# Tintner's Bruckner



## John Lenin (Feb 4, 2021)

Tintner the relatively unknown conductor storms the critical press with Bruckner interpretations...... What has this taught us about.
1) Bruckners music
2) The critical music press
and 3...
How do we now view Tintners recordings after living with these recordings for some years...?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Tintner was unique in that he effectively brought out Bruckner's first thoughts (Inbal didn't seem to pull that off as effectively). His orchestra wasn't first-tier, but they played with all they had to give. 

What did he reveal about Bruckner's music? That all the revisions means we have twice as many versions of his symphonies than we previously had, some stronger and some weaker than others, and that a sympathetic conductor can make a valid case for their consideration.

As far as the critical music press, in revisiting the Penguin Guide and the Gramophone guides, I don't think they were far off the mark in their enthusiasm for the earlier symphonies, because they had been pretty much neglected up to that time, and recommending them as budget issues was also spot on. But I think today, the novelty of Bruckner's first thoughts has worn off with time and with subsequent interpreters, like Nagano and Simone Young. It seems like the pendulum is swinging back to the Haas and Nowak editions. 

How we view the recordings is a personal opinion. Even on this forum, the Bruckner enthusiasts listen for different things. 

If I can speak for myself, after all this time, for me, there is still something unique in the Tintner recordings, and that is the sense of spirituality. His concern is not so much with correctly played notes (there are a few flubs) or with precision and beauty of ensemble, in which he can't compete with the more famous orchestras; instead, he brings out something beyond the notes that I haven't heard to the same degree in my other Bruckner cycles, which I can only describe as the sense of the ineffable. And that makes his recordings continue to be compelling.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Manxfeeder said:


> His concern is not so much with correctly played notes (there are a few flubs) or with precision and beauty of ensemble, in which he can't compete with the more famous orchestras; instead, he brings out something beyond the notes that I haven't heard to the same degree in my other Bruckner cycles, which I can only describe as the sense of the ineffable. And that makes his recordings continue to be compelling.


I agree with this. The lack of consistent top-notch execution has meant that I return to these very rarely, and frankly don't typically mention them as recommendations for someone new to Bruckner. However, I will definitely say: anyone who wishes to understand Bruckner deeply really owes it to themselves to give Tintner's cycle a listen.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Tintner bestowed as much tender loving care on the early symphonies as he did on the later ones, something very few conductors could be bothered to do (Skrowaczewski also deserves praise here). Tintner was about as honest as anyone could be with these earlier works - he didn't apply mascara to hide any of their blemishes nor rasp off any of the burrs. If anything, having less elite orchestras under a less elite conductor worked in the early symphonies' favour - it all sounds marvellously fresh and enthusiastic whatever caveats there may be in terms of overall ability, and I'd rather have that than yet more going-through-the motions performances from any of the big guns.


----------

