frankfurt is what I prefer these days. However, he tended to include early versions of these symphonies in his set, and that's not to everybody's taste.

Rozhdestvensky's set on Venezia included 16 symphonies plus a few standalone movements, but even that is far from being complete. Also, unfortunately, I found these performances a bit, a-hem, incoherent and the sound is really bad.

I have always liked the Wand's incomplete NDR set, but in recent years I prefer his grittier Köln set a bit more. On the other hand, I am less enthusiastic about the creaminess and slowness of Wand's incomplete Berlin set.

Jochum's two commercial sets are great, but in my opinion both are uneven, not only in quality, but also in concept. His live recordings outside of either set show an even more idiosyncratic side of his Bruckner. Reactions could be polar opposites.

Then there is Karajan. Alright, these are monuments (both commercial recordings and live bootlegs), of which I am not so keen on these days. On the other hand, I think the criticism about the beauty of sound is unjustified. The Berliners back in those days are a lot grittier than today, and his Bruckner is a lot grittier than most others.

I discovered Skrowaczewski and Schaller late. Both are in my books in the "he gets it" category. Difficult to find faults. It's just that, I would like a bit more grit, or even a bit more idiosyncrasy/individualism!

Have to confess, Barenboim's SKB set has been growing on me. It is also a lot faster and less cavalier than prejudice might suggest.

Then there is also Nézet-Séguin's OMM set. This is sensual Bruckner. Very interesting, very beautiful, but I suspect that would also turn away some people.

What I really wish for, is an HIP set played on PI, although I am reasonably happy with the individual symphonies offered by Herreweghe, Harnoncourt and Norrington.

However, don't restrict one to sets! Moving into the territory of individual symphonies will open up a whole new world.


----------



## Merl

Kiki said:


> However, don't restrict one to sets! Moving into the territory of individual symphonies will open up a whole new world.


..... And a whole new overdraft in your bank account. :lol:


----------



## Knorf

Hey! I can do both!


----------



## wkasimer

Does anyone have any thoughts about which complete set or sets offer the best sonics?


----------



## Subutai

Knorf said:


> I will mention that I was very impressed with the Berliner Philharmoniker Bruckner "Frankencycle" on their own label, featuring different conductors.


Talking of 'Frankencycles' I highly recommend the Vienna Philharmonic release on Decca Eloquence. This was recorded during the 1970's in the Phil's fabled acoustic friendly hall with wonderful analogue sound. As a matter of fact I have discovered my favourite 6th conducted by Horst Stein and my second favourite 9th by Zubin Mehta (my favourite still being Bruno Walter). Mehta also conducted my favourite Mahler 2nd with the Vienese.


----------



## Kiki

Merl said:


> ..... And a whole new overdraft in your bank account. :lol:


Obviously a test of financial resolve and self-discipline.


----------



## Azol

Kiki said:


> I would like a bit more grit, or even a bit more idiosyncrasy/individualism


Is Celibidache too idiosyncratic for you?
Tintner is what should float your boat.

Fully agree with your Wand/Berlin assessment!


----------



## Knorf

wkasimer said:


> Does anyone have any thoughts about which complete set or sets offer the best sonics?


I guess I'll try to answer this one. I think Skrowaczewski/Saarbrücken is very heard to beat for sound quality itself. It's really a great choice for excellent performances with no weaknesses, and includes the unnumbered symphonies. On the same label, Simone Young's cycle also sounds really, really good. And I'll put in another plug for the Karajan, specifically in the Blu-ray Disc Pure Audio edition. The remastering for this format sounds absolutely amazing! And I've not heard all of the Schall cycle on Profil, but what I have heard is extremely well engineered.

But, you know, it's pretty rare for any Bruckner cycle released since 1970 to have anything other than stellar sonic quality.

Oh, and the Berliner Philharmoniker Frankencycle has amazing sound, specially in high-res format.


----------



## Kiki

Azol said:


> Is Celibidache too idiosyncratic for you?
> Tintner is what should float your boat.
> 
> Fully agree with your Wand/Berlin assessment!


I will leave Celi to his advocates. 

Thanks for the tip on Tintner's Bruckner, which I had not heard at all, so I checked out #7, 8 & 9 on streaming. Tempi are moderate to slow for the most part, although when he goes slow, it becomes really slow. #7 is adorable. #9 sounds weighty. His #8 is slow. The slow scherzo might make sense because the relatively breathless 1887 scherzo sounds less breathless this way. The ultra-slow Adagio does not quite reach moaning territory, which is a relief, but after the two themes have been presented, I started craving for the big transfiguring climax to come. This was not a good sign. By the way, the big climax towards the end sounds extra Wagnerian in this account. Honestly, Tintner's #8 is not really my cup of tea. I like his #7 & #9 though.

Just to mention another new cycle: Myrios Classics have just released a #7 from François-Xavier Roth and the Gürzenich-Orchester Köln, the first release of their planned cycle. On first listen, it is fast and fluent, also unforced. I am looking forward to the rest of this cycle.


----------



## Becca

I believe that the Tintner cycle uses the earliest revisions where there are choices which, of course, would be particularly significant with the 3rd & 4th (I'm not sufficiently familiar with the earlier symphonies to comment.)


----------



## Kiki

abruckner.com states that Tintner used the earliest versions for #1, 2, 3 as well as #8, but to my surprise, he used the 1881 (aka 1878/80) Haas for #4 that has already go the "new" scherzo.


----------



## tbazar

Yes, I agree. Bruckner can either be a bore or a nuisance...thinking him too bombastic much of the time. Then again, I listened to Bruckner 7 with Ormandy and the Phila. Orchestra and it was breathtaking. I was surprised I loved it so much. 
Another was Rogner's Bruckner 9, which I also loved.
For me, I have to be in the right mood and frame of mind for Bruckner.


----------



## Philidor

Subutai said:


> I've been going through a Bruckner fix of late. I have a bunch of single symphonies as well as a bunch of complete cycles. As much as I try I honestly can't distinguish between any of the symphonies, as much as I try to stay neutral. I believe there be gold in them thar hills. For the moment I haven't found any nuggets. I'm beginning to think Anton composed the worlds longest Symphony in 35 movements (sorry).
> The question I therefore pose is which is the cycle that is 'perfect' the whole way through with no weak links.Every cycle I own seems to have one or two symphonies which just don't sound right. So in essence, the PERFECT Bruckner Symphony cycle. Not your favourite. The one that you deem to be perfect throughout the whole 9 symphonies.
> Thanks in advance.


All has been said. Bruckner seems not to be a composer enriching your live. As lifetime is finite, why to spend more time?

If you really want to give another try, I would take a good analysis as companion for hearing. Without grasping the structure of the music, you won't even get half of it. Just listening to the great climaxes is not the point with Bruckner, imho. It is the architecture and the inner relations.


----------



## brucknerian1874

In terms of 'core' Bruckner cycles I would recommend Karajan, Jochum (DG) and Skrowaczewski as starting points. Branching out, you can't go wrong with Tintner and Schaller for interesting choices of editions.

Advanced listening. The extreme views of Venzago and more recently Nelsons should wait until you have found your bearings and can appreciate something that pushes the Bruckner envelope. I must admit to the unpopular view that Nelsons' recent 5th is one of the best I've heard in years.


----------



## ORigel

brucknerian1874 said:


> In terms of 'core' Bruckner cycles I would recommend Karajan, Jochum (DG) and Skrowaczewski as starting points. Branching out, you can't go wrong with Tintner and Schaller for interesting choices of editions.
> 
> Advanced listening. The extreme views of Venzago and more recently Nelsons should wait until you have found your bearings and can appreciate something that pushes the Bruckner envelope. I must admit to the unpopular view that Nelsons' recent 5th is one of the best I've heard in years.


I would say: Do not choose any cycle with the 1887 version of the Eighth. The end of the first movement is horrible. A victorious coda that is way too repetitive...like someone saying "Ta-da!" 20 times. Here it is, for those who only are familiar with the 1890 version.


----------



## dko22

Becca said:


> I believe that the Tintner cycle uses the earliest revisions where there are choices which, of course, would be particularly significant with the 3rd & 4th (I'm not sufficiently familiar with the earlier symphonies to comment.)


Yes, Tintner uses in almost every case the original versions except in no. 4 although he does include the original Volksfest finale separately. For the earlier of the 11 symphonies, he is for me a clear first choice -- the no. 3 is absolutely superb. In general a very fine cycle though, despite often using the most butchered versions, I still think Jochum (esp. Dresden) has a instinctive sense of flow and atmosphere which no-one else has quite captured. Most tend either in the general direction of heavy and weighty or the more modern brisk and often superficial and Jochum avoids either camp.


----------



## dko22

Kiki said:


> abruckner.com states that Tintner used the earliest versions for #1, 2, 3 as well as #8, but to my surprise, he used the 1881 (aka 1878/80) Haas for #4 that has already go the "new" scherzo.


Although I do agree that Tinter's finale is superior to the Volksfest, I've always found the almost invariably played "Hunting" scherzo rather conventional and perhaps a bit trite compared to the original version.


----------



## Philidor

Knorf said:


> I guess I'll try to answer this one. I think Skrowaczewski/Saarbrücken is very heard to beat for sound quality itself.


To my mind, sound quality has two components. First one is the sound quality before the waves get to the microphones. If the brass is playing with thin sound and inhomogeneously, a perfect recording will reproduce a thin, inhomogeneous sound.

This is what one could (much less than descripted) say about the Saarbrücken RSO. Brass is not always ideal, nor strings. Second one is the recording machinery itself: I agree that the recording almost ideally transports these shortcomings to your ears.



Knorf said:


> It's really a great choice for excellent performances with no weaknesses, and includes the unnumbered symphonies.


I agree, if you are into a very light, transparent Bruckner sound. I say that I like it among others, but I like also to be overwhelmed by the sheer mass (sometimes).


----------



## dko22

*I would say: Do not choose any cycle with the 1887 version of the Eighth. The end of the first movement is horrible. A victorious coda that is way too repetitive...like someone saying "Ta-da!" 20 times. 
*
There are one or two moments in the 1887 version of no. 8 which don't quite work (the ending of the first movement being arguably one of them) but on the whole, the original has a wealth of wonderful music which later completely disappeared and there is also less slush and bombast in the slow movement for want to a better description. For me, Tintner's 8 is a revelation


----------



## Aries

Subutai said:


> The question I therefore pose is which is the cycle that is 'perfect' the whole way through with no weak links.Every cycle I own seems to have one or two symphonies which just don't sound right. So in essence, the PERFECT Bruckner Symphony cycle. Not your favourite. The one that you deem to be perfect throughout the whole 9 symphonies.
> Thanks in advance.


I guess the question is about as less weaknesses as possible. (What is not excactly perfection as I understand it.) I recommend Sir Georg Solti with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Very reliable, solid on a very high level. No experiments, just straightforward constantly strong. Its like every recording is a Top 5 recording.


----------



## realdealblues

wkasimer said:


> Does anyone have any thoughts about which complete set or sets offer the best sonics?


I've got about a dozen complete cycles now but from what I remember it seems like Barenboim/Chicago was pretty excellent all the way through as far as sonics went. Some cycles have a lot of time between recordings (Gielen recorded between 1968-2013!), some were mic'd kind of distant (Inbal/Frankfurt), etc. Lots of variables I guess for what good sonics are to each person but from what I recall DG did a pretty consistent job and Chicago had their normal full bodied sound with their classic brass sound, etc. Barenboim isn't the most exciting or deepest thinking but just for sound I would maybe consider it a good contender even though it was recorded quite a while ago (between 1972-1981).


----------



## Heck148

Aries said:


> I guess the question is about as less weaknesses as possible. (What is not excactly perfection as I understand it.) I recommend Sir Georg Solti with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Very reliable, solid on a very high level. No experiments, just straightforward constantly strong. Its like every recording is a Top 5 recording.


Yes, Solti/CSO is top notch throughout...3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 are superb, all the way..Solti is the only one who gets #5 to work for me...


----------



## starthrower

Merl said:


> I'll give you 3 different sounding ones that I rate..
> 
> Stan the man
> Gielen
> Karajan


I have the Skrowaczewski cycle. Would Gielen be a good contrast to this set or should I look elsewhere?


----------



## Kreisler jr

I'd pick and choose with Gielen. I am not even sure which recordings exactly are in the new cheapish boxes. I think he only recorded the early version of #4 (but maybe they found a radio broadcast of the standard version). I have not heard his 1,2,9 but my prime recommendations would be the (SWF studio) 5th and 7th. They are faster and "leaner" than Skrowaczewski, esp. the 7th but there are probably stronger contrasts out there as Skrowaczewski is, like Gielen, rather "modern", no cathedrals and incense...
I didn't like Gielen's 3rd and 8th all that much.


----------



## RobertJTh

Kreisler jr said:


> (...) rather "modern", no cathedrals and incense...


Ironically, many old-timer, pre-1970 Bruckner recordings sound more "modern" (swift, propulsive) than the slow stuff produced in the 80's and 90's by people like Haitink, Wand and Karajan. The "cathedral of sound" idea in Bruckner is something I always found ridiculous and counterproductive. Reveling in majestic soundscapes and losing all track of movement and continuity.
Just listen to Schuricht's 8 and 9, Keilberth's 6, Klemperer's live 4, Konwitchny's 4, or more recent recordings like Sawallisch' 1, 2 and 6 - they're a breath of fresh air compared to the stale and stolid interpretations of what people call the "great Brucknerians".


----------



## Aries

Kreisler jr said:


> I'd pick and choose with Gielen. I am not even sure which recordings exactly are in the new cheapish boxes. I think he only recorded the early version of #4 (but maybe they found a radio broadcast of the standard version).


You mean this box?








I have it, and it is good. His style is propulsive, fast but it all sounds right. It is also an interessting box because of the versions that were choosen. The less common first versions of the 4th and 8th and imo the best versions of the 1st (vienna version) and 3rd (Scherzo coda version). The recording I remember the most is that of the 4th. Great first movement. But this is rather interessting for experienced Bruckner listeners, I guess not exactly what the OP wants.


----------



## RobertJTh

Aries said:


> I have it, and it is good. His style is propulsive, fast but it all sounds right.


Saw the pic and thought he did the 8th in 68 minutes - holy cow, that's faster than Schuricht! Then I realized it's only the first 3 movements...
Anyway, Schuricht is my man in the 8th. Fast and furious, no pomposity or self-indulgent navel gazing. 71 minutes, perfect, about the same as Van Beinum and not much faster than - ironically - Haitink's first effort with the CGO, before he got slow and boring. I don't trust any 8th that doesn't fit on a single cd.


----------



## Aries

RobertJTh said:


> Saw the pic and thought he did the 8th in 68 minutes - holy cow, that's faster than Schuricht! Then I realized it's only the first 3 movements...
> Anyway, Schuricht is my man in the 8th. Fast and furious, no pomposity or self-indulgent navel gazing. 71 minutes, perfect, about the same as Van Beinum and not much faster than - ironically - Haitink's first effort with the CGO, before he got slow and boring. I don't trust any 8th that doesn't fit on a single cd.


Fast and slow tempi can both work for me. Gielens 8th isn't fast indeed unlike his 3rd 4th or 5th for example.

Slow and fast tempi can emphasize different aspects that are in the music: A good example is the codetta of the finale:

Schuricht takes 1 minute and 3 seconds until the end of the climax. 1:07:26-1:08:29 (Link) Celibidache takes 2 minutes and 28 seconds. 1:38:09-1:40:37 (Link)

I think Schurichts fast tempo benefits the propulsive characteristic of the intensification and the hysterical characteristic of the strings wand woodwinds at the climax. Celibidaches slow tempo emphasizes the mysterical characteristic and benefits the epicness of the brass at the climax. So both works for me. But a fast tempo is better for the strings at the climax, and a slow tempo is better for the brass imo, so I think there are different aspects and you maybe have to decide between them. I wonder if more advantages can be brought together in one recording with more tempo changes. For example start very slow for mysteriousness. Accelerate a lot for propulsive character and hysterical strings and wood winds before the climax, and when the brass enters with the main theme do it slow again for epicness.

But I have to say Celibidache's brass sounds too noble. Schuricht's brass sound is great.


----------



## Knorf

I like "cathedral of sound," "spiritual" Bruckner, but I also think it absurd to insist that any other approach is wrong. I appreciate both Boulez and Karajan in the Eighth, as a result, and a lot in between. I'm not saying those are extreme endpoints; they're not, just a couple examples of recordings I like. I do prefer Karajan with Berlin for the Eighth most days, over Karajan with Vienna, but I get why so many people like the Vienna live one better.


----------



## starthrower

ORigel said:


> I would say: Do not choose any cycle with the 1887 version of the Eighth. The end of the first movement is horrible. A victorious coda that is way too repetitive...like someone saying "Ta-da!" 20 times. Here it is, for those who only are familiar with the 1890 version.


Can I get some examples of which ones to avoid? I'm thinking about buying another cycle now. There are some great deals on some of these sets. I'm considering Karajan, Jochum/ Dresden, and Barenboim CSO which I probably won't find so I guess just the first two. I also read some positive reviews about the multi conductor VPO box. And why is Jochum so popular when many listeners point out that both cycles are inconsistent?


----------



## Kreisler jr

Almost every cycle will be inconsistent...
Jochum was THE institution on Bruckner until the 1980s. Part of this was simply the different distribution in earlier times with the major labels dominating what one could buy without expensive orders or even from abroad. Sure, there were some famous recording of some symphonies but very few cycles, if any besides Jochum. The Karajan, Solti, Barenboim/CSO, Wand cycles were all only completed in the early-mid 1980s, I believe.


----------



## Knorf

Jochum was an outstanding Brucknerian, and his cycle has a ton of insight and great enjoyment to offer. And you're right: counting "only" numbers 1-9, and not the two unnumbered symphonies in F minor and D minor (worthy as the are), I think Jochum was only "complete" set until into the early 1980s.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Haitink might have been the first "complete" cycle after Jochum (incl. Nullte, unlike Wand and Karajan who have only 1-9) but I cannot find the exact dates.
I only got interested into classical in the late 1980s when CDs had recently appeared. But, especially in hindsight, this time was still quite dominated by major labels, their advertising, their distribution channels and the reputation of labels and artists (often for some repertoire) stuck from the vinyl era (including attributes that had literally become obsolete for CDs, such as vinyl pressing quality) 
As CDs remained comparably expensive for another few years, "classics", affordable complete sets (and they were usually far more affordable if older recordings) were still quite important. 
And of course the reputation of "classic recordings" was often justified, even if their dominance was exaggerated by the advertising power of major labels and the distribution in brick and mortar stores.


----------



## carteianus

Hi 
Just got the Karajan BPO cycle 1-9 and I find it interesting but a bit outdated in some of the early symphonies (2 and 3) . Any thoughts on the Naxos Tintner cycle? Seems excellent according to most people. I think that the Solti cycle from the 90s is bettr than most people give it credit, particularly in the 6th.


----------



## Knorf

The Naxos Tintner cycle has a lot going for it, in particular a wholly idiomatic approach to the Brucknerian sound world and style. I ultimately gave my copies away, because the orchestras involved were certainly adequate, but just less than stellar often enough that I stopped reaching for them. This might not be an issue for you; the cycle is oft recommended, and I get why.

The Karajan Bruckner 3 is actually one of my favorites ever. _De gustibus non est disputandum, _I suppose. Much of the Karajan cycle still holds up really well, in my opinion.

As for the Solti cycle... Well I suppose I should give it another listen one of these days. In the past, it seemed to me that it really wasn't what I wanted from Bruckner.


----------



## starthrower

I just might pick up some individual performances. I've got the Skrowaczewski box which has two early symphonies. I already ordered Barenboim / CSO 4 & 7 which is the only thing I could find from that cycle. And I have Wand / BPO no.9. I was leaning towards the Karajan for another box but I don't really have the time to listen to all this stuff.


----------



## Knorf

starthrower said:


> ....I don't really have the time to listen to all this stuff.


I feel your pain.

So much great music out there! I know I'll die without having heard many, many things I'd enjoy listening to.


----------



## Becca

^^And on the opposite side of the fence, Barbirolli saying whilst flying through severe turbulence "I can't die yet, I haven't conducted all the Bruckner symphonies!"


----------



## Neo Romanza

Bruckner is one of my favorite composers and what's interesting, or not so interesting, is that I got into his music well before I got into Mahler's for example. I don't listen to Bruckner as much as I did say 10 years ago, but I have found myself coming back to his music with more frequency. For me, there are four conductors that I cherish in Bruckner more than any others and they are Karajan, Wand, Jochum (DG cycle) and Celibidache (a controversial choice, but there's something so transcendental and majestic about his performances that I could not exclude him as a top choice). Other Brucknerians I like: Haitink, Böhm and Giulini. There are so many other choices and many members here have highlighted this fact rather well. I'll only echo what many members here have said already, there aren't any "perfect" cycles, but you can assemble your own cycle of choice from various conductors, but if you're looking to buy one cycle that ends all others, you won't find one. Decca released a pretty decent set of assorted performances (different conductors, same orchestra --- the Wiener Philharmoniker) not too long ago that you might want to check out:


----------



## starthrower

If Presto Classical re-stocks that VPO box before their sale is over I may pick up a copy.


----------



## RobertJTh

carteianus said:


> Any thoughts on the Naxos Tintner cycle? Seems excellent according to most people.


It's kind of nice to have it as a supplement to 2-3 "normal" cycles, but as a first introduction to Bruckner I wouldn't recommend it, since it features the first, inferior versions of each symphony (except, curiously enough, the 4th). Some people love having both good Bruckner (the revised versions) and bad Bruckner (the first versions), I'm perfectly happy with just good Bruckner.
Also, apart from the novelty of the used versions, Tintner doesn't have much going for him interpretation-wise. Mostly he's slow and stolid. If you really want the first versions done well, go for Inbal, who also has that the train wreck that's the first version of the 4th.



Neo Romanza said:


> Decca released a pretty decent set of assorted performances (different conductors, same orchestra --- the Wiener Philharmoniker) not too long ago that you might want to check out:


I think that cycle serves as a perfect illustration of the Curse of the Vienna Philharmonic: it doesn't matter much who's in front, the orchestra does its thing and it sounds like the VPO, not so much like the guy at the helm.
But it's all pretty fine. Böhm's 3 and 4 are legendary, Horst Stein's 2 and 6 are really good. It's just that I find those accounts rather anonymous sounding, they're nothing special in the field of interpretation. Abbado is ok, but I wouldn't trust Solti or the three M's near a Bruckner symphony.


----------



## Neo Romanza

RobertJTh said:


> I think that cycle serves as a perfect illustration of the Curse of the Vienna Philharmonic: it doesn't matter much who's in front, the orchestra does its thing and it sounds like the VPO, not so much like the guy at the helm.
> 
> But it's all pretty fine. Böhm's 3 and 4 are legendary, Horst Stein's 2 and 6 are really good. It's just that I find those accounts rather anonymous sounding, they're nothing special in the field of interpretation. Abbado is ok, but I wouldn't trust Solti or the three M's near a Bruckner symphony.


Well, I mentioned it as a _starting point_ in that there aren't any perfect cycles, but if one were wanting to get their feet wet in Bruckner's music, then it would be good starter set.


----------



## starthrower

I got a mint used copy of the 2008 remastered Karajan box and the sound is better than I expected. I have the 5th playing right now at high volume and it sounds superb! 

I also bought the Jochum Dresden box which has a beautiful string sound but the brass is a bit cruder. But overall no major complaints. After about four years or so of on and off listening Bruckner is finally clicking with this listener so I'm a happy camper!


----------



## PeterKC

I respect him as a composer but find his output underwhelming for all the work he put into it. He really should have looked harder to find a girlfriend.


----------

