# Bruckner- Symphony No. 8



## Allegro Con Brio

Bruckner's 8th Symphony is currently on the 16th tier of the Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works:https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit

Wikipedia has an article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._8_(Bruckner) that makes for a pretty good listening companion. Another fantastic analysis of this towering work by Tom Service can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/music/t...03/symphony-guide-bruckner-eighth-tom-service

Here is Trout's list of recommended recordings for this work:

1. Karajan (cond.), Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (1988)
2. Furtwängler (cond.), Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (1944)
3. Giulini (cond.), Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (1984)
4. Wand (cond.), North German Radio Symphony Orchestra (1987)
5. Boulez (cond.), Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (1996)
6. Wand (cond.), Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (2001)
7. Van Beinum (cond.), Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra (1955)
8. Jochum (cond.), Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (1964)
9. Schuricht (cond.), Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (1963)
10. Furtwängler (cond.), Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (1949)

The main questions of this thread are: *Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it? Do you have any reservations about it? * And of course, what are your favorite recordings?

Along with Mahler 9 (pretty much neck-and-neck), this is my favorite symphony. It was the first full Bruckner symphony I heard, and I definitely didn't get it right away. But once I devoted my attentions to understanding the structure of the music; how Bruckner, armed with a small handful of musical building blocks, fashions a monumental cathedral of sound; I was totally hooked. I honestly believe this is one of the most formally perfect symphonies ever devised. After Bruckner, the classical symphonic format as we know it had nowhere to go. Despite its length, I don't believe there's a single note out of place. From the unstable, primordial murmur that the first movement grows out of, to the delightfully bouncy scherzo and angelic trio, to the cosmically sublime depths of the Adagio, to the immense jigsaw puzzle of the finale that ends in a blast of searing light, hearing this symphony is one of the most rewarding experiences in classical music for me, and it's one that I never tire of. It takes a very skilled conductor to pull it off convincingly. Furtwangler '44 I count as one of the most transcendental performances caught on record, and Karajan's I believe is the crown of his recording career. Boulez and Jochum are two other very good, though very different, options; and Wand I appreciate for disassembling Bruckner into its fundamental building blocks to make it accessible, but I find him a bit lacking interpretively.


----------



## mbhaub

I will never forget the first time I heard this symphony - a live performance in Los Angeles. The ending coda, with that sudden unexpected change of key lifted me up - wow, that was incredible. Still gets me all these decades later, on recording or in concert. It's sure a long symphony, and the extra brass needed to pull it off is one reason that it's not performed as often as others. But it's a great, great work and I'm glad to see that my favorite recording (Karajan DG) is the one listed above. I really like the Solti too. He brings a powerful punch to it. The 8th is one of those things on my bucket list that I want to play someday.


----------



## Becca

For a somewhat different perspective on the symphony, try Sir John Barbirolli's performance with the Halle orchestra taken from a concert at the Royal Festival Hall in 1970. It was done just 10 weeks before Barbirolli's death and despite his being in very poor health, it is given a very urgent and powerful performance, one of the faster ones on disc. This is a live, unpatched performance and so will probably annoy those who demand technical perfection but what you do get is passion - was it a case of "Rage, rage against the dying of the light"?


----------



## Azol

Celibidache/Munchen/EMI is one glaring omission in the list above, his B8 Adagio is miraculous! Definitely could not be without this recording.


----------



## Art Rock

I love the work, definitely in my top25 symphonies (as just posted in another thread), but not in the top 10. My favourite Bruckner symphony is the 9th (3 movement version). I do not have a preferred version of the 8th (I have Boulez, Jochum, Inbal and Tintner on CD).


----------



## EdwardBast

Well, since you've asked: I find Bruckner's Eighth intensely boring. The interminable repetition and sequencing of ideas that weren't particularly interesting in the first place makes me want to open a vein. And the tone of high seriousness, the sense that the composer seems to have thought he was doing something important, just makes it so much worse. For me, Bruckner embodies everything bad about late Romantic and post Romantic music.


----------



## starthrower

I have to agree with Edwardbast. The 8th seems to be a favorite of many but I'd rather listen to most of the others ahead of this one.


----------



## flamencosketches

I don't really "get" Bruckner's 8th, the "Apocalyptic". I heard the Klemperer recording and really liked it, but I think it's a non-starter for many because it apparently contains cuts, non-canonical cuts at that. I want to hear the Karajan/Vienna. I have a question about that recording...:










... how is it possible that this is on a single disc at over 83 minutes long?! I thought they capped out right at 80 or 81.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Though I can definitely see how Bruckner bores many (he bored me the first several times I heard him), I think the gigantism is a signature part of his style that's impossible to look past. I don't get the impression he's doing it to "impress" people, it just seems like he's writing honestly and sincerely from his heart without any thoughts of worldly practicality or constraint. In some ways, similar to Mahler- except Mahler was a restless vagabond always in pursuit of truth. Bruckner knew what he believed and, truly thought that his source of faith was directing his art. For me, it is decidedly harder to sit through a Bruckner symphony than most of Mahler's. But the end result is always worth it since it feels like we've run a long, hard, patient race and by the time we get to the coda; the payoff is almost always worth it.

I forgot to mention my sole reservation about this symphony- the size of the finale. Finales are decidedly Bruckner's weak spot for me. After his immense Adagios, it's really hard to follow up. But I feel like his finales are often overworked and lose my attention. It goes back to a general pet peeve I have, which is overlong finales. I think Brahms wrote the most perfect symphonic finales- usually less than 10 minutes except the 1st, which is a brilliantly-constructed movement so it doesn't seem as long. But the finale of this work is definitely my favorite of Bruckner's, not least because of the sheer epicness of that opening theme. I just wish he'd be a tad more concise! The solution, however, is NOT to cut chunks out of it as Klemperer did in his ghastly slow recording (love Otto, but certainly not his Bruckner by any stretch of the imagination).


----------



## mbhaub

flamencosketches said:


> I don't really "get" Bruckner's 8th, the "Apocalyptic". I heard the Klemperer recording and really liked it, but I think it's a non-starter for many because it apparently contains cuts, non-canonical cuts at that. I want to hear the Karajan/Vienna. I have a question about that recording...:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... how is it possible that this is on a single disc at over 83 minutes long?! I thought they capped out right at 80 or 81.


In the early days of CDs 80 minutes was seen as really long. Another Bruckner I have, by coincidence, the Thieleman 5th has over 82 minutes with no problem. Depends on the CD player. It's a crap shoot sometimes. The Gergiev Nutcracker is over 80 minutes and will play on my high-end CD Marantz player at home, but not in the Sony car stereo. I didn't know that the HvK Bruckner was now on a single disk - I have the 2-disk set.


----------



## larold

I've always thought of Bruckner's 8th symphony as darkness and not apocalyptic (its nickname) -- as if it should be nicknamed the "Catastrophic" symphony.

I've heard all the recordings on the list and many more. My favorite recording -- No. 4 on the list -- has Gunther Wand leading Brahms's hometown orchestra (North German Radio Symphony) in a live recording in a church. It is very religious, almost too much so, and there is a lot of reverb in the church that clouds some of the orchestration. But there isn't another like it for spirituality though Karajan and Giulini come close.

My second favorite, No. 7 on the list, is more like the catastrophe. Eduard von Beinum's account has great mono sound with the Concertgebouw Orchestra and has passion and force others do not -- similar to the way Furtwangler led the 9th symphony.


----------



## pianozach

Oh, like I'm going to listen to 10 different versions (or be familiar with 10 different versions) of the Bruckner 8th.



mbhaub said:


> I will never forget the first time I heard this symphony - a live performance in Los Angeles. The ending coda, with that sudden unexpected change of key lifted me up - wow, that was incredible. Still gets me all these decades later, on recording or in concert. It's sure a long symphony, and the extra brass needed to pull it off is one reason that it's not performed as often as others. But it's a great, great work and I'm glad to see that my favorite recording (Karajan DG) is the one listed above. I really like the Solti too. He brings a powerful punch to it. The 8th is one of those things on my bucket list that I want to play someday.


Ah, yes. The *"unexpected key change"*. A very *effective*, easy and cheap trick to rouse interest.

*Lt. Kije* puts the key change right there in the middle of the 'A Theme' phrase, but you can hear what the melody sounds like without the key change in the bridges of *Emerson, Lake & Palmer*'s _*I Believe in Father Christmas*_.

*Beethoven*'s *Pathetique Sonata*: Cm --> Eb --> Gm --> Em
*Beethoven*'s *9th Symphony*, 1st mvt: Shifts between Dm, F, Bb, and Cm

But *Bruckner*'s *8th Symphony*? Well, it certainly takes a Zen patience to get that far in the work (like, what?, an hour's worth of patience?).

I like what Bruckner did with the 4th mvt., though, reusing the themes from the previous movements; of course, Beethoven did it first with his 9th, but only as an introduction to the new movement, not as a means to a triumphant conclusion, reworking old ideas and new ones into a coherent whole.



flamencosketches said:


> I don't really "get" Bruckner's 8th, the "Apocalyptic". I heard the Klemperer recording and really liked it, but I think it's a non-starter for many because it apparently contains cuts, non-canonical cuts at that. I want to hear the Karajan/Vienna. I have a question about that recording...:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... how is it possible that this is on a single disc at over 83 minutes long?! I thought they capped out right at 80 or 81.





mbhaub said:


> In the early days of CDs 80 minutes was seen as really long. Another Bruckner I have, by coincidence, the Thieleman 5th has over 82 minutes with no problem. Depends on the CD player. It's a crap shoot sometimes. The Gergiev Nutcracker is over 80 minutes and will play on my high-end CD Marantz player at home, but not in the Sony car stereo. I didn't know that the HvK Bruckner was now on a single disk - I have the 2-disk set.


Funny, but originally CDs capped out (or so we were told) at 74 minutes.

The grooves go from center to outside edges, and to attempt any more than 79:59 is to risk the end of the disc being unplayable on some players (some people still claim that anything over 74:30 is risky).

*Todd Rundgren*, in the days of the LP, tasked LP lengths with a couple of his albums, resulting in reduced volume in order to be playable. Indeed, he _*still*_ had to speed up some of the tracks (at that time that meant the pitch would be higher as well) to stay within tolerances.

For those of you who enjoy tech talk, here's the story of the CD:

http://www.turing-machines.com/pdf/cdstory.htm


----------



## Becca

From the manual page for a Linux CD burning program:

overburn:
Allow [writing] more than the official size of a medium. This feature is usually called overburning and depends on the fact that most blank media may hold more space than the official size. As the official size of the lead-out area on the disk is 90 seconds (6750 sectors) and a disk usually works if there are at least 150 sectors of lead out, all media may be overburned by at least 88 seconds (6600 sectors).

Therefore practically it is possible to write 81mins 28 secs of an standard 80 minute (actually it is 700MB) CD. It is practically possible to get slightly over 82 minutes on most blank CDs. When the disc is a standard commercial pressing then they are only restricted to what most CD players will allow hence some get up to about 84minutes.


----------



## hammeredklavier

------------------------------------------------


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Well, since you've asked: I find Bruckner's Eighth intensely boring. The interminable repetition and sequencing of ideas that weren't particularly interesting in the first place *makes me want to open a vein*. And the tone of high seriousness, the sense that the composer seems to have thought he was doing something important, just makes it so much worse. For me, Bruckner embodies everything bad about late Romantic and post Romantic music.


Can't agree with you on this one, Edward but I love your expression "*makes me want to open a vein*"; I'm going to have to use that somewhere, thanks!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Furtwängler ‘44 is IMO the greatest orchestral recording in existence. Just a shattering experience.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Furtwängler '44 is IMO the greatest orchestral recording in existence. Just a shattering experience.


Along with his '42 and '54 Beethoven 9ths, I would have to agree with this. In my humble opinion, you haven't _really_ heard what can be done through the process of interpretation if you haven't heard them.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Bruckner 8 is for me, head and shoulders above all other symphonic works.

My current favourite.

I have 2 other performances of 8 with Takashi Asahina directing. One with the Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra and the other again with the Osaka Philharmonic Orchestra.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Furtwängler '44 is IMO the greatest orchestral recording in existence. Just a shattering experience.


This is indeed a great performance, but I would put Furtwangler's 1953 BPO Schumann 4 ahead of it. For some years now, I've felt that there is no orchestral recording that can match it.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Two potential outliers worth listening to:

Lorin Maazel with the Berlin PO

And, dare I say it, Boulez with the VPO (no Darmstadt permafrost, believe me)


----------



## Phil loves classical

I found Haitink's version pretty stimulating and well controlled, but Karajan for the sound. Bruckner's 8th is the definition of bombastic, but I love it (when I'm not listening with full attention, or else it starts to feel like a Tarkovsky film).


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Phil loves classical said:


> I found Haitink's version pretty stimulating and well controlled, but Karajan for the sound. *Bruckner's 8th is the definition of bombastic*, but I love it (when I'm not listening with full attention, or else it starts to feel like a Tarkovsky film).


If we define "bombastic" as "high-blown and inflated," then there's something to be said there (as there is for Mahler and other "gigantist" composers). But the dictionary definition also says that bombastic means "pretentious," and that's not at all what Bruckner is. I hear all of Bruckner's music as sincere and straight from the heart. We may have varying opinions on his aesthetic, but I refuse to believe he wrote anything just to impress people with half-hour movements and huge climaxes.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Allegro Con Brio said:


> If we define "bombastic" as "high-blown and inflated," then there's something to be said there (as there is for Mahler and other "gigantist" composers). But the dictionary definition also says that bombastic means "pretentious," and that's not at all what Bruckner is. I hear all of Bruckner's music as sincere and straight from the heart. We may have varying opinions on his aesthetic, but I refuse to believe he wrote anything just to impress people with half-hour movements and huge climaxes.


I've read Bruckner is deeply religious. Whether or not it all translates into heavenly music is up for debate. I hear the Tannhauser overture as having as much or more of a spiritual experience, but much tighter, and I've heard Wagner is a despicable human being. Love the climax in the first movement of the Bruckner 8 with the brass, but I'm not really convinced by some parts in getting there. So it doesn't really matter what intentions were, just how it sounds, or impacts the listener, in the end.


----------



## david johnson

I have a good one playing right now, Eichhorn/Bruckner Orkest Linz.


----------



## DeepR

It's one of my favorite symphonies. It reaches heights and places where few if any other composers have been, especially in the Adagio. Although my enthusiasm for it has recently waned a bit. I suppose it needs a lot of "down time" before I can listen to it again with fresh ears. I also experienced it live, which was fantastic.

My favorite is Wand / NDR (2000): 



I detest Celibidache's Bruckner: making slow music even slower isn't a good idea, it simply sucks the life from it.
I can't imagine being able to adjust to the recording quality of something from '44. It will be too much of an obstacle.


----------



## wkasimer

DeepR said:


> I can't imagine being able to adjust to the recording quality of something from '44. It will be too much of an obstacle.


With the Furtwangler recording, you'll forget about the sonics (which are actually quite good) within a minute or two...


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^I used to feel that way about historical recordings too. And it does take a bit of time to get used to the sound! But I totally agree that after the first few seconds, in the most transcendental performances, you forget all about and simply melt into the music-making.


----------



## Zhdanov

you folks when talk Bruckner then keep in mind Bismarck for better understanding of the music.










'Blut und Eisen' etc. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_Iron_(speech)


----------



## Manxfeeder

DeepR said:


> My favorite is Wand / NDR (2000)


Are you familiar with Wand's recording of the 8th at the Lubeck Cathedral?


----------



## DavidA

flamencosketches said:


> I don't really "get" Bruckner's 8th, the "Apocalyptic". I heard the Klemperer recording and really liked it, but I think it's a non-starter for many because it apparently contains cuts, non-canonical cuts at that. I want to hear the Karajan/Vienna. I have a question about that recording...:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... how is it possible that this is on a single disc at over 83 minutes long?! I thought they capped out right at 80 or 81.


No it is on two discs. The early 1958 BPO is slower and gaunter.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

DavidA said:


> No it is on two discs. The early 1958 BPO is slower and gaunter.


I've only heard the '58 one...guess it escaped me that you were all discussing the one from 30 years later! HvK's BPO Bruckner cycle is probably my favorite for a full set. But when I get in the mood for this symphony again I'll have to hear that one from very late in his career. Can't think of a better "valedictory" work for a legendary conductor.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Manxfeeder said:


> Are you familiar with Wand's recording of the 8th at the Lubeck Cathedral?


Yes, one of the best .........


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> No it is on two discs. The early 1958 BPO is slower and gaunter.


The newest Originals copy I have fits on one disc


----------



## Orfeo

This one for me.










But this one has a lot going for it also.


----------



## Jacck

I have heard just Celibidache, Skrowaczewski, Wand and Jochum and though they are all excellent, I like Jochum the best


----------



## DavidA

All three Karajan's are worth having









The first is the slowest and gauntest









The second is most satisfying









The third is valedictory with the superb VPO

Just what you prefer is a matter of taste


----------



## Granate

Practically the most intense and rewarding Bruckner experience since so many performers seem to get it right in my opinion:

Flamenco, I own that Karajan Vienna 8 in that edition and it has no cut to fit the CD. It's certainly that long but fortunately now I can enjoy it on a single CD.

My recommendations:

Furtwängler BPO 49 Live (never got along with the famous Vienna 44)
Knappertsbusch WPO 61 (pretty tough to get, not even in the right pitch)
Knappertsbusch MPO 63 (both mono live and Stereo for Westminster, soon available with Eloquence in limited edition)
Simone Young Philharmoniker Hamburg (arresting recording of the 1st version)
Celibidache MPO (Sony Tokyo and/or EMI Munich)
Karajan WPO
Barenboim CSO (lovely orchestral colours, not a first choice but I really enjoy it)
Wand SOdNDR Lübeck
Horenstein LSO
Barbirolli Hallé (both from the BBC series, it's been really long since I don't listen to them)
Klaus Tennstedt LPO


----------



## Kollwitz

An incredible symphony, perhaps my favourite of all. 

Furtwaengler '44, Wand NDR Lubeck Cathedral, Boulez and Celibidache are all excellent, in quite different ways. 

Of less widely heralded accounts, I'm very fond of Jansons with the BRSO and Carlos Paita with the Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra. The Jansons is beautifully played, flows nicely and captures the light as well as the shade. Paita is pretty swift, but doesn't feel rushed. Definitely worth a listen if you've not heard it.


----------



## flamencosketches

Is this the much touted Furtwängler you all have mentioned?










(I'm sure someone will chime in to tell me that I need to buy some $80 SACD repressing on one Japanese audiophile label or another, but this is an ancient recording. I don't need the most pristine possible sonics... I'll survive.)

I have become interested in understanding this symphony thanks to this thread. I am almost ashamed to admit that I really enjoyed the Klemperer. Would it be incorrect to assume that Furtwängler's recording brings something similar to the table in terms of grandeur and drama?

Also still curious about that Karajan/Vienna and the Wand/NDR... I'll find a good recording some day I'm sure. For whatever reason the Barenboim/Berlin I have does not really do it for me.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

flamencosketches said:


> Is this the much touted Furtwängler you all have mentioned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I'm sure someone will chime in to tell me that I need to buy some $80 SACD repressing on one Japanese audiophile label or another, but this is an ancient recording. I don't need the most pristine possible sonics... I'll survive.)
> 
> I have become interested in understanding this symphony thanks to this thread. I am almost ashamed to admit that I really enjoyed the Klemperer. Would it be incorrect to assume that Furtwängler's recording brings something similar to the table in terms of grandeur and drama?
> 
> Also still curious about that Karajan/Vienna and the Wand/NDR... I'll find a good recording some day I'm sure. For whatever reason the Barenboim/Berlin I have does not really do it for me.


The sound on this remaster is actually really, really good for its age. Don't think you'll be disappointed in that regard. The interpretation might not make as much sense to you if you're not very familiar with the symphony. But maybe the fire and intensity is what you're looking for- in the article I linked in the OP, Tom Service described this recording as "Bruckner as molten hot lava." So really on a different plane than Klemperer. I'm not one to overeemphasize Furtwangler's wartime circumstances on his art, but...this whole performance is one of oncoming cataclysm. Truly the "Apocalyptic" under his baton.


----------



## flamencosketches

I listened to some of the Furtwängler Bruckner on Apple music on the way to work. I am sorry that I'm missing out, but I really don't think old sound like this is something that I can tolerate in Bruckner, whose music is still a new thing for me that I don't fully appreciate. At least at this point in my life. I will probably come back to it considering how many great things I've heard about it. 

There are exactly two Furtwängler recordings that I really like: his Brahms 1 with the Hamburg NDR Symphony, and his famous Tristan und Isolde with the Philharmonia. Now that's an excellent performance, dated sound or not (really not too bad in this case). 

I am not sure why, but I can tolerate old sound in piano, chamber, and vocal recordings all day, but orchestral is a different story.


----------



## bz3

flamencosketches said:


> I listened to some of the Furtwängler Bruckner on Apple music on the way to work. I am sorry that I'm missing out, but I really don't think old sound like this is something that I can tolerate in Bruckner, whose music is still a new thing for me that I don't fully appreciate. At least at this point in my life. I will probably come back to it considering how many great things I've heard about it.
> 
> There are exactly two Furtwängler recordings that I really like: his Brahms 1 with the Hamburg NDR Symphony, and his famous Tristan und Isolde with the Philharmonia. Now that's an excellent performance, dated sound or not (really not too bad in this case).
> 
> I am not sure why, but I can tolerate old sound in piano, chamber, and vocal recordings all day, but orchestral is a different story.


That's too bad because his Ring and many of his Beethoven orchestral recordings are not to be missed. I too prefer better sound quality and as such have been slow to get into many of the old greats (Toscanini, Walter, early Bohm, etc.) but Furtwangler demands exception if you're a Romantic era fan.


----------



## geralmar

From my reading, the single disc version of the Karajan recording (with the tilted image, above) is indeed the 1988 2-disc set, remastered -- not for length-- but for sound. The original 2-disc set was mastered for Karajan's sound preference. The 2012 single-disc was remastered for an "improved" sound palette: "... a gleaming remaster of a well established Bruckner 8. The clarity of the horns is now properly placed, the strings are clear, anchored and robust, the timpani problem is tightened up, dynamics are more accurate and tonally true."

I own the 2-disc set; but am agnostic on which is "better".


----------



## pianozach

I downloaded Bruck 8 by *Sergiu Celibidache*: SWR Symphony Orchestra Stuttgart . . . 1971, I think.

Evidently Celibidache recorded it more than once.

So . . . not *this* one . . .



Granate said:


>




*THIS* one . . .











I haven't yet sat down for a *real* listen.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ The thing with Celibidache is that his work at the end of his life, and generally in Munich, was very different to what he had been doing before. His reputation for extreme slowness, which some find illuminating and heavenly (I am among them) and others find boring and turgid, came from this period. Of course, he had a strong reputation before then and some excellent performances were caught on disc - some of them very fast - but his reputation with us today is, for better or worse, mostly concerned with what he did in Munich.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Somehow, the 8th will never make it to my favourite Bruckner symphony. To me the 5th is the preferred one, the most lively and lightest one, despite its length. And also the 7th and 9th come before the 8th with me. before I listened to it for the first time, I was well aware of its status. My first listen was Giulini with the VPO, a highly acclaimed recording at its release, but I traded it for Karajan. This one was better, but the work just never carries me away, like the uneven Bruckner symphonies do. Funny fact is that I tend to have a similar preference for Beethoven's uneven Symphonies: 3,5,7,9. 

For Bruckner 8, I hold the Wand Berlin, Celibidache Munchen, Karajan, Boulez & Haitink Vienna recordings as its best. It is the signature piece for the VPO, in which I heard Thielemann conduct the VPO in the 8th live in the Vienna Muskverein last September. And I agree with Enthusiast's plea for Celibidaches slow interpretations, which allow the music to breathe and clarify its great structures. The faster parts of Bruckner Symphonies are often forced by many conductors, for the sake of contrast. To me, this does the music no good. Celibidache is of course quite slow, but the music can handle it and it adds a more meditative aspect to Bruckner's music. 

So, I did my best to grasp the 8th, it is as good as it gets.


----------



## Enthusiast

I can recommend a few Bruckner 8s: the Celibidache Munich recording, the Barbirolli, the Giulini (Vienna), the live LPO Tennstedt, the Boulez ... . Of the Wand recordings I only know the BPO one (it is very good) and of the Furtwangler ones I only know the one in this set (it is amazing).


----------



## Granate

flamencosketches said:


> I listened to some of the Furtwängler Bruckner on Apple music on the way to work. I am sorry that I'm missing out, but I really don't think old sound like this is something that I can tolerate in Bruckner, whose music is still a new thing for me that I don't fully appreciate. At least at this point in my life. I will probably come back to it considering how many great things I've heard about it.
> 
> There are exactly two Furtwängler recordings that I really like: his Brahms 1 with the Hamburg NDR Symphony, and his famous Tristan und Isolde with the Philharmonia. Now that's an excellent performance, dated sound or not (really not too bad in this case).
> 
> I am not sure why, but I can tolerate old sound in piano, chamber, and vocal recordings all day, but orchestral is a different story.


You're not alone flamencosketches. I had exactly the same opinion as you years ago. It happened that I didn't know then how to enjoy historical mono sound. In Furtwängler recordings is especially noisier than Knappertsbusch, where analogue plays to the orchestra's advantage thanks to extreme dynamic range loss, making all the colour palettes unrealisticaly brilliant. I needed to listen to alternative Furtwängler performances to those recommended my most members.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The Furt ‘44 is actually pretty good sound for the period.

Glad to hear the Carlos Paita mentioned. Hard to find on CD, but I noticed it’s available online. Beautiful interpretation in modern sound.


----------



## bz3

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The Furt '44 is actually pretty good sound for the period.
> 
> Glad to hear the Carlos Paita mentioned. Hard to find on CD, but I noticed it's available online. Beautiful interpretation in modern sound.


Is there a consensus 'best' remaster of the Furt '44 Bruckner 8? I have the M&A (pictured a few posts above) but I know there are others.


----------



## WildThing

bz3 said:


> Is there a consensus 'best' remaster of the Furt '44 Bruckner 8? I have the M&A (pictured a few posts above) but I know there are others.


Pristine classical is usually my go to for historical performances. You can sample their's and see how you like it compared the the Music & Arts release.

https://www.pristineclassical.com/products/pasc260


----------



## wkasimer

bz3 said:


> Is there a consensus 'best' remaster of the Furt '44 Bruckner 8? I have the M&A (pictured a few posts above) but I know there are others.


I think that the Musical Concepts transfer is slightly better, but the one included in the M&A set is fine.


----------



## bz3

wkasimer said:


> I think that the Musical Concepts transfer is slightly better, but the one included in the M&A set is fine.


Yes I think it's quite good but since it's such a legendary performance that I love I am interested in hearing both this and the Pristine. Thanks for the info.


----------



## wkasimer

bz3 said:


> Yes I think it's quite good but since it's such a legendary performance that I love I am interested in hearing both this and the Pristine. Thanks for the info.


If it helps, both the M&A and Musical Concepts transfers are on Spotify.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> If it helps, both the M&A and Musical Concepts transfers are on Spotify.


Those are my two favorites. I didn't like the DG transfer quite as much. I need to relisten to Orfeo. They tend to have better definition but can also be harsher.


----------



## Kollwitz

I think that the Musical Concepts transfer is a bit better than than the Music and Arts, though the difference isn't huge.

Just listened to the 1970 Barbirolli with the Halle. Some of the brass is a bit rough in an endearing way, like a more rustic version of the Staatskapelle Dresden under Jochum. But some of it on the shrill/piercing side. I don't think I'm particularly well-attended to orchestral flubs and bad ensemble, but I noticed a few dodgy moments. Interesting reading though. Swift and very committed. Will give it another few listens. Worth the few pounds it cost, as a curiosity, but don't think it'll supplant the regular favourites.


----------



## Triplets

EdwardBast said:


> Well, since you've asked: I find Bruckner's Eighth intensely boring. The interminable repetition and sequencing of ideas that weren't particularly interesting in the first place makes me want to open a vein. And the tone of high seriousness, the sense that the composer seems to have thought he was doing something important, just makes it so much worse. For me, Bruckner embodies everything bad about late Romantic and post Romantic music.


FWIW, Brahms and you are spot on in agreement


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Just compared Wand’s 1987 Lubeck NDR with the 2001 BPO, and surprisingly considering most of the remarks here I liked the BPO better. So much warmer and more spacious. The earlier recording I found to be a bit too much pedantically going through the motions, particularly in the critical Adagio. In the BPO I hear more humanity behind the music-making. More inspiration.


----------



## ORigel

This is heresy! The trio and slow movement are very sublime. Add to that the "apocalyptic" first movement and the best finale to any of Bruckner's symphonies and this work cannot be beat.


----------



## vincula

Furwängler's Bruckner no. 8 '49 from the Audite box deserves special attention. Imho the Audite box's a great buy. Lots of gems and good SQ. It's on one of my favourite channel on YouTube too:






Her no.8 '44/ VPO with luxurious Japanese treatment. Not to be missed:






Outstanding SQ considering the date and... well, it's Furtwängler after all

Regards,

Vincula

PS. I think the ones one YouTube sound miles ahead of Spotify, even though I've got Premium


----------



## Granate

You know I always turn to the Berlin 1949 Titania Palast. Even if there are very different approaches, this performance can be my favourite of all Bruckner 8 recordings.

Qobuz sells the Audite Furtwängler box for a low price, along some great Beethoven recordings too.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Granate said:


> You know I always turn to the Berlin 1949 Titania Palast. Even if there are very different approaches, this performance can be my favourite of all Bruckner 8 recordings.
> 
> Qobuz sells the Audite Furtwängler box for a low price, along some great Beethoven recordings too.


What is it you don't like about the '44 VPO? In addition to the concentrated performance, I've always found the sound quality to be among the best from this period.


----------



## Granate

^^

I wish I had the Hurwitz skills to describe why in my ears that performance has never met the hype others fantasize about. I have listened to it several times.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Strange. I was hooked the moment I first heard it, and hype played no factor at all. I was not even yet a big Bruckner fan at the time.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Strange. I was hooked the moment I first heard it, and hype played no factor at all. I was not even yet a big Bruckner fan at the time.


It's because uniform objectivity truth in music does not exist.

What the listener brings to their listening is always bound up in their own subjectivity of taste, experience, and attitude. It's basically similar to sexual attraction, i.e. even if there are some generalities, it's different for everybody and changes over time.

Furtwängler for me is no more than a curiosity, one I certainly admit I'm glad to have heard once, but that I have no paticular need to revisit. The extreme lack of tempo consistency, sloppiness of ensemble, poor intonation, scratchy sound, and bizarre distortions sometimes add up to a singular experience, but for me rarely an important one I feel any compelling urge to repeat.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> It's because uniform objectivity truth in music does not exist.
> 
> What the listener brings to their listening is always bound up in their own subjectivity of taste, experience, and attitude. It's basically similar to sexual attraction, i.e. even if there are some generalities, it's different for everybody and changes over time.
> 
> Furtwängler for me is no more than a curiosity, one I certainly admit I'm glad to have heard once, but that I have no paticular need to revisit. The extreme lack of tempo consistency, sloppiness of ensemble, poor intonation, scratchy sound, and bizarre distortions sometimes add up to a singular experience, but for me rarely an important one I feel any compelling urge to repeat.


We are in agreement on subjective taste. But have you actually heard the recording in question?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> It's because uniform objectivity truth in music does not exist.
> 
> What the listener brings to their listening is always bound up in their own subjectivity of taste, experience, and attitude. It's basically similar to sexual attraction, i.e. even if there are some generalities, it's different for everybody and changes over time.
> 
> Furtwängler for me is no more than a curiosity, one I certainly admit I'm glad to have heard once, but that I have no paticular need to revisit. The extreme lack of tempo consistency, sloppiness of ensemble, poor intonation, scratchy sound, and bizarre distortions sometimes add up to a singular experience, but for me rarely an important one I feel any compelling urge to repeat.


What's really funny is you apparently did not even notice at the top of the page that Granate rates the 1949 Furtwangler as his favorite recording among the dozens that he has heard. So my question to him was not about Furtwangler in general but between different Furtwangler recordings.

That said, I am listening to the 1944/VPO right now, and remain....perplexed. The scherzo is engulfing. And the Adagio is one of the greatest recordings of any symphonic movement I know, just other worldly. I could understand someone maybe not appreciating this if you don't like Furtwangler or old recordings. But to hate this and then love the '49 BPO???

Like I said, you can join the conversation too...if you actually listen to the performance in question. You might earn yourself a cookie. :tiphat:


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What's really funny is you apparently did not even notice at the top of the page that Granate rates the 1949 Furtwangler as his favorite recording among the dozens that he has heard..


I noticed it.



> So my question to him was not about Furtwangler in general but between different Furtwangler recordings.


"Das bemerkt ja schon jeder Esel!"



> Like I said, you can join the conversation too...if you actually listen to the performance in question.


Oh, CAN I? Oh, gee, wowzee...gosh...thanks ever so much. Wow. I'm just... WOW. What an honor. Golly.


----------



## Knorf

I'm sorry. That was a bit too ill-tempered. My apologies.

I actually don't remember which Bruckner 8 it was that I heard. I'm thinking it was the wartime performance. My best friend at the time was pushing Furtwängler hard; every time we got together to listen to music, he was always choosing Furtwängler WWII recordings. Some of them blew me away, some I was baffled by (not in a good way), and some I just couldn't stand at all because they were too weird, or the quality of the orchestra was too poor for me to tolerate. Anyway, it was probably VPO 1944 that I heard, I'm thinking.

It doesn't matter. I couldn't get past the first movement, and asked my friend to switch to something else. Ironically, I remember the Furtwängler Bruckner (not happily, but I remember it), but not whatever the something else was. Huh.

Examples:
Furtwängler that blew me away: Beethoven, Coriolan Overture.
Furtwängler that baffled me, not in a good way: Bruckner Symphonies 5 & 8
Furtwängler that I couldn't stand at all: Beethoven 9, specially the Bayreuth performance. YUCK.

I've given Furtwängler enough tries. It's not my cup of tea. Maybe someday, I'll make sure to give the 1949 Berlin Bruckner 8 a listen. Granate nearly half-convinces me I should. But life is short. I've been there. It didn't work for me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Oh, CAN I? Oh, gee, wowzee...gosh...thanks ever so much. Wow. I'm just... WOW. What an honor. Golly.


Haha, okay you get a cookie for that one.


----------



## Knorf

Looks delish. Thanks!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> I'm sorry. That was a bit too ill-tempered. My apologies.
> 
> I actually don't remember which Bruckner 8 it was that I heard. I'm thinking it was the wartime performance. My best friend at the time was pushing Furtwängler hard; every time we got together to listen to music, he was always choosing Furtwängler WWII recordings. Some of them blew me away, some I was baffled by (not in a good way), and some I just couldn't stand at all because they were too weird, or the quality of the orchestra was too poor for me to tolerate. Anyway, it was probably VPO 1944 that I heard, I'm thinking.
> 
> It doesn't matter. I couldn't get past the first movement, and asked my friend to switch to something else. Ironically, I remember the Furtwängler Bruckner (not happily, but I remember it), but not whatever the something else was. Huh.
> 
> Examples:
> Furtwängler that blew me away: Beethoven, Coriolan Overture.
> Furtwängler that baffled me, not in a good way: Bruckner Symphonies 5 & 8
> Furtwängler that I couldn't stand at all: Beethoven 9, specially the Bayreuth performance. YUCK.
> 
> I've given Furtwängler enough tries. It's not my cup of tea. Maybe someday, I'll make sure to give the 1949 Berlin Bruckner 8 a listen. Granate nearly half-convinces me I should. But life is short. I've been there. It didn't work for me.


The Adagio is the heart of the piece and the performance. I wore out my CD player in law school just listening to this 1944 Adagio over and over. The eloquent phrasing is what impresses me the most, along with an unerring sense of line from beginning to end. Very hard to do in this movement without ever letting things sag. Karajan is the only other conductor IMO who pulled it off as well.


----------



## Knorf

Gah! Dammit, like I need more to listen to. Fine! I'll listen to this Adagio sometime soon and report back.

But I will add in passing that a surpassingly great performance of this Adagio is surely Schuricht, VPO. And I'd argue Skrowaczewski and Blomstedt are not far off.


----------



## Geoff48

EdwardBast said:


> Well, since you've asked: I find Bruckner's Eighth intensely boring. The interminable repetition and sequencing of ideas that weren't particularly interesting in the first place makes me want to open a vein. And the tone of high seriousness, the sense that the composer seems to have thought he was doing something important, just makes it so much worse. For me, Bruckner embodies everything bad about late Romantic and post Romantic music.


I guess everyone has a blindstop in music, a composer they just don't get. And for me that is Bruckner. A composer who seems to say nothing, then repeat it. And one whose climaxes never seem to reach completion.
I've tried many conductors including Furtwangler, van Beinum, even Karajan. His complete set of nine was part of a symphony set including Beethoven, Brahms and Tchaikovsky.amongst others. They were great, not so Bruckner. I once tried Celibidache. His was the worst, it seemed to go on for hours.
My first exposer to him was at the first live concert I attended, Rudolph Schwartz and the BBC Symphony. Had it not been for A first half of Elgar Introduction and Allegro and Schumann piano concerto I could have been put off music for life!
I don't have a favourite Bruckner but the ninth has only three movements and is occasionally known as unfinished so perhaps that is my least disliked.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Well, since I am currently on a Bruckner 8th listening binge, I might as well transfer my comments from the big Bruckner thread:

Sampled some 8ths this past weekend. Furt '44 and Karajan '88 are my standards and set a very high bar.

I started with Boulez/VPO. I can understand why it appeals to some. The loud brass moments are very impressive. But - stop me if you've heard this from me before - I don't hear the spirit of the work coming through. The great Adagio left me cold. Bruckner is about more than just some exciting moments.

But this was actually a better listening experience than Schuricht/VPO. What a disappointment after all I have heard about his Bruckner. Just way too straight-laced and efficient for this symphony. Did not plumb the depths. I didn't understand the point. For me this is the most monumental symphony in existence alongside Beethoven and Mahler's 9ths. The idea of stream-lining such a brilliant composition makes my skin crawl.

Van Beinum/RCO was much more my cup of tea. Very beautifully eloquent, if not as powerful as Furt/Karajan. Haitink/RCO was a bit comatose by comparison. The Adagio needs life to be effective. I could not find his VPO version online, so I put it on order. They say this is his best.

Ah, but then came Giulini/VPO. Now there is a recording to stand on the pantheon of greats! Powerful, exciting, beautiful - maybe even good enough to give Karajan a run for his money among modern versions. (I don't expect to ever hear a version to compare with Furt '44) I listened to Giulini's live BPO on YouTube and was disappointed. Just did not sound as inspired to me. Maybe I am listening to too many Bruckner 8ths.

Still plenty more to sample - Celi, Kna, Horenstein, earlier Karajan, Wand, Barbirolli, Klemperer, Bohm, Jochum, Kubelik, Skrow, Maazel, Sinopoli, Tennstedt...did I leave out anyone? I don't want to know!


----------



## ORigel

I am listening to the Jochum BPO recording and am so disappointed. He takes it way too fast-- the first movement codas and the trio at least so far.


----------



## Azol

I fail to understand the appeal of Jochum's Bruckner. Every time I tried to approach his (widely recommended) recordings, it's always too much Jochum and not enough Bruckner. I can understand different approaches (sometimes pretty radical ones) but this just don't resonate at all.


----------



## Phil loves classical

ORigel said:


> I am listening to the Jochum BPO recording and am so disappointed. He takes it way too fast-- the first movement codas and the trio at least so far.


I'm a big fan of Jochum's. I tend to get impatient with Bruckner, so his tempo suits me fine. He slows it down in the Adagio. Personally I like his more than Furtwangler's and Giulini's. Furtwangler sounds 'artificial' to me, as a lot of his stuff does to me (sorry to Brahmsianhorn). But I agree with the consensus, Karajan is untouchable.


----------



## DavidA

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm a big fan of Jochum's. I tend to get impatient with Bruckner, so his tempo suits me fine. He slows it down in the Adagio. Personally I like his more than Furtwangler's and Giulini's. Furtwangler sounds 'artificial' to me, as a lot of his stuff does to me (sorry to Brahmsianhorn). But I agree with the consensus, Karajan is untouchable.


Love Jochum too. But the 8th not quite up to the rest. Karajan here


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Yes, I just listened to all three commercial Jochums yesterday. The DG BPO is a disappointment. The EMI Dresden is better - better sound, slower, and more committed. The Adagio is very beautifully eloquent. The 1949 Hamburg is also better than the BPO, more powerfully energized.

But I like Bohm better than Jochum in this work. The studio VPO is very sumptuous sounding. This is a big, grand, powerful, Romantic reading, never rushed.

I also listened to a couple of Wands. The famed 1987 Lubeck NDR struck me as having the familiar Wand issues of conventionality and tedium. But the 2001 BPO actually has something to say. I found it very eloquent and beautifully played. That's another one for the shelf.

I listened to both the 1944 VPO and 1949 BPO Furtwanglers today. There shouldn't be much need to relisten to the VPO as I have heard it dozens upon dozens of times, but listening again after sampling several others only reconfirms its greatness - the power and angst of the outer movements, the incredible rising and falling in the scherzo, and the deeply felt adagio.

It is ironic that two of Furt's most acclaimed recordings were both in 1944 with the VPO - this one and the Beethoven Eroica - and in both cases we have more present-sounding postwar alternatives with the BPO collected in this stupendous Audite set:










The Bruckner 8th here is from March 14, 1949, and not to be confused with the March 15, 1949 performance issued here:










The March 14 performance is generally to be preferred. However, on listening today it reconfirmed to me the preeminence of the 1944 VPO. To begin with, although the sound is more full-bodied in the BPO, it is marred by terribly intrusive coughing from the audience. I don't usually care about occasional coughing, but this one is really bad.

The performance is certainly great, particularly in the outer movements which are incredibly powerful. However, the scherzo is less inspired, and the adagio though undeniably beautiful lacks the inspired concentration of 1944. And here as well, the coughing is horribly intrusive at the most hushed moments. But even disregarding the audience noise, the wartime version just holds together better (ironically the same opinion I have of the 1944 VPO Eroica compared to the 12/8/52 BPO).

So, in short, the 1949 BPO - both of them - are more for Furt completists. For Bruckner fans and anyone interested in great historical orchestral recordings, the 1944 VPO is a must.


----------



## larold

_I fail to understand the appeal of Jochum's Bruckner. Every time I tried to approach his (widely recommended) recordings, it's always too much Jochum and not enough Bruckner. I can understand different approaches (sometimes pretty radical ones) but this just don't resonate at all._

Eugen Jochum, like his conductor brother Georg-Ludwig Jochum, Wilhelm Furtwangler and others of their time (as well as Furtwangler's mentee Jascha Horenstein), believed in flexibility in tempo leading Bruckner's symphonies. Furtwangler wrote that music was a force of nature and as such should breathe and move like it does in nature.

Insofar as these conductors were trained at the academy where Bruckner instructed a decade or two following his 1896 death I think it would be quite a coincidence their style was not taught by the composer and his peers and was instead invented by them.

Most Bruckner today, a century or more later, is played as if by a metronome: large sections and/or whole movements tend to played in one tempo. Today the style favored by Furtwangler and the Jochums is sometimes labeled interventionist, which is quite the contradiciton in our time dominated by period performance practice.

I never thought much of any 8th by Jochum; I found his work far more interesting in the early symphonies. The best Furtwangler 8th I know came in the Andante box of Austrian radio broadcasts:









https://www.amazon.com/Vienna-Philh...ndante+Bruckner&qid=1597860589&s=music&sr=1-5


----------



## Geoff48

Of all the so called great composers Bruckner is the one I find most difficult to appreciate. He has the ability to say very little and then to repeat it ad infinitude. His climaxes always seem to peter out prematurely. The first minute or so may be okay but then boredom sets in. Now I know that my view may not be universal And look forward to being told how I have missed his genius. Various addicts have recommended Furtwangler, Klemperer, even Celibidache but to no avail. I even have a complete set conducted by Karajan, part of a multi composer set including complete cycles by Beethoven, Brahms and Tchaikovsky amongst others and I have tried listening to the Bruckner but to no avail. And the Eighth seems to be as long as any of them.
The first Symphony concert I ever intended finished with Bruckner’s 7th. It was the BBC Symphony with Rudolf Schwarz. Fortunately the first half included Elgar’s Introduction and Allegro and the Schumann Piano Concerto so all was not lost but I occasionally wonder if the concert had been merely Bruckner’s eighth would I ever have returned.


----------



## Knorf

I'd like to address this idea that "music was a force of nature and as such should breathe and move like it does in nature." It's rubbish. It's rubbish because you can use "force of nature" as a metaphor for literally _any_ approach to tempo you wish.

For example, in 1686, Isaac Newton formulated his laws of motion, the first of which being that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by another force.

Most things in the universe are in motion and will never cease to be in motion-never ever-and will stay on their same paths barring a cataclysmic disruption. Planets in orbit, for example. Anything in orbit, really, and that includes the sun in the Milky Way galaxy, the Milky Way among its local galaxy group, the local group in its supercluster, and so on. Everything is moving and will never, ever stop moving. Literally, never.

Waves on the sea move at one rate and do not stop moving nor significantly change velocity until hitting the shore.

I could go on.

We're also left with questions of whether "music is a force of nature" is valid as anything other than a metaphor or only in the most trivial sense. But I'll sidestep that for the time being and say, let's proceed with metaphor.

If I were to conceive of a metaphor from nature for tempo in Bruckner, it's not an insect in flight, or an animal foraging, with unstable and uncertain motions all the time. Rather, it is more like global weather. It's the jet stream. Local weather is highly variable, with gusts and eddies that might run completely contrary to the prevailing wind. But the wind at higher elevations is always incredibly steady, malleable to be sure but changing much, much more slowly than anything on the surface. Bruckner's music is best served, in my opinion, with a somewhat malleable pulse but one fundamentally slow to change, under which localized eddies and gusts might occur.

(It's only a metaphor.)

In recent days I listened to three recording of Bruckner's Symphony No. 8 in C minor with the Vienna Philharmonic:

Wilhelm Furtwängler, 1944
Carl Schuricht, 1963
Pierre Boulez, 1996

Furtwängler, the legend, the supposedly "shattering experience," the "greatest orchestral recording in existence." Could I handle it? Was I prepared? Would I require the removal of clothing?

Actually, what struck me the most was how very _dull_ it is.

From my memory, my response to Furtwängler's Bruckner was that it was baffling, and not in a good way. I now realize the Furtwängler Bruckner 8 I had heard before was in fact the 1949 recording with the Berlin Philharmonic. By comparison, the 1944 Bruckner 8 is thankfully much tidier and more disciplined. It's also a better recording (in fact it's remarkably good) and much better played as well. In fact, the Vienna Philharmonic sounds truly great up until the last movement, when ensemble finally starts getting ragged, and the brass start missing notes, cracking, and sliding further and further out of tune. The last note is hair-raising, but not in a good way.

Furtwängler's 1944 Bruckner 8 starts pretty well. It's nicely shaped, grows in intensity, gets to the loud bit where Furtwängler pushes the tempo, then gets soft and he pulls it back. That's all fine. But I realized quickly: that is literally the only idea Furtwängler has for interpreting this piece. Brass get loud? Go faster! Strings? Get soft? Go slower. That's it. If you know this symphony as well as I do, I found myself able to predict exactly when Furtwängler would go faster and when he would pull back, and it was always the same, every single time. Loud? Faster! Soft? Slower!

It is unbelievably lacking in imagination.

Honestly, I was surprised. I expected to be gripped (and maybe baffled) by some of large-scale tempo manipulation. Nope. It's very predictable, and for me as a result gets boring very quickly.

Worse is I can't tell that Furtwängler had a clue what to do with the many, long transitional passages, which are frequently features for the woodwinds. The attentive listener quickly realizes Furtwängler has only the following limited plan, and never deviates from it:

Brass get louder. "Go faster!"
Strings. "Go slower!"
Softer. "Go slower!"
Woodwinds? "Fork if I know. Let them noodle around aimlessly for a bit until BRASS GO FASTER."

And that's it.

I could hardly endure to listen to whole recording. Where was the supposed deep grasp of musical architecture? The keen insight into the inner drama of harmony? >Crickets< Not present in _this_ recording.

It's true that the Adagio fares better. Even though it's the same plan! Soft = slow. Loud = go faster. Always the same. But there are a few moments that are truly wonderful, especially some really lovely horns and Wagner tubas. The first movement isn't too bad overall, just kind of dull. But I realized there are huge problems that impede the effective presentation of architecture and harmonic drama: a fundamental sense of pulse is lacking.

(Incidentally, always speeding up for loud and slowing down for soft is one of the most commented upon bad habits by musicians in history. Apparently, it was the kind of thing that really angered Beethoven, for one.)

Furtwängler at least seemed to recognize that not every _fortissimo_ is the same (a huge problem for Solti, for example.) That's good. However, the lack of cogent rhythm undermines everything that happens. The trio section of the scherzo is a case in point. Og, what a mess. It does not come together at all. It's so bad, that the return of the main scherzo material comes back in a wildly different tempo! That's a WTF moment for me.

But the result in every movement is that every single transition loses focus and direction. The focus returns where's a loud bit and Furtwängler drives the tempo forward, again, and occasionally when he settles into something soft and serene, and the stillness is lovely. But it doesn't last, and it for sure does not make a whole.

The last movement is awful. I'd actually call it poor. The tempo is all over the place without any cogent unifying concept of any kind. Furtwängler rushes the tempo whenever the brass play loudly, especially the trumpets, every single transition featuring woodwinds is an aimless mess, and in general it comes pretty unglued.

There's almost a decent control of rhythm and good conducting at the coda, for a while what was lost is almost regained, but the pitch of the brass (especially trumpets) is so poor, honestly I never wish to hear it again. (Big climax! Go faster! As an aside: that would **** off my wife.)

On the basis of the last movement, Furtwängler's 1944 Bruckner 8 is very firmly in the "not recommended" pile. The other three movements are sometimes very good, but often boring, sometimes a mess, and simply do not balance out how bad the last movement is.

At no time was I compelled to remove clothing. Some may be relieved to hear this.

The Boulez and Schuricht I compared Furtwängler to are both far superior in my opinion, in every possible regard. As good or better playing, better tempo management, better balance (Furtwängler really seemed to have no use whatsoever for woodwinds), better sense of large-scale form and harmony, etc. Comprehensively better.

The Boulez in particular has really risen in my estimation. I hadn't heard it in about a decade, but thinking in terms of my metaphor of the jet stream, Boulez is superb. A clear fundamental tempo, with such lovely suppleness, subtlety without neglecting drama: Boulez's performance among the three very definitely kept my attention in the grip of the music the most.

Schuricht is great, but I have a small quibble: the principal oboist at the time had a very thin tone, and I really don't care for it. But Schuricht is great, everything is focused, everything serves a compelling overarching drama, and there is a fundamental connectedness that holds it all together.

Final note: I need to revisit the Giulini, to round out my Vienna Phil. Bruckner 8s.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^

LOL, I listened to all three in the past week and thought the Boulez and Schuricht were clean, efficient, and boring, sucking the life out of this great work. Furtwangler's frenetic treatment is worlds apart. It's interesting, your criteria seems to be one of neatness. Mine is the opposite: I want all the drama and myriad of emotions to be fully realized.

You're right about one thing: Furtwangler's tempo changes were predictable, not random. For him it was like naturally following the current of a river.


----------



## Merl

I've never listened to Furty's Bruckner so I thought I'd give it a go. This is what I wrote down..

Trying the 1944 Bruckner 8 and the sound is surprisingly not too bad for its age. In fact I'm surprised at this quality of recording. Sounds OK up to now apart from a few sour notes but I can live with that. Promising start. Around 4 mins now and he's started with the very loud brass playing and tempo pulling. This is a trait of his other recordings. He's more successful as the music slows and there's some lovely moments but when it ramps up he throws in these massive and often unnecessary crescendoes and then lingers on phrases. 8 mins and I'm finding it very wearing now. Jeez those woodwinds are rough and they aren't playing in tune. 1st movement down and I'm giving up
This isn't for me. I'm trying his 1949 one next and this one is a rough recording. Apart from the fact it sounds like it was recorded in a wind tunnel (what is that sound?) they've hit their first bum note in the brass at the 1.20ish mark. Around 3.40 there's some really scrappy ensemble playing and nasty woodwinds. Around 5 mins and he's pulling tempo and getting them to play very loudly. 9mins - I give up. There's absolutely no rhythm to this music-making. It's all over the place and the woodwinds don't seem to have a clue what they're doing. Their playing isn't helping but I suspect the cues are bad as it sounds like a provincial orchestra at times. Hard to believe this is a top outfit . Tried start of the 2nd movement. After 4 mins I really can't listen anymore. I give up. Playing Stan the Man to get rid of the sound of that woeful Bruckner.

I'm with Knorf on this. For such an eminently renowned conductor he certainly left some very dodgy recordings behind. His lack of rhythm is an issue here. Interpretively, in both these recordings, he's a one trick pony. Fast bits get faster and louder, big phrases are treated with enormous crescendoes. Slow parts are played slower than usual with a shedload of legato. Strangely these are some of the things Dudamel was initially accused of. Everything's played on the downbeat making it sound like an umpah band or Thomas the tank engine. Throw in some very odd dynamics, odd phrasing and it adds up to very unconvincing Bruckner. Then have it recorded in what sounds like a shed with two active woks. Not for me, either. This may make you run round the room naked, BHS, but it ain't for me.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's interesting, your criteria seems to be one of neatness. Mine is the opposite: I want all the drama and myriad of emotions to be fully realized.


That's not what I said, at all.

I want those things, too, but I get them from the likes of Boulez and Schuricht, and not from Furtwängler, whom I find profoundly predictable and non-dramatic.



> You're right about one thing: Furtwangler's tempo changes were predictable, not random. For him it was like naturally following the current of a river.


My impression is that Furtwängler had no fundamental control of tempo _at all_. He could not resist going faster when the music got louder, because there was no discipline in those terms. So in that sense, yes, sure. Like a river. It goes faster when the grade is steeper and/or the channel narrower, but for no other reasons.

He would have driven Beethoven mad.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Lol, you guys sound like you’re trying to understand a foreign language. You realize this ain’t rock music, right? Classical music has actual variation. Loud brass? Oh no, drama! Beethoven hated that!


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Lol, you guys sound like you're trying to understand a foreign language. You realize this ain't rock music, right? Classical music has actual variation. Loud brass? Oh no, drama! Beethoven hated that!


I'm wondering whether you have serious reading comprehension issues.

Beethoven hated musicians reflexively going faster when the music gets louder and slowing down when it gets softer. He wrote that those are about the worst of all bad habits.

It was clear when I wrote it down the first time.


----------



## Merl

Variation. Fine! 
Poor ensemble, out of tune woodwinds. Not fine! 
If I was in a rock band and my band members played like that they'd be out on their a*se.


----------



## Knorf

I never had the pleasure of playing in a rock band. It was classical music for me pretty much my whole life. Not much call for bassoon in rock & roll bands, I'm afraid. Not zero; just, not much.


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> I never had the pleasure of playing in a rock band. It was classical music for me pretty much my whole life. Not much call for bassoon in rock & roll bands, I'm afraid. Not zero; just, not much.


Are you sure? I reckon you'd be OK during LED Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven.


----------



## Knorf

Merl said:


> Are you sure? I reckon you'd be OK during LED Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven.


That's not a gig I'd turn down!

And I haven't had a paid gig involving a live ensemble of any kind since February. My colleagues in Europe are starting to return to work, but we orchestral musicians are still mostly locked down here in the States. I haven't gone this long with no concerts of any kind since before high school.  Nothing in sight until December or January, realistically. I am getting paid to make a couple recordings, at least.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I would never make the claim that Furtwängler’s ’44 8th is the “definitive” version (to me, there is obviously no such thing) or the most “profound” or even my favorite - it is not a performance for every day just like many other of his recordings. But I think it is a very special, one-off event that showcases an interpretation of incredible daring and incandescent inspiration that effortlessly swings between demonic intensity and angelic eloquence. The opening bars of the Adagio sound like a great celestial portal inviting us into Elysian fields with some of the most incredible string playing I’ve ever heard, the central climax of the first movement like the floodgates of Hades devouring the world with molten lava, the coda of the finale like a great blast of searing light from on high. Many people can’t get past the rough playing, and that’s totally understandable. We all prioritize different things, and I understand if you belong to the Hurwitz school of “the conductor’s job is to get the orchestra to play right.” That’s one valid approach to performance but for me it's not a factor that I’m concerned about when there is something good beneath the surface. I think anyone who listens to this recording without any preconceptions about how the music should go will be drawn in by the sheer compelling force of vision from this conductor who could inspire an orchestra to sound like they were improvising an 80-minute symphony on the spot. That said I think his visions of the 7th and 9th were perhaps even more special, and I can’t say I agree with some of the choices he makes in this recording - especially the super-fast and choppy scherzo which comes across to me as bizarre. But even despite these questionable quirks there is unique artistry going on of a style that will almost certainly never be replicated again, and so it deserves to be heard by all music lovers. Whether you connect with it personally is a different matter.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Back to the main topic of Bruckner 8: I actually prefer Karajan’s ’70’s BPO to the famous valedictory VPO. The latter is special for its sense of stoic, autumnal reflection but I just think the luxurious, rich sonority of the Berliners bring home the goods here aided by Karajan’s majestic interpretation that sounds like it is given in a single breath. That Bruckner cycle is probably my favorite thing that ‘ol Herbie ever did. I recently heard some bits and pieces of live Barbirolli 1970 on YouTube and it sounded like a real thrill ride, as spontaneous as Furtwängler and with very brisk, breathless speeds throughout. I will have to listen to the whole thing some day, but not before Giulini and several others. I go through Bruckner “phases" and I’m not always in the mood for his music.


----------



## Knorf

I wouldn't dream of disputing Furtwängler's 1944 Bruckner 8 as a special historical document, flawed in some important ways in my view, but remarkable in many ways as well. I'm not at all unhappy I heard it. 

Enabling the orchestra to play its best is basically the only directly musically significant component of a conductor's job. I am no Hurwitz fan, as you know.

I like the 70s Karajan Berlin Bruckner 8 better than the Vienna one, too, btw. The Vienna one is special, but the Berlin recording has real power.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

You guys stole my thunder. I was about to post on the three Karajans I listened to this afternoon. I had only heard the 1988 VPO before today. Yes, just as with the 7th, I came away more impressed with the 70s BPO.

The 1988 VPO has never quite moved me enough. It's best in the loud parts, and now I realize that's because the rest is a little bit slack and stale. Compare just the opening few bars of the Adagio. With the VPO it is played. With the BPO it is _felt_

The 1957 BPO surprisingly did very little for me. I found it less inspired than either of the later versions. I do still plan on sampling the live Salzburg from the same year.

The one movement where I think Karajan misfires is the Scherzo. It sort of trudges along, especially in Vienna.

Speaking of which, this movement is a particularly unique highlight of 1944 Furtwängler for me. It has an edge of your seat feel that I have not heard elsewhere. Is excitement not in style anymore?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> I've never listened to Furty's Bruckner so I thought I'd give it a go. This is what I wrote down..
> 
> Trying the 1944 Bruckner 8 and the sound is surprisingly not too bad for its age. In fact I'm surprised at this quality of recording. Sounds OK up to now apart from a few sour notes but I can live with that. Promising start. Around 4 mins now and he's started with the very loud brass playing and tempo pulling. This is a trait of his other recordings. He's more successful as the music slows and there's some lovely moments but when it ramps up he throws in these massive and often unnecessary crescendoes and then lingers on phrases. 8 mins and I'm finding it very wearing now. Jeez those woodwinds are rough and they aren't playing in tune. 1st movement down and I'm giving up
> This isn't for me. I'm trying his 1949 one next and this one is a rough recording. Apart from the fact it sounds like it was recorded in a wind tunnel (what is that sound?) they've hit their first bum note in the brass at the 1.20ish mark. Around 3.40 there's some really scrappy ensemble playing and nasty woodwinds. Around 5 mins and he's pulling tempo and getting them to play very loudly. 9mins - I give up. There's absolutely no rhythm to this music-making. It's all over the place and the woodwinds don't seem to have a clue what they're doing. Their playing isn't helping but I suspect the cues are bad as it sounds like a provincial orchestra at times. Hard to believe this is a top outfit . Tried start of the 2nd movement. After 4 mins I really can't listen anymore. I give up. Playing Stan the Man to get rid of the sound of that woeful Bruckner.
> 
> I'm with Knorf on this. For such an eminently renowned conductor he certainly left some very dodgy recordings behind. His lack of rhythm is an issue here. Interpretively, in both these recordings, he's a one trick pony. Fast bits get faster and louder, big phrases are treated with enormous crescendoes. Slow parts are played slower than usual with a shedload of legato. Strangely these are some of the things Dudamel was initially accused of. Everything's played on the downbeat making it sound like an umpah band or Thomas the tank engine. Throw in some very odd dynamics, odd phrasing and it adds up to very unconvincing Bruckner. Then have it recorded in what sounds like a shed with two active woks. Not for me, either. This may make you run round the room naked, BHS, but it ain't for me.


So, I have a question: How does lack of a steady tempo inhibit your enjoyment of the music?

I know for me, my response is the opposite. I get more emotionally engaged when the tempo is flexible in a way that naturally follows the contours of the work. I'm just curious how others hear it.


----------



## Knorf

I'm listening again to Stanisław Skrowaczewski's Bruckner 8 with Saarbrücken. It's a tremendous performance, extraordinarily satisfying, with lyricism and power in good balance but not neglecting those moments that invite stillness and contemplation. Bravo, Stan!


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So, I have a question: How does lack of a steady tempo inhibit your enjoyment of the music?
> 
> I know for me, my response is the opposite. I get more emotionally engaged when the tempo is flexible in a way that naturally follows the contours of the work. I'm just curious how others hear it.


Look, I get why you like such lucidity in tempo, BHS. I really do. I'm not immune to it either. When conductors use it judiciously it can generate a lot of excitement and emotion but when it's not done effectively it just sounds 'bitty' and contrived. So, for example, when Furty does it in Schumann's 4th it sounds good but when you apply it to every piece you perform it becomes samey and a bit predictable. So instead of getting engaged I actually get distracted from what I'm hearing. If I have a more even (not metronomic) tempo I can still get my hit from it through use of phrasing and dynamics that are more subtle. I'll give you a weak analogy. It's like if I'm watching a horror movie (I love horror movies), in the American remakes of all the best foreign horrors (Oldboy, Ringu, etc) the Hollywood producers try and ramp up the scares by increasing the volume of the incidental music so that the 'scares' actually become predictable (music gets louder = scary bit). In the original Asian horrors incidental music is kept to a bare minimum. The scenes move organically and you have no idea when the 'scare' is coming thus these films are MUCH scarier. With Furty I can actually predict when he's going to speed up / go louder. As I said, sometimes that works but more often than not then I'm actually expecting a shift in tempo and I'm distracted from just hearing the music. A more even tempo (to me) really helps me build up appreciation. For example I don't think Gardiner's LVB cycle is wonderful but what he does is build a rhythmical rapport with me (his rhythms are rock solid in that set). That view isn't set in stone and I have plenty of performances of music with quite wild tempo shifts but they aren't predictable (Scherchen's BEETHOVEN, Stoki recordings, etc). As regards critics, I'm not a fan of Hurwitz, per se (but do enjoy his online videos just because he's passionate) , but the one thing I do agree with him about is that the basic requirement of a conductor / orchestra is that they start and finish together. When they don't I usually deem it as a poor performance. Its not an easy answer as there are many variables but I hope that helps explain.


----------



## vincula

This one's a very distinct and heartily felt taking on the 8th:






Very different from his London studio recording. It has admirers and detractors too. Even though I consider myself a Tennstedt fan, I'm not completely sold on this one to be honest. What do you think of it?

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

What editions do you all prefer? From what I'm currently reading, it seems that Haas took some excessive liberties.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Halfway through the Klemperer. The Scherzo was an interminable 19:53. Most painful version of that movement I’ve ever heard. Did not work at all. Furtwängler and Bohm clock in at just over 14.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So, I have a question: How does lack of a steady tempo inhibit your enjoyment of the music?
> I know for me, my response is the opposite. I get more emotionally engaged when the tempo is flexible in a way that naturally follows the contours of the work. I'm just curious how others hear it.


I think that tempo is a supple, flexible thing....absolute strict metronomic time can be pretty monotonous. Goldovsky called it <<Kapellmeister stuff>> he couldn't stand it. Tempo should constantly ebb and flow, to suit the phrasing, [this was a Toscanini principle re tempo]...
The catch is, it needs to make sense with the music. I agree with some others, I often find Furtwangler's distortions to be abrupt, arbitrary and at times do not fit the music...He'll make a sudden accelerando [where none is marked in score], then suddenly slow down again....and it doesn't make sense to me. I think <<what was that all about?? what purpose??>> and yes, there are mannerisms, slowing down at soft level, or pulling way back at a cadence...speeding up at loud volume. once or twice, it's a curiosity.....repeatedly, it become a mannerism, a habit....orchestra musicians will all too readily fall into habits - rushing in the loud parts, dragging in the soft...the greatest conductors do not allow this.


----------



## Knorf

Exactly right, Heck148. Couldn't have said it better myself.



GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> What editions do you all prefer? From what I'm currently reading, it seems that Haas took some excessive liberties.


I'm planning a response to this, but it'll have to be in a day or two. If someone else wishes to jump in to answer this before I do, please by my guest!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> I think that tempo is a supple, flexible thing....absolute strict metronomic time can be pretty monotonous. Goldovsky called it <<Kapellmeister stuff>> he couldn't stand it. Tempo should constantly ebb and flow, to suit the phrasing, [this was a Toscanini principle re tempo]...
> The catch is, it needs to make sense with the music. I agree with some others, I often find Furtwangler's distortions to be abrupt, arbitrary and at times do not fit the music...He'll make a sudden accelerando [where none is marked in score], then suddenly slow down again....and it doesn't make sense to me. I think <<what was that all about?? what purpose??>> and yes, there are mannerisms, slowing down at soft level, or pulling way back at a cadence...speeding up at loud volume. once or twice, it's a curiosity.....repeatedly, it become a mannerism, a habit....orchestra musicians will all too readily fall into habits - rushing in the loud parts, dragging in the soft...the greatest conductors do not allow this.


What you call a mannerism others call musicianship and sensitivity. My question was how it fits with others' emotional reaction to the music, not whether it is "right" or "wrong," because I don't believe in such a thing.

Obviously, Furtwängler's "mannerisms" sound perfectly natural to me, and others maintaining a steady tempo for the sake of "correctness" sound unnatural, pedantic, and boring.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What you call a mannerism others call musicianship and sensitivity.


The key is that it should make musical sense, fit the phrasing, the melodic/harmonic flow....consistantly speeding up- loud, slowing down- soft becomes a mannerism, a habit that does not necessarily fit the music....maybe the crescendo should be pulled back, maybe the pianissimo needs to move ahead. I always love it when Toscanini or Reiner affect a "subito pianissimo" accelerando!! Now, that takes some real conductor-orchestra execution!!



> My question was how it fits with others' emotional reaction to the music, not whether it is "right" or "wrong," because I don't believe in such a thing.


I agree, right/wrong isn't the issue, it is whether the music is convincingly presented, that it makes sense.


> ....others maintaining a steady tempo for the sake of "correctness" sound unnatural, pedantic, and boring.


I'm not sure what this means...."correctness" is not really an issue....making musical sense is....as i said, i agree with Toscanini's concept that tempo is a flexible, supple thing, there is always some give and take, ebb and flow...not so noticable at fast tempo, but it is still there...weird distortions are harder to justify.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> weird distortions are harder to justify.


And we could just keep going in circles on this - I don't find Furtwängler's tempi to be weird distortions. They make perfect sense in the context of the work and deliver the emotional goods, which is the ultimate job of the performer.

I compared Bruckner 8th first movements last night. Furtwängler's completely delivers the emotional angst. Every section makes sense in the context of the whole. I then listened to Karajan, and I felt like only the loud sections delivered emotionally. The rest felt more like filler. He stays in a more strict tempo, and it gets tedious. Solti is even more tedious, because at least Karajan goes for an ethereal sound in these sections whereas Solti really sounds as if he is killing time. Furtwängler never lets the music get boring. There is always a point to every bar and every phrase. Then when the loud parts arrive it is all the more powerful. The entire movement makes sense as an integrated story from beginning to end. That is great music making.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And we could just keep going in circles on this - I don't find Furtwängler's tempi to be weird distortions. They make perfect sense in the context of the work and deliver the emotional goods, which is the ultimate job of the performer.


WF doesn't convince me consistently....too many distortions that don't make sense. It's interesting, tho, definitely not your pedestrian run-thru...



> I compared Bruckner 8th first movements last night. Furtwängler's completely delivers the emotional angst.


Can't comment on WF's B8, haven't heard it...HvK didn't do much for me, tho...it was ok....I love Solti's,(both)....VPO from 60s, CSO 90s, live from Leningrad - amazing, tremendous power.


----------



## Merl

Heck148 said:


> WF doesn't convince me consistently....too many distortions that don't make sense. It's interesting, tho, definitely not your pedestrian run-thru...
> 
> Can't comment on WF's B8, haven't heard it...HvK didn't do much for me, tho...it was ok....I love Solti's,(both)....VPO from 60s, CSO 90s, live from Leningrad - amazing, tremendous power.


Although I'm not sold on a lot of Solti's Bruckner I think the Vienna 8th is really good. I really like the textures in the slower moments. I've not heard the Leningad one so I'll try and remedy that this weekend. I still much prefer Stan the Man with the Yomiuri here but Solti's 8th is still very enjoyable.


----------



## Azol

Had Bruckner wanted these accelerandi/etc he would have put them in the score, right? This is what I call "too much conductor not enough composer". Conductor should "conduct" the music from the score to the listener, but some conductors should be renamed "transformers" instead.
/rant off


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Azol said:


> Had Bruckner wanted these accelerandi/etc he would have put them in the score, right? This is what I call "too much conductor not enough composer". Conductor should "conduct" the music from the score to the listener, but some conductors should be renamed "transformers" instead.
> /rant off


You do know Bruckner was writing in the Late Romantic era, right? And you do know that taking liberties with the score was common practice at the time, right?


----------



## Azol

Taking liberties with the score does not belong particularly with Late Romantic period. Much earlier, composers would allow the performers some "free reign" with cadenzas etc so I'd say, on the contrary, as time went by, scores became much more detailed and demanding, but conductors hadn't (or wouldn't) notice. I wonder if some just wanted to create some "trademark sound" because there was no composer alive to celebrate, but the conductor might have served as a nice substitution. In some instances it does not go beyond the "hey, don't forget it's >ME< at the podium!"


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The bottom line is it’s not about “correctness.” Perfectionism only matters to performers and critics. Plenty enough classical music listeners think what Furtwängler did sounded natural and in the spirit of the music to keep his name alive and well in the 21st century. If it doesn’t float your boat, more power to you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Azol said:


> I wonder if some just wanted to create some "trademark sound" because there was no composer alive to celebrate, but the conductor might have served as a nice substitution. In some instances it does not go beyond the "hey, don't forget it's >ME< at the podium!"


This is such a tired canard. A conductor is not being self-serving by offering a performance that fully engages the spirit and emotion of the work. He is serving the music properly, as he sees it.

By the same token, I am not going to force myself to listen to a boring and pedantic recording and then say, "Hey, I'm respecting Bruckner." That's just absurd silliness.

I happen to think it is the people who get on their high horse about fidelity to the score who are actually being self-serving.


----------



## Azol

You do understand that "true to the score" not equals "boring", do you?
And yes, I am aware Mahler, for example, took great liberties with other composers' scores, he cannot be that immune to the similar treatment, eh?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Azol said:


> You do understand that "true to the score" not equals "boring", do you?
> And yes, I am aware Mahler, for example, took great liberties with other composers' scores, he cannot be that immune to the similar treatment, eh?


I understand that it is all in the eye of the beholder, which is why I vehemently disagree with holier than thou rants.


----------



## Azol

All I am trying to say is if the piece requires conductor to add his own embellishments (speed up here, more accents there etc - to a great extent!) maybe it's just a terribly boring piece, after all? And "holier than though" notion can be viewed as "conductor knows better than composer".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Azol said:


> And "holier than though" notion can be viewed as "conductor knows better than composer".


Brahms to a conductor of his first symphony:

"I never thought of it going that way, but I liked it!"


----------



## Azol

We only could imagine Bruckner's reaction - maybe he would have went as far as immediately put it into the score in his own hand!


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You do know Bruckner was writing in the Late Romantic era, right? And you do know that taking liberties with the score was common practice at the time, right?


Not like what Furtwängler did in terms of tempo. His were really excessive, and that high degree of indiscipline and total predictability is singular to him.

Walter didn't do that. Toscanini didn't. Erich Kleiber didn't. Richard Strauss himself didn't. I.e. conductors with very close ties to Brahms, Mahler, Verdi, Puccini, etc. When they took tempo liberties, it was from a solid foundation of time keeping and subtle musical instinct.

I cannot hear that Furtwängler had any clue about what good time keeping in music is about, what the power of "Tempo I" means if it was _never_ clearly defined in the first place. With Furtwängler, "Tempo I" might have nothing to do with any previous appearances of that same music. That's just bad musicianship.

Merl remarked that Furtwängler was a one-trick pony. I agree.

I'll quote myself. Here's Furtwängler's inevitably boring game plan:

"Brass get louder. 'Go faster!'
Strings. 'Go slower!'
Softer. 'Go slower!'
Woodwinds? 'Fork if I know. Let them noodle around aimlessly for a bit until BRASS GO FASTER.'"

Again I say, Furtwängler's behavior of inevitably rushing when it gets louder and dragging when it gets softer has been one of the most rightly deprecated bad habits of musicians for hundreds of years, and that was true before then, then, and still now, but from my listening of Furtwängler it was his only idea. And as a result his Bruckner 8 is just remarkably dull.

I disagree that Furtwängler had a clue what to do with transitional material. In that Bruckner 8 as well as numerous other examples, they're just aimless. If you're lucky, you get a long accelerando, but nothing more imaginative than that. No real phrasing, with the myriad ebbs and eddies in dynamics and accents, as well as time. That 1944 Bruckner 8 might have the most appalling lack of interest in transitional sections I have ever heard in a Bruckner symphony recorded by a professional orchestra.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I then listened to Karajan, and I felt like only the loud sections delivered emotionally.


Let's be very clear about one thing: it is the _listener_ who beings an emotional response to what they hear. Music is not a medium for telepathy, which does not exist.

If it's Furtwängler that turns your crank and makes you "want to tear your clothes off," bully for you.

For many of us in the this thread, his music making does not have that effect, in fact quite the opposite.

And this doesn't mean we know less than you, or have heard less than you.

So cut it out with the little jabs such as:


Brahmsianhorn said:


> Lol, you guys sound like you're trying to understand a foreign language. You realize this ain't rock music, right? Classical music has actual variation.


...unless you're nothing more than a troll and enjoy the opprobrium you rightly receive for these canards; your ignorant swipes diminish the quality of this discussion.


----------



## Granate

What should I say? I really like Wilhelm Furtwängler in _particular_ performances and I wholy agree with his sense of musicianship, from Beethoven and Brahms to Wagner, including some Mozart Symphony rarities.

I said I loved the 1949 Titania Palast performance and someone understood I hated the 1944 Vienna performance. I confessed my inability to explain why didn't I get the hype that particular Bruckner performances and performers aka Günter Wand have in this forum, and someone thought I had the urge to bring other's opinions down as unfounded but didn't know how.

That someone could use some tea and relax. Sad to be right and not be polite as well.

Or is this rant just an entertainment in a hot Summer afternoon? I mean, I'm bored too!


----------



## Knorf

Granate said:


> What should I say? I really like Wilhelm Furtwängler in _particular_ performances and I wholy agree with his sense of musicianship, from Beethoven and Brahms to Wagner, including some Mozart Symphony rarities.


As they say, _de gustibus non est disputandum_.

I never get the feeling that you (intentionally or otherwise) put down others in voicing your opinions, Granate, which is one of the reasons why I respect what you write even when you and I are clearly looking for or appreciating something different.

I felt compelled to post a negative review of Furtwängler because of continued insinuations from Brahmsianhorn* that not knowing his Bruckner 8 is evidence of a uninformed, invalid, or uneducated opinion.

I actually don't post negative reviews of recordings here very often at all, as a casual overview of my posting history would reveal. But I also started to feel that Brahmsianhorn's attempts to dominate the discussion with a _Furtwängler über alles_ point of view had unbalanced the discussion. And he did basically insist on us giving the 1944 Bruckner 8 a listen, which I did. His urging us to do so is totally fair, but then distorting our honest responses to knock down straw men of his own creation was not.



> That someone could use some tea and relax. Sad to be right and not be polite as well.


Well, you're right about the tea. It's right here. But I admit Brahmsianhorn has a way of triggering me, with his comments such as: 
"Lol, you guys sound like you're trying to understand a foreign language. You realize this ain't rock music, right?"



> Or is this rant just an entertainment in a hot Summer afternoon? I mean, I'm bored too!


Apologies if I let my irritation with Brahmsianhorn's insults and willful distortion of other's posts go too far.

I don't wish for someone who likes Furtwängler to cease liking those recordings because of anything I wrote. But I will resist insinuations from the likes of Brahmsianhorn, or anyone else, that not sharing his devotion to this particular idol means means the rest of us are somehow deficient in our musical understanding, and I will from time to time feel compelled to respond to what I perceive are false claims.

Merl and you have set an example of civility that I will try to model better.

(*I am well aware that BHorn will pop in at any moment, claim victimhood, and state that he never does this, but anyone can plainly see that he does.)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I think Covid has really gotten everyone prickly. I can’t tell who’s insulting who.

Granate if that was aimed at me I apologize for offending. You did say something about people “imagining what they hear” in liking a performance, and I did take exception to that sentiment.

Knorf, I hope we can all lighten up on our differences of opinion. I’ll buy you a virtual beer. Of course if you want anything other than Guinness or Dos Equis I’ll deem you to be of unsophisticated and inferior taste.


----------



## Granate

I am sure that it's far from reality or his intentions, but for an unknown reason I've felt like a salad lately. It's just what comes across as.

:lol:

You know ASDF is my meme bible for many things in life, in fact, TomSka also summed up the entire _Il Trovatore_ in 6 seconds.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think Covid has really gotten everyone prickly. I can't tell who's insulting who.


Ugh. It's true. I think a lot of us are much touchier now than we normally would be.



> Knorf, I hope we can all lighten up on our differences of opinion. I'll buy you a virtual beer.


Accepted with gratitude! 



> Of course if you want anything other than Guinness or Dos Equis I'll deem you to be of unsophisticated and inferior taste.



Them's fightin' woids!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

So, back to the topic. I just sampled Celibidache. Of course he has a small following that believes his Bruckner is beyond compare. 

For me personally, it is like the Celi porridge is too hot, the Schuricht too cold, and the Furtwängler is just right. Whereas Schuricht doesn’t make enough of the special moments, Celi makes too much of them for my taste. Everything slows down to a crawl, with a giant highlighter circling every beautiful passage, and it becomes mind-numbing rather than enlightening.

The earlier DG with Stuttgart is actually more conventional compared to the atrocious EMI Munich. Really only the finale sounds particularly slow. But even here, in the great Adagio it sounds like an attempt to mimic Furtwängler, but self-consciously and mannered as opposed to natural.

A word about “perfectionism.” I try to treat perfect execution as neither from the perspective of the self-conscious performer or the self-aggrandizing critic. I think of it from the audience perspective. They are there to enjoy the music. How much do they really care if everything is absolutely perfect? A famous example is Richter’s 1958 Sofia Pictures at an Exhibition, where he flubs a note badly at the beginning. The rest of the performance is so great, so who cares? The barometer for me is whether the technical glitch is so bad it prevents me from enjoying the performance.

So in the live Celi DG 8th, I noticed what appears to be a major flaw in the first statement of the beautiful passage in the Adagio between the strings and the harp, maybe the most beautiful thing that Bruckner (or anyone) ever wrote. At one point it sounds like the harpist actually plays a wrong arpeggio, so that the entire chord is changed. That’s a pretty major goof, and it comes at a critical moment. And yet even that I might have only deducted a few points for if the rest of the performance were more compelling. But yes, context in perfect execution does matter to me.


----------



## Knorf

One thing we can celebrate, without question: we all freakin' adore Bruckner's Eighth Symphony, and it's far too vast a work for there to be even the remotest possibility that any one conductor/orchestra could have all of the answers.

I'm revisiting Giulini/Wiener Philharmoniker, from 1984. I didn't want to say anything about it until I heard it again, since it's been a long time. That's my bad. No excuses. 

Anyway, we all know it's a killer performance and recording, a monument of recorded music for the ages. This is probably the closest the lot of us argumentative Bruckner fanatics are going to get in terms of finding a consensus. I love it. It has risen in my estimation; I think in the past I was a bit impatient with this recording.

Giulini does really take risks with such slow tempi, at times stretching that elastic to near breaking. But it never does; the inner life in every beat's subdivision has an urgency and integrity that never flags. And Guilini's control of balance, accents on the small and large scale, and dynamic shaping is as persuasive as anyone. 

If I have some quibbles, they're minor. Occasionally some poor intonation in the trumpets and principal oboe bothers me. The listener does need a bit of extra patience, which for some (not me) is a lot to ask from a Bruckner performance. That's about it. It's a great performance! 

I don't think I'd choose this one if I were allowed only one recording of this masterpiece. But I will say certainly for the Bruckner listener wishing for a reverant, cathedral-in-sound kind of interpretation, it's hard to think of a better choice.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Along with Mahler 9, Bruckner 8 is my absolute favorite symphony of all time so I try not to listen it too much and wear it out. But since I’ve been hearing so many tremendous things about the Giulini, I decided I’d give it a spin and sample it. Well, turns out this was impossible because how could I merely “sample” such an inspired performance? I don’t think I've ever heard the first movement done so convincingly by anyone. The sense of narrative and epic drama truly shines through. On to the scherzo now - the slightly slower-than-usual tempo works very well in Giulini’s hands while still sounding like a dance. And that Vienna sound - those horns! Those strings! Looks like I’ve got myself into listening to the whole thing.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

My Holy Trinity of symphonies are the Beethoven 9th, Bruckner 8th, and Mahler 9th. Allegro are you me posting under a different handle? 

Yes, Giulini is among my reference versions along with Furt and Karajan, though Bohm is making his way up the charts.

Still need to sample Kubelik, Barbirolli, Skrowaczewski (finally spelled it without looking), Solti, Tennstedt, Young, and Sinopoli.


----------



## Knorf

Has Blomstedt/Gewandhausorchester Leipzig been mentioned in this thread? That's another I like very much, and feel it isn't mentioned as often as it deserves.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

So, the whole 35-minute Celi Adagio already defies description enough, but the particular passage beginning at 25:00 and lasting a minute and a half is totally incomprehensible. It turns this sublime movement into a comical parody. Is there a Celi fan around who can explain this?


----------



## Azol

I consider myself a Celi fan but with lots of reservations. I perfectly understand all the pros and cons and I'm the fan without the "fanatical" part. 
The whole EMI Munich deal is varied but contains some of the most impressive Bruckner moments ever in recording history. For that I'm ready to forgive some more obvious duds.
With the likes of B9 Scherzo (bleh... just bleh) you can think that what Celi has done there fits "when you catch the tiger by the tail, don't fail" idiom. I wish he would not have followed his own idiom that close all the time, but this is not the case here.
His B8 is around 15 minutes longer than the other (not hurried at all costs) competitors. And about 25+ minutes longer than Furtwängler 1944!!! This is different world with different accounting for time and space. I consider his B8 Adagio a huge success but if it doesn't work for you in the first 5 minutes I don't think you should expose yourself to the whole thing unless feeling masochistic. Maybe try to digest B6 Adagio instead (same boxset) and see what you think about it. It's just marvellous reading and beats everything recorded before it out of the water.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Azol said:


> I consider myself a Celi fan but with lots of reservations. I perfectly understand all the pros and cons and I'm the fan without the "fanatical" part.
> The whole EMI Munich deal is varied but contains some of the most impressive Bruckner moments ever in recording history. For that I'm ready to forgive some more obvious duds.
> With the likes of B9 Scherzo (bleh... just bleh) you can think that what Celi has done there fits "when you catch the tiger by the tail, don't fail" idiom. I wish he would not have followed his own idiom that close all the time, but this is not the case here.
> His B8 is around 15 minutes longer than the other (not hurried at all costs) competitors. And about 25+ minutes longer than Furtwängler 1944!!! This is different world with different accounting for time and space. I consider his B8 Adagio a huge success but if it doesn't work for you in the first 5 minutes I don't think you should expose yourself to the whole thing unless feeling masochistic. Maybe try to digest B6 Adagio instead (same boxset) and see what you think about it. It's just marvellous reading and beats everything recorded before it out of the water.


I have heard a lot about his B6 and will certainly sample it when I get around to that symphony again. Klemperer is my only reference.

Given that you obviously believe respect for the composer and fidelity to the score is of the utmost importance, how do you view Celibidache in this light? To me he seems to "Celi" every work, i.e. turn it into a Zen-like meditation. Is this what the composer intended?


----------



## Knorf

I am mostly a Celibidache detractor; I tend to think he let his outrageous ego and total narcissism get the best of him far more often than not, and for me it is repulsive.

However, I do like his Bruckner 6.

Having said that, this comment:


Azol said:


> It's just marvellous reading and beats everything recorded before it out of the water.


Strikes me as a bit ludicrously hyperbolic. Klemperer's Bruckner 6, for _just one_ example recorded earlier, remains steadfastly and gloriously in the water.


----------



## Azol

Celi won't be my first recommendation to anyone not familiar with Bruckner (well, the B6... kinda maybe...)
I do not understand some things that he did, looks like lack of flexibility when it was required. Call it Zen if you like.
Let's not turn this thread into "Make me love Celi's Bruckner", because there's no reason to. I come to his recordings for some pure special moments like B4 Finale, B6/B8 Adagio etc. I understand what/why he did it that way but it does not mean I agree with him on all the points. I do not listen to his B7 or B9 nowadays because the cons outweigh the pros in my opinion.
By the way, have you seen the faces of some of the musicians when Celi does his rehearsal with BPO? Priceless!


----------



## Knorf

I still own a CD copy of Celibidache's München Bruckner 7 on EMI, because a friend gave it to me, but I never listen to it. It's too maddening. 

In other news, I'm deep into the fourth movement of Blomstedt's Bruckner 8 with Leipzig (2006), and, even with such stiff competition that we've been discussing, it really holds up. Highly recommended! It's a beautifully paced, powerful performance, and the Gewandhausorchester Leipzig sounds fabulous, still glorious and distinctive in its sound.


----------



## ORigel

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have heard a lot about his B6 and will certainly sample it when I get around to that symphony again. Klemperer is my only reference.
> 
> Given that you obviously believe respect for the composer and fidelity to the score is of the utmost importance, how do you view Celibidache in this light? To me he seems to "Celi" every work, i.e. turn it into a Zen-like meditation. Is this what the composer intended?


If it sounds good, it's okay if it is not what the composer intended. And I love Celi's Bruckner 9 and Bruckner 4 finale coda. And to a lesser extent, his other Bruckner interpretations.

One should always listen to more conventional interpretations, though.


----------



## ORigel

Azol said:


> Celi won't be my first recommendation to anyone not familiar with Bruckner (well, the B6... kinda maybe...)
> I do not understand some things that he did, looks like lack of flexibility when it was required. Call it Zen if you like.
> Let's not turn this thread into "Make me love Celi's Bruckner", because there's no reason to. I come to his recordings for some pure special moments like B4 Finale, B6/B8 Adagio etc. I understand what/why he did it that way but it does not mean I agree with him on all the points. I do not listen to his B7 or B9 nowadays because the cons outweigh the pros in my opinion.
> By the way, have you seen the faces of some of the musicians when Celi does his rehearsal with BPO? Priceless!


My first exposure to Bruckner was with Blomstedt Bruckner Symphony 7 followed by Celi 3 [that one is a fairly traditional interpretation] and Celi 9 which I fell in love with.


----------



## ORigel

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So, the whole 35-minute Celi Adagio already defies description enough, but the particular passage beginning at 25:00 and lasting a minute and a half is totally incomprehensible. It turns this sublime movement into a comical parody. Is there a Celi fan around who can explain this?


What? I don't hear any problem with that.


----------



## Knorf

ORigel said:


> What? I don't hear any problem with that.


I get what Brahmsianhorn's complaint is, I think. That passage in Celibidache's hands to my ears turns the music-authentic Bruckner-into something that sounds like what a 21st-century composer, who fancies themselves a neo-Romantic minimalist, would churn out. It comes across as pastiche.

It turns _echt_ Bruckner into something that sounds like _ersatz_ Bruckner.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

It’s a rising figure that takes forever, so instead of building the feeling of motion forward it sounds like someone running in ultra slow motion. It’s excruciating. And then when it mercifully reaches conclusion at 26:33, it is followed by a ridiculously long silence. To me it sounds comical.


----------



## superhorn

I've heard so many recordings of this towering masterpiece and I can't choose a favorite one , but this is what I'm like in general. I just can't choose a favorite recording of any masterpiece , a favorite composer, a favorite work by any composer, or a favorite book, magazine, website, film, food or drink etc . 
And there are so many Bruckner 8ths I haven't heard . I learned it from an old EMI LP with Carl Schurcht and the Venna Phil. in my local library on Long Island about 50 years ago when I was just a teenager. Other LP soft it they had were Eduard van Beinum and the Concertgebouw, Yevgeny Mravisnky and the Leningrad Phil, Karajan and the Berlin Phil. and Furtwangler with the same orchestra , and later Barenboim Chicago . Also, Bohm /Vienna and Bochum/Berlin,Mehta/LA and several others on my own .
On CD , I've heard Hatink/Concertgebouw, Karajan/ VPO . Solti /Chicago , Tennstedt/LPO.,Maazel/BPO , Mehta/Israel, Barbirolli/Halle, Carlos Paita / some London orchestra, Rozdestvensky / Moscow something or other orchestra, Markus Bosch / Aachen Phil, Klemperer/ NPO, Knappertsbisch /Munich Phil, Tintner ? Scottish national, Vladimir Fedoseyev/ Moscow RSO ( both original version, Wand/Hamburg and others . 
Each has its virtues , and you can learn something new and different from each one .


----------



## Knorf

superhorn said:


> Each has its virtues , and you can learn something new and different from each one .


Indeed!

Can't argue with that. :tiphat:


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Any strong opinions on this recording? Half the reason I come to this forum is to hear people's strong opinions on things


----------



## Knorf

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Any strong opinions on this recording? Half the reason I come to this forum is to hear people's strong opinions on things
> 
> View attachment 141935


If you glance upthread, you'll note that many of us, but not quite all, think very highly of this recording. It's one of my favorites.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Sampled it a few weeks ago and found it impressively powerful but a little too cold, particularly in the all important adagio.

Incidentally, just heard the Skrowaczewski and had the exact opposite reaction. Found it kind of tame in the powerful parts, but the adagio is one of the most beautifully eloquent I have heard. The quiet section with the strings where everything seems as if it coming to a halt about 2/3 thru was maybe the most poignant I have heard since Furtwängler ‘44.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Sampled it a few weeks ago and found it impressively powerful but a little too cold, particularly in the all important adagio.
> 
> Incidentally, just heard the Skrowaczewski and had the exact opposite reaction. Found it kind of tame in the powerful parts, but the adagio is one of the most beautifully eloquent I have heard. The quiet section with the strings where everything seems as if it coming to a halt about 2/3 thru was maybe the most poignant I have heard since Furtwängler '44.


May I ask you, just out of sincere interest, what do you mean by cold? Or rather, how does "cold" sound?

While the 8th is one of my favourite Bruckner symphonies thanks to its grandeur and compositional depth, I haven't done more comprehensive listening of different recordings and thus don't dare to comment anything. Karajan has always been my go-to when it comes to Bruckner, particularly the 8th, but thanks to this thread I got a sudden wish to acquaint myself with other interpretations whenever I finish with my current listening projects. Bruckner's symphonies are so huge and complex that they can be interpreted in many different but uniquely wonderful ways. I've been impressed by Jochum's, Skrow's and Barenboim's Bruckner in general but, as I said, I haven't done more focused listening of the 8th specifically.


----------



## Knorf

Listening again to the Karajan/Berliner Bruckner 8, for the umpteenth time, but it never, ever gets old. This is one of those recordings where I almost can't believe how beautiful, nay sublime, what I'm listening to is. For sure this an extraordinary performance and recording, provoking more frisson for me than almost any other. And the interpretation works; reverent and emotionally still, then wonderful fervor, driving agitation when called for in turn with introspection, and plenty of sheer power when needed. The Berliner Philharmoniker in the 1970s Karajan era when unleashed is staggering to hear. But the quiet moments are also incredible, such pellucid radiance! How I wish I could have heard this live!

One thing I hadn't thought of before, but I'm certain of: Karajan's Bruckner has every bit of the quality-the intelligence and lucidity-of drama in harmony and form, that one finds with Boulez. Boulez keeps the reigns slightly tighter, for better or worse (there are always tradeoffs), but the cogent sense of form/balance is comparable between the two, and among the most successful recordings in that sense from anyone, and better than most.

I haven't for the most part thought of Karajan as a conductor of exceptional musical intelligence, but why not? Listening back through the lens of this recording, it's really obvious to me now that he was. Certainly he was _not_ just a sensualist, as some detractors would have you believe.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I can explain my reaction to Boulez in terms of Furtwangler. My criteria for music is basically emotional - does the interpretation deliver the music in a way that maximizes the emotions I connect to the piece? With Furtwangler, I always feel that there is a human interpretation occurring, which makes the emotional connection to the music that much stronger. In the Bruckner 8th 1st movement I feel the angst in a way more powerfully than any other recording. In the adagio I feel the noble sense of tranquility.

Part of being human is being fallible. So the tempo is not perfectly strict - why does it need to be? - but instead it fluctuates the same as does human thought and emotion. 

With Boulez, I feel like the music-making is less "human." I can sense the emphasis on perfection. So it connects to me less.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Knorf said:


> Listening again to the Karajan/Berliner Bruckner 8, for the umpteenth time, but it never, ever gets old. This is one of those recordings where I almost can't believe how beautiful, nay sublime, what I'm listening to is. For sure this an extraordinary performance and recording, provoking more frisson for me than almost any other. And the interpretation works; reverent and emotionally still, then wonderful fervor, driving agitation when called for in turn with introspection, and plenty of sheer power when needed. The Berliner Philharmoniker in the 1970s Karajan era when unleashed is staggering to hear. But the quiet moments are also incredible, such pellucid radiance! How I wish I could have heard this live!
> 
> One thing I hadn't thought of before, but I'm certain of: Karajan's Bruckner has every bit of the quality-the intelligence and lucidity-of drama in harmony and form, that one finds with Boulez. Boulez keeps the reigns slightly tighter, for better or worse (there are always tradeoffs), but the cogent sense of form/balance is comparable between the two, and among the most successful recordings in that sense from anyone, and better than most.
> 
> I haven't for the most part thought of Karajan as a conductor of exceptional musical intelligence, but why not? Listening back through the lens of this recording, it's really obvious to me now that he was. Certainly he was _not_ just a sensualist, as some detractors would have you believe.


I just listened to the 1975 version now. It's a tough call between the 1975 and 1988 for me. Certain bits I prefer one over the other, but I felt the '88 version easier to handle. The '75 was too intense! Haha, I always felt that would be a great thing, and it probably is, but just too much for me.


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> I just listened to the 1975 version now. It's a tough call between the 1975 and 1988 for me. Certain bits I prefer one over the other, but I felt the '88 version easier to handle. The '75 was too intense! Haha, I always felt that would be a great thing, and it probably is, but just too much for me.


I never imagined you could like Bruckner. Such simplicity goes against your ideals of complexity, at least those in your experiments. What exactly do you like about him?


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> I never imagined you could like Bruckner. Such simplicity goes against your ideals of complexity, at least those in your experiments. What exactly do you like about him?


The sound of the brass together with the strings, and occasional timpani in certain motifs.


----------



## DeepR

We need a facepalm smiley...


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> The sound of the brass together with the strings, and occasional timpani in certain motifs.


Agreed, brass and strings is a good sound. But I'd rather listen to pop than Bruckner as a guilty pleasure.


----------



## BachIsBest

1996D said:


> Agreed, brass and strings is a good sound. But I'd rather listen to pop than Bruckner as a guilty pleasure.


I'm pretty sure the harmonic language of Bruckner is a bit above that of the average pop song...


----------



## 1996D

BachIsBest said:


> I'm pretty sure the harmonic language of Bruckner is a bit above that of the average pop song...


Not really, cinematic pop music uses extended harmony, and as far as form I'm always reminded of Metallica when Bruckner is on. He's the most simplistic composer there is.


----------



## flamencosketches

As far as Karajan's Bruckner, I'm mostly familiar with the late, late Vienna recordings plus the EMI recordings, but I must confess I find them somewhat boring. Though I'm a big fan of his conducting, I don't really connect with his Bruckner. That being said, maybe I need to hear the famous '70s DG cycle. What are some highlights? I suppose I'll have to check out that 8th...?


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> Not really, cinematic pop music uses extended harmony, and as far as form I'm always reminded of Metallica when Bruckner is on. He's the most simplistic composer there is.


Not sure what kind of pop you were listening to, but I doubt Bruckner is any less complex  Did you ever look at his scores?


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> Not sure what kind of pop you were listening to, but I doubt Bruckner is any less complex  Did you ever look at his scores?


Yes, his orchestration is large and time consuming, but the form and content is simple. His music is in many ways film music, except it has nothing visual to keep the listener engaged.

Film music from the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter or any other fantasy picture is not any simpler than Bruckner, there are in fact endless similarities.

Not that I listen to such music other than when watching the movie, but the pop music I was referring to is at least short - it serves its purpose of guilty pleasure.


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> Yes, his orchestration is large and time consuming, but the form and content is simple. His music is in many ways film music, except it has nothing visual to keep the listener engaged.
> 
> Film music from the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter or any other fantasy picture is not any simpler than Bruckner, there are in fact endless similarities.
> 
> Not that I listen to such music other than when watching the movie, but the pop music I was referring to is at least short - it serves its purpose of guilty pleasure.


Come on, it's pretty obvious Bruckner is way more complex than LOTR and Potter music. I have the soundtrack to LOTR. It may be easy to follow along the narrative, because he is blending and doing stuff behind the scenes, but the way he's able to make dissonance more agreeable and not make it all muddled takes skill.


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> Come on, it's pretty obvious Bruckner is way more complex than LOTR and Potter music. I have the soundtrack to LOTR. It may be easy to follow along the narrative, because he is blending and doing stuff behind the scenes, but the way he's able to make dissonance more agreeable and not make it all muddled takes skill.


Slightly but not by much, he is the pop music of the past, undoubtedly. I remember at Bruckner's 9th there was this guy sitting in front of me headbanging his way through Bruckner like a metal fan :lol:. Seated at the choir section behind the orchestra and a row behind so could see him clearly going at it like he was at a rock concert... It warranted it too 4/4 repeat fest


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> Slightly but not by much, he is the pop music of the past, undoubtedly. I remember at Bruckner's 9th there was this guy sitting in front of me headbanging his way through Bruckner like a metal fan :lol:. Seated at the choir section behind the orchestra and a row behind so could see him clearly going at it like he was at a rock concert... It warranted it too 4/4 repeat fest


I could see someone do that to the Rite of Spring also , I guess that means it's all pretty simplistic pop music if you could tap to the beat


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> I could see someone do that to the Rite of Spring also , I guess that means it's all pretty simplistic pop music if you could tap to the beat


There is nothing wrong with simplicity, I was just surprised that you enjoyed it given your liking of the unusual and complex.


----------



## Knorf

Anyone who thinks Bruckner's forms (with_ three _main thematic/tonal regions in a sonata-principle movement) or harmony (with abundant third relationships, both chromatic and diatonic) are "simplistic" is clearly not someone who knows anything about form or harmony.

There's nothing in Potter or LOTR film music that remotely has the large-scale form, deep motivic and thematic development, and harmonic structure as Bruckner. They are poor imitations at best, but that's all they are meant to be. Film music is not meant to be self-standing concert music, especially any from the past few decades.

I'll point and laugh at anyone who thinks the "Lord of the Rings Symphony" is worthy of the name.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

1996D said:


> There is nothing wrong with simplicity, I was just surprised that you enjoyed it given your liking of the unusual and complex.


Look, I don't have a musicology degree or the theory knowledge to back this up, but the insinuation that Bruckner is on the same level of complexity as a John Williams or a Hans Zimmer score is just blatantly false. And if you go and ask both those guys they'll be the first ones to tell you too.

I'm not personally bothered that you hold this opinion, it's just a bit bewildering to read cause it's just so far removed from reality, at least from my point of view. Like if a coworker came up to me and told me he thinks penguins can fly.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> There's nothing in Potter or LOTR film music that remotely has the large-scale form, deep motivic and thematic development, and harmonic structure as Bruckner. They are poor imitations at best, *but that's all they are meant to be. Film music is not meant to be self-standing concert music, especially any from the past few decades.*


This exactly. If you make your score too sophisticated, it distracts from the movie instead of enhancing it. 
If your film score is a brilliantly written four part fugue with extensive thematic development, you suck at writing film scores and miss the point entirely.


----------



## Knorf

flamencosketches said:


> As far as Karajan's Bruckner, I'm mostly familiar with the late, late Vienna recordings plus the EMI recordings, but I must confess I find them somewhat boring. Though I'm a big fan of his conducting, I don't really connect with his Bruckner. That being said, maybe I need to hear the famous '70s DG cycle. What are some highlights? I suppose I'll have to check out that 8th...?


For me, the highlights of the 1970s DG Karajan Bruckner cycle are... well, I tried to select just some of them for a list but it ended up being most of them. It's just a great cycle.


----------



## 1996D

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Look, I don't have a musicology degree or the theory knowledge to back this up, but the insinuation that Bruckner is on the same level of complexity as a John Williams or a Hans Zimmer score is just blatantly false. And if you go and ask both those guys they'll be the first ones to tell you too.
> 
> I'm not personally bothered that you hold this opinion, it's just a bit bewildering to read cause it's just so far removed from reality, at least from my point of view. Like if a coworker came up to me and told me he thinks penguins can fly.


What a name you gave yourself, most here won't know what Gucci Mane sounds like or if he's even a person, so the joke goes unnoticed.

John Williams in the 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' soundtrack arguably surpasses Bruckner, and I'm no fan of his. Bruckner is considered by many a dumbed down Wagner, just so it won't surprise you in the future. Leonard Bernstein refused to conduct his works even knowing and studying them thoroughly.

Maybe the layman hears the very large orchestra and it can be impressive, but his music is very superficial, lacking in complexity and intellectual depth in terms of form. Very much like a film score.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

For me personally, I feel like I get too bogged down in name recognition when searching for recordings, and to a fault. I'm sure there's brilliant interpretations by people not named Karajan, Furtwängler, Barenboim, Celibdache, Jochum, Klemperer etc. etc. that go relatively unnoticed.


----------



## 1996D

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> This exactly. If you make your score too sophisticated, it distracts from the movie instead of enhancing it.
> If your film score is a brilliantly written four part fugue with extensive thematic development, you suck at writing film scores and miss the point entirely.


Bruckner's music could easily be a film score, no problem.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

1996D said:


> Bruckner's music could easily be a film score, no problem.


I still politely disagree. I think you may have a point with the scherzo movements which are a lot of repetition and not much in the way of development (which is why I think the scherzi are his weak point personally, even though they're fun and I like them).

It's not the size of the orchestra and the bombast which impresses me, rather the development of themes, the counterpoint, and the colorful harmonies.


----------



## 1996D

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I still politely disagree. I think you may have a point with the scherzo movements which are a lot of repetition and not much in the way of development (which is why I think the scherzi are his weak point personally, even though they're fun and I like them).


It would have to be an epic fantasy film, but why not? No problem at all, his music is not at all too complex - it's perfect for a movie. You could even replace the score from lotr with his music.



GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> It's not the size of the orchestra and the bombast which impresses me, rather the development of themes, the counterpoint, and the colorful harmonies.


All quite simple and used in film music. I think what people like about Bruckner is his strength of personality that shines through the music - because technically there is nothing special about it. There is not one area where he surpasses any other composer.


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> What a name you gave yourself, most here won't know what Gucci Mane sounds like or if he's even a person, so the joke goes unnoticed.
> 
> John Williams in the 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' soundtrack arguably surpasses Bruckner, and I'm no fan of his. Bruckner is considered by many a dumbed down Wagner, just so it won't surprise you in the future. Leonard Bernstein refused to conduct his works even knowing and studying them thoroughly.
> 
> Maybe the layman hears the very large orchestra and it can be impressive, but his music is very superficial, lacking in complexity and intellectual depth in terms of form. Very much like a film score.


Or else the layman hears the repeated motifs like in Rite of Spring also and it can sound simplistic. I admit the sound of the brass and strings in the motifs is what I look forward to with Bruckner and also certain inflections, but there is much more development going on than in Close Encounters even if I don't care that much for it , and whether or not it can serve as film music (which I think it can, check out Excalibur and the Gotterdammerung, or the Shining and Bartoks Music for Celesta..., Chien Andalou and Liebestod).


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

1996D said:


> All quite simple and used in film music. I think what people like about Bruckner is his strength of personality that shines through the music - because technically there is nothing special about it. There is not one area where he surpasses any other composer.


Could you provide some concrete examples or arguments? Even though I still think you're wrong, I'm sure your argument obviously isn't coming out of nowhere, there's some basis for it. I just have a really, really, hard time seeing how a Zimmer film score equates the same harmonic language and development of a Bruckner Symphony.


----------



## Phil loves classical

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Could you provide some concrete examples or arguments? Even though I still think you're wrong, I'm sure your argument obviously *isn't coming out of nowhere*, there's some basis for it. I just have a really, really, hard time seeing how a Zimmer film score equates the same harmonic language and development of a Bruckner Symphony.


You don't know him as I do


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> You don't know him as I do


Oh come on Phil, you should watch Bernstein dissect Bruckner, we hold the same opinion.

Bruckner's form is terrible, and has no ability to develop. He resorts to repetition because of a lack of creativity.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

flamencosketches said:


> As far as Karajan's Bruckner, I'm mostly familiar with the late, late Vienna recordings plus the EMI recordings, but I must confess I find them somewhat boring. Though I'm a big fan of his conducting, I don't really connect with his Bruckner. That being said, maybe I need to hear the famous '70s DG cycle. What are some highlights? I suppose I'll have to check out that 8th...?


8th is great. I'd even say more start with the 7th from that cycle.


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> Oh come on Phil, you should watch Bernstein dissect Bruckner, we hold the same opinion.
> 
> Bruckner's form is terrible, and has no ability to develop. He resorts to repetition because of a lack of creativity.





1996D said:


> What a name you gave yourself, most here won't know what Gucci Mane sounds like or if he's even a person, so the joke goes unnoticed.
> 
> John Williams in the 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' soundtrack arguably surpasses Bruckner, and I'm no fan of his. Bruckner is considered by many a dumbed down Wagner, just so it won't surprise you in the future. *Leonard Bernstein refused to conduct his works even knowing and studying them thoroughly.*
> 
> Maybe the layman hears the very large orchestra and it can be impressive, but his music is very superficial, lacking in complexity and intellectual depth in terms of form. Very much like a film score.


Bernstein conducted the 6th and 9th. On the 8th, he had these comments

https://www.abruckner.com/editorsnote/features/interestingbernste/


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> Bernstein conducted the 6th and 9th. On the 8th, he had these comments
> 
> https://www.abruckner.com/editorsnote/features/interestingbernste/


"Impossibly boring without personality, awkward & dull, masked in solemnity." I disagree on that, I think Bruckner has personality, that's all he has going for him.

He did conduct the 9th and the 6th but he wasn't a fan.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

What I find most remarkable about this, if you think about it, is that he didn't like this piece, never conducted it, yet knew it well enough to pull it out of his head and play through all of it at the piano, not having been prepared to do so at all! He was one of a kind." - from the Bernstein anecdote 

That's actually pretty hilarious.


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> Oh come on Phil, you should watch Bernstein dissect Bruckner, we hold the same opinion.
> 
> Bruckner's form is terrible, and has no ability to develop. He resorts to repetition because of a lack of creativity.





1996D said:


> "Impossibly boring without personality, awkward & dull, masked in solemnity." I disagree on that, I think Bruckner has personality, that's all he has going for him.
> 
> He did conduct the 9th and the 6th but he wasn't a fan.


If he wasn't a fan of the 9th why did he perform it more often, and was even the last concert he gave? He probably didn't know it'd be his last, but still to waste time on it at that age.


----------



## 1996D

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> What I find most remarkable about this, if you think about it, is that he didn't like this piece, never conducted it, yet knew it well enough to pull it out of his head and play through all of it at the piano, not having been prepared to do so at all! He was one of a kind." - from the Bernstein anecdote
> 
> That's actually pretty hilarious.


That tells you that he understood the flaws intimately, which he rightly should've, it was his job. If he ever got a request or critique as to why he didn't conduct Bruckner he would've had an honest answer, to the world and to himself.


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> If he wasn't a fan of the 9th why did he perform it more often, and was even the last concert he gave? He probably didn't know it'd be his last, but still to waste time on it at that age.


I meant he wasn't a fan of Bruckner.
_
"One night after a concert, and after he had signed autographs, I asked him why he didn't do other Bruckner besides the Ninth - particularly the Eighth, which I thought would be magnificent in his hands. He made a face and told me that it was a terrible piece -- too long, too many "false climaxes", etc."_

As far as liking one work, I like the Blue Danube, does that make me a fan of Strauss Jr.?


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> I meant he wasn't a fan of Bruckner.
> _
> "One night after a concert, and after he had signed autographs, I asked him why he didn't do other Bruckner besides the Ninth - particularly the Eighth, which I thought would be magnificent in his hands. He made a face and told me that it was a terrible piece -- too long, too many "false climaxes", etc."_
> 
> As far as liking one work, I like the Blue Danube, does that make me a fan of Strauss Jr.?


Ok. How is the 8th or any Bruckner symphony comparable to film music like LOTR, Hans Zimmer, and Potter? It's not. Bernstein and any other big name conductor wouldn't touch those. It's for a Pops Orchestra, the development is on another (lower) level.


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> Ok. How is the 8th or any Bruckner symphony comparable to film music like LOTR, Hans Zimmer, and Potter? It's not. Bernstein and any other big name conductor wouldn't touch those. It's for a Pops Orchestra, the development is on another (lower) level.


I already agreed with you, but emphasize that not by much. They're right there next to one another, the development in Bruckner is very poor thus why he uses so many repetitions.

The length, large orchestra, dramatic content, and strong personality, make his pieces just above film music, although not the first 3 symphonies.


----------



## GraemeG

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> For me personally, I feel like I get too bogged down in name recognition when searching for recordings, and to a fault. I'm sure there's brilliant interpretations by people not named Karajan, Furtwängler, Barenboim, Celibdache, Jochum, Klemperer etc. etc. that go relatively unnoticed.


In defence of Furty, Celi - these are live performances. Stuff works live that mightn't work so well on a recording.
I've heard some terrific live B8s, including a young German chap named Lother Koenigs conducting the Sydney SO (stepping in for an indisposed Runnicles and doing a hell of a job), and also an awesome, passionate performance here in Sydney, where the 'pick-up' Australian World Orchestra was conducted by Simon Rattle.


----------



## Granate

1996D said:


> I meant he wasn't a fan of Bruckner.
> _
> "One night after a concert, and after he had signed autographs, I asked him why he didn't do other Bruckner besides the Ninth - particularly the Eighth, which I thought would be magnificent in his hands. He made a face and told me that it was a terrible piece -- too long, too many "false climaxes", etc."_


There are two sides to this story. One is the honourable skill of disregarding the work of a composer, followed by a musical demonstration on piano, section by section of the No.8 Adagio, the musical reasons why he wouldn't be comfortable to perform Bruckner symphonies besides the 9th, which he somehow praised that it included innovative sections that were pointing towards something new.

Bernstein also disliked Tchaikovky's Manfred symphony, and had a strong opinion about music made to deptict war and violence, though he would still perform these pieces if he thought they had a good musical value like the Holst Planets had.

But that is the opinion of a Composer. Pierre Boulez would tell you he would find opposite arguments to many of Bernstein theories. Since they almost only talked about the weather.

What it is out of question is that Bruckner is a core composer who sells out concerts and is widely accepted by the CM audience.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Here is a fanciful thought. Both Karajan and Bernstein's last concerts were performing Bruckner. Is there some of Bruckner's spirituality they shared before they passed away?


----------



## Granate

No.


















This was the last public concert Karajan made. Bernstein did his last concert in Boston with no Bruckner program.

*And stop romantizing the Vienna Bruckner 7.*


----------



## annaw

Bruckner's 7th 1989 was his last recording but, as Granate says, not his last public performance. He resigned from BPO a day after and died about three months later. This matter would be even more interesting and would give ground for many more extra-musical implications had he chosen Bruckner's 8th (or rather _The Apocalyptic_) for his last concert or recording.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Granate said:


> *And stop romantizing the Vienna Bruckner 7.*


*Also stop patronizing people who recognize its musical excellence regardless of whether it was his first recording, last recording, or made posthumously from beyond the grave*


----------



## pianozach

I decided that Bruck 8 will be my *Morning Classical* today, only because it came up as the 3rd most recent comment when I logged on this morning (After "Bach Cello Suites" and "Lohengrin" threads).

On YouTube the first three versions have incredibly wildly different timings

1:19:47 Pierre Boulez/Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra/1996 (starts at 0:00:28)
1:23:46 Herber von Karajan/Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra/1988 (starts at 0:00:07)
1:38:38 *Sergiu Celibidache/Munich Philharmonic/1990* (starts at 0:00:03)

Without knowing which is the better version, I'll go with the longest version from Celibidache, as the comments mention the superb sound quality.

I suppose I could slog through 180 posts, but since the Symphony is so long, I'll just go with my gut here.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Also stop patronizing people who recognize its musical excellence regardless of whether it was his first recording, last recording, or *made posthumously from beyond the grave*


Is THAT where all his Live LvB cycles come from *thinking intensifies*?!


----------



## Perfectfullmoon

I think Bruckner surely mastered the art of symphony composing. One can dislike his style but should not deny that his technique of creating large-scale ochestral piece is splendid. In his work, I found the balance of horn, woodwind and string always beautiful and harmonic, and his music language is indeed colorful if not that inspiring.

Back to his 8th, for me the precious experience in the finale is not the climax but those meditative and introspection moments, when the music nearly stopped and the sound of string came in the darkness, it is really beautiful.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ Funny you used the word 'darkness'. With Bruckner (maybe only in 8 and 9?) the silence, either partial or whole, for me also comes across as darkness, just noticed it now. I'm trying to think if it came from some other music before. Maybe Tannhauser?


----------



## flamencosketches

annaw said:


> This matter would be even more interesting and would give ground for many more extra-musical implications had he chosen Bruckner's 8th (or rather _The Apocalyptic_) for his last concert or recording.


I don't know about that. To me, the adagio of Bruckner's 7th is the perfect "death is upon me, what happens next?" kind of music, and that's a feeling that comes across in that Karajan recording. Sorry, Granate, I'm romanticizing it again, but there you have it. Anyway, beyond the adagio, that's not my favorite recording of Bruckner's 7th.


----------



## Knorf

It is fair for to say that I am no layperson when it comes to music. I've had a long professional career in music, I have the expected slate of academic degrees-which are all in composition/theory and include a doctorate-and there is no subject in music theory, counterpoint, musical form, or orchestration that is opaque to me, as I have proved by teaching those subjects successfully at the undergraduate as well as graduate levels for over 25 years.

And I will say simply this: in no way whatsoever is it fair to say that Anton Bruckner was simplistic composer, neither in melodic structure and development, nor in tonal harmony both in the small scale as well as large scale, nor in counterpoint, nor in form. Saying so is simply _utter nonsense_, likely to be the words of a either a liar and a troll, or someone who doesn't actually understand any of those subjects beyond the most superficial levels. (Maybe both.)

The one area where it might be fair to criticize Bruckner for a relative lack of sophistication is in orchestration. There's nothing particularly wrong with Bruckner's orchestration; it is perfectly adequate. But neither is it really anything special or innovative, especially compared with his immediate contemporaries such as Wagner, Brahms, or Tchaikovsky.

It's also fair to say that Bruckner's Scherzos are the simplest in form (compound ternary) and rely the most on repetition, but that is true from the earliest examples forward. So what?

Dismissing Bruckner's music as simplistic is an opinion without substance, and one that can, and should, be swiftly dismissed as the rubbish it is.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Knorf said:


> And I will say simply this: in no way whatsoever is it fair to say that Anton Bruckner was simplistic composer, neither in melodic structure and development, nor in tonal harmony both in the small scale as well as large scale, nor in counterpoint, nor in form. Saying so is simply _utter nonsense_, likely to be the words of a either a liar and a troll, or someone who doesn't actually understand any of those subjects beyond the most superficial levels. (Maybe both.)


.............


----------



## Becca

Knorf said:


> ... likely to be the words of a either a liar and a troll, or someone who doesn't actually understand any of those subjects beyond the most superficial levels. (Maybe both.)


...or someone who is now persona non grata at TC


----------



## Knorf

Becca said:


> ...or someone who is now persona non grata at TC


Again? Already? Holy flyrking schnitt.

ETA: I guess I'm not surprised.


----------



## ORigel

Knorf said:


> It is fair for to say that I am no layperson when it comes to music. I've had a long professional career in music, I have the expected slate of academic degrees-which are all in composition/theory and include a doctorate-and there is no subject in music theory, counterpoint, musical form, or orchestration that is opaque to me, as I have proved by teaching those subjects successfully at the undergraduate as well as graduate levels for over 25 years.
> 
> And I will say simply this: in no way whatsoever is it fair to say that Anton Bruckner was simplistic composer, neither in melodic structure and development, nor in tonal harmony both in the small scale as well as large scale, nor in counterpoint, nor in form. Saying so is simply _utter nonsense_, likely to be the words of a either a liar and a troll, or someone who doesn't actually understand any of those subjects beyond the most superficial levels. (Maybe both.)
> 
> The one area where it might be fair to criticize Bruckner for a relative lack of sophistication is in orchestration. There's nothing particularly wrong with Bruckner's orchestration; it is perfectly adequate. But neither is it really anything special or innovative, especially compared with his immediate contemporaries such as Wagner, Brahms, or Tchaikovsky.
> 
> It's also fair to say that Bruckner's Scherzos are the simplest in form (compound ternary) and rely the most on repetition, but that is true from the earliest examples forward. So what?
> 
> Dismissing Bruckner's music as simplistic is an opinion without substance, and one that can, and should, be swiftly dismissed as the rubbish it is.


Bruckner's orchestration is majestic.


----------



## Knorf

ORigel said:


> Bruckner's orchestration is majestic.


That's for sure!


----------



## pianozach

ORigel said:


> Bruckner's orchestration is majestic.


I listened to that Cellibidache live recording.

Y'know, I enjoyed it, and it may very well be because of the orchestration.

Because I couldn't hum a theme from it to save my life. It may as well have been serviceable film music.


----------



## Elvis

Knorf said:


> It is fair for to say that I am no layperson when it comes to music. I've had a long professional career in music, I have the expected slate of academic degrees-which are all in composition/theory and include a doctorate-and there is no subject in music theory, counterpoint, musical form, or orchestration that is opaque to me, as I have proved by teaching those subjects successfully at the undergraduate as well as graduate levels for over 25 years.
> 
> And I will say simply this: in no way whatsoever is it fair to say that Anton Bruckner was simplistic composer, neither in melodic structure and development, nor in tonal harmony both in the small scale as well as large scale, nor in counterpoint, nor in form. Saying so is simply _utter nonsense_, likely to be the words of a either a liar and a troll, or someone who doesn't actually understand any of those subjects beyond the most superficial levels. (Maybe both.)
> 
> The one area where it might be fair to criticize Bruckner for a relative lack of sophistication is in orchestration. There's nothing particularly wrong with Bruckner's orchestration; it is perfectly adequate. But neither is it really anything special or innovative, especially compared with his immediate contemporaries such as Wagner, Brahms, or Tchaikovsky.
> 
> It's also fair to say that Bruckner's Scherzos are the simplest in form (compound ternary) and rely the most on repetition, but that is true from the earliest examples forward. So what?
> 
> Dismissing Bruckner's music as simplistic is an opinion without substance, and one that can, and should, be swiftly dismissed as the rubbish it is.


Well said, sir, well said - fully worthy of receiving the "Elvis Thumbs Up" -









The "Elvis Thumbs Up" is for those posts which deserve receiving a significant merit of achievement -

It's like being awarded a "Penguin Rosette" or winning a "Grammy" - except with far more prestige.

Knorf, your post is also the first official entrant in the end of year 2020 "Elvis Awards" -

in the Category: Classical Music - Commentary - Congratulations!

It's like winning an "Oscar" from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences -

or being awarded a "Nobel Prize" by whoever it is that awards "Nobel Prizes" -

except, of course, with far more prestige.









Nominations will be accepted from now until December 31st, 2020.

My posts have been ruled "ineligible" under the "Because I would always win" stipulation.


----------



## Elvis

It's time for another episode of -

"David Hurwitz's YouTube Channel - I Watch So That You Won't Have To"

It's ten minutes and six seconds long which is roughly ten minutes longer than it needs to be.

"Why Is There So Much Bad Bruckner?"

"The chance of getting some fairly stupid people playing Bruckner are much higher"

"The other reason why stupid people like Brucker, conductors, especially lazy conductors.. is that his music is very rhythmically simple and you don't have to worry about transitions structurally- in that sense he's "easy", "easy" in a technical point of view - a time beating view - he's not easy to play "well" by any means for the orchestra for the conductor..."

"It's a good reason to have a critic on hand, have careful listeners who know the music, who care about the music and who are often a better judge of the music than those who are actually playing it"


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ Thanks, I already told myself I'm not sitting through his stuff again. Come to think of it, I think he may be right only in that Bruckner's style of music is more self-explanatory, as compared to Brahms' symphonies. i suspect if you came up with MIDi's of both composers with exactly how the scores were written, you'd get more from the Bruckner than Brahms in realizing the potential.

Here is the Maximianno Cobra (the DAW king of slow and minimal interpretation) edition of Brahms and Bruckner for comparison.


----------



## Knorf

Hurwitz is, as usual, full of excrement.

It is self-evident that far more idiots try to conduct Brahms or Beethoven, first of all.

But Hurwitz is the greater idiot in thinking that Bruckner is easy to conduct. That is flatly untrue. But I suppose it might appear deceptively straightforward to an anti-music simpleton like Hurwitz, whose understanding only ever lightly brushes the surface of music of any kind. Straightforward it is not. But so what if it were?

Where exactly is he supposedly hearing all this "bad Bruckner"? As far as I can tell from my years as a professional musician, it is the idiots we see ignoring Bruckner and going straight for Brahms that are common. There_ is_ a lot of bad Brahms.

ETA: I gratefully accept the nominations for the "Elvis Thumbs Up" and "Elvis Award."

You're all far too kind!


----------



## Manxfeeder

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is the Maximianno Cobra (the DAW king of slow and minimal interpretation) edition of Brahms and Bruckner for comparison.


Cobra and Bruckner? Who sits through these things?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Manxfeeder said:


> Cobra and Bruckner? Who sits through these things?


ME! Check out the passage from 27:00 to 28:00 on the Bruckner. It is a WOW moment (not in a good way).


----------



## Manxfeeder

Phil loves classical said:


> ME! Check out the passage from 27:00 to 28:00 on the Bruckner. It is a WOW moment (not in a good way).


Max turns Wow into What the Fruit? As they say, "I know Celi. You're no Celi."

I'm glad you're the one who listened to it. Someone has to take it for the team.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Manxfeeder said:


> Max turns Wow into What the Fruit? As they say, "I know Celi. You're no Celi."
> 
> I'm glad you're the one who listened to it. Someone has to take it for the team.


Ok, you got me. I'll admit I only sampled some parts to test out my thesis with Brahms and Bruckner. I think it barely holds in Maxim's hands.


----------



## Azol

Phil loves classical said:


> Ok, you got me. I'll admit I only sampled some parts to test out my thesis with Brahms and Bruckner. I think it barely holds in Maxim's hands.


To be exact - not in his hands but in his computer because these abysmal "performances" are made from symphony orchestra samples library on a PC. Add a score and it will play the damn thing for you. "So how long you'd like this baby to last for?" - "2 hours" - "Deal, just click the Export to mp3 button".


----------



## Azol

Elvis said:


> It's time for another episode of -
> 
> "David Hurwitz's YouTube Channel - I Watch So That You Won't Have To"
> 
> It's ten minutes and six seconds long which is roughly ten minutes longer than it needs to be.
> 
> "Why Is There So Much Bad Bruckner?"
> 
> Because he's "so simple to conduct" that "any idiot can and does so". - Exact quotes - exact.


Just for the sake of truth what he basically says (around 1:20) is that *some stupid conductors* try to play Bruckner because *technically it's not hard to slog away at 4/4 or 3/4* and there you have another bad Bruckner performance. Not at any point does he say that Bruckner is simple to conduct and that any idiot can do so.

In fact, he did great videos on B5-B7 recordings and I mostly agreed with all the top contenders he highlighted (well, except for Jochum but you can't please everyone).


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ Thanks, I already told myself I'm not sitting through his stuff again. Come to think of it, I think he may be right only in that Bruckner's style of music is more self-explanatory, as compared to Brahms' symphonies. i suspect if you came up with MIDi's of both composers with exactly how the scores were written, you'd get more from the Bruckner than Brahms in realizing the potential.
> 
> Here is the Maximianno Cobra (the DAW king of slow and minimal interpretation) edition of Brahms and Bruckner for comparison.


:lol: I never thought I'd see this guy's name in any other context besides his notoriously snailike Beethoven 9th. How does this fool have a day job? I almost admire his ballsiness.


----------



## flamencosketches

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ Thanks, I already told myself I'm not sitting through his stuff again. Come to think of it, I think he may be right only in that Bruckner's style of music is more self-explanatory, as compared to Brahms' symphonies. i suspect if you came up with MIDi's of both composers with exactly how the scores were written, you'd get more from the Bruckner than Brahms in realizing the potential.
> 
> Here is the Maximianno Cobra (the DAW king of slow and minimal interpretation) edition of Brahms and Bruckner for comparison.


Man's a genius...  He's basically taken Celibidache's approach to Bruckner and doubled down on it. Too bad the whole music world is so far behind him that he has to rely on artificial instruments...


----------



## Phil loves classical

Azol said:


> To be exact - not in his hands but in his computer because these abysmal "performances" are made from symphony orchestra samples library on a PC. Add a score and it will play the damn thing for you. "So how long you'd like this baby to last for?" - "2 hours" - "Deal, just click the Export to mp3 button".


The question is: are they equally abysmal? I don't think I heard the changes in dynamics. I'm tempted to say, yes equally, but I want to give Bruckner the benefit of the doubt to prove Hurwitz is somewhat correct.


----------



## Elvis

Azol said:


> Just for the sake of truth what he basically says (around 1:20) is that *some stupid conductors* try to play Bruckner because *technically it's not hard to slog away at 4/4 or 3/4* and there you have another bad Bruckner performance. Not at any point does he say that Bruckner is simple to conduct and that any idiot can do so.
> 
> In fact, he did great videos on B5-B7 recordings and I mostly agreed with all the top contenders he highlighted (well, except for Jochum but you can't please everyone).


You are right - I was actually paraphrasing what I thought I heard the first time and after reading your post I listened to it a second time and decided to use the actual quotes as they were spoken rather than as how I thought I heard them.

_Why Is There So Much Bad Bruckner?"

"The chance of getting *some fairly stupid people* playing Bruckner are much higher"

"The other reason why *stupid people* like Brucker, conductors, *especially lazy conductors*.. is that his music is very rhythmically simple and you don't have to worry about transitions structurally- in that sense he's "easy", "easy" in a technical point of view - a time beating view - he's not easy to play "well" by any means for the orchestra for the conductor..."

"It's a good reason to have a critic on hand, have careful listeners who know the music, who care about the music and who are often a better judge of the music than those who are actually playing it"._

My paraphrase wasn't entirely off the mark and actually is a reasonable summary but I will be more careful in the future when utilizing quotes.

Do I personally believe that _"It's a good reason to have a critic on hand, have careful listeners who know the music, who care about the music and who are often a better judge of the music than those who are actually playing it"._?

No...If critics knew more about conducting than conductors did about conducting they would actually be conductors and not critics. Those who can, do and those who can't, criticize.

And just who exactly are these "stupid" and "lazy" conductors that are somehow asked to lead name orchestras and have been given lucrative recording contracts with major labels and how can I become one?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Tried Simone Young earlier this week. Not very memorable to my ear unless you really want the original version, which is even less of a reason to hear it IMO.

Kubelik left two very good live versions. They almost sounded like carbon copies of Furtwangler's interpretation. I guess we must add another to the list of overrated conductors who have no idea what they're doing. 

The big surprise for me was that I listened to the Szell all the way through and liked it! What's happening to this Furt fan in his advancing age? I'm supposed to call it soulless and pedantic, but instead I found it to be beautiful, eloquent, and exciting.

Even better was live Tennstedt with the BPO on Testament (not the comparatively tame studio LPO). Maybe not Furt/Karajan/Giulini level, but definitely worth a listen:


----------



## BachIsBest

flamencosketches said:


> Man's a genius...  He's basically taken Celibidache's approach to Bruckner and doubled down on it. Too bad the whole music world is so far behind him that he has to rely on artificial instruments...


His genius is on full display in his Beethoven's 5th "recording". Not only does he ascribe to the double beat theory he feels Beethoven's tempo markings are too fast - in double beat; the whole thing is over seventy-seven minutes! Maybe Beethoven also gets lots of terrible recordings!


----------



## Manxfeeder

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The big surprise for me was that I listened to the Szell all the way through and liked it! What's happening to this Furt fan in his advancing age? I'm supposed to call it soulless and pedantic, but instead I found it to be beautiful, eloquent, and exciting.


Say _what_? I'm a Szell fanboy, but his Bruckner has always left me cold. Maybe since I've put another candle on my birthday cake, I might find myself like you and will hear something different.


----------



## Alfacharger

I bought this recording while I was away on vacation for a couple of bucks. It totally blew me away and I was not a big fan of Bruckner at the time. Herbert Kegel and the Leipzig Radio Symphony Orchestra. Be for warned, there is some scrappy playing.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The big surprise for me was that I listened to the Szell all the way through and liked it! What's happening to this Furt fan in his advancing age? I'm supposed to call it soulless and pedantic, but instead I found it to be beautiful, eloquent, and exciting.


Huh! Maybe I need to revisit this myself.



> Even better was live Tennstedt with the BPO on Testament (not the comparatively tame studio LPO). Maybe not Furt/Karajan/Giulini level, but definitely worth a listen...


I actually still quite like the Tennstedt/LPO. Yes, I suppose "comparatively tame" is fair compared to the likes of Karajan and Giulini, but it's got some real poetry to it, and long-limbed lyric drama that holds my interest very well.


----------



## DavidA

I listened again to the later Karajan BPO recording and it really is superb. I'd always thought the VPO was the one to have but now I'm not so sure.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Finally received Haitink/VPO yesterday, as it is not available streaming to my knowledge, and it really is one of the very best versions, in sumptuous sound. Haitink’s pacing is impeccable, and there is plenty of power and beauty in abundance. Definitely gives Karajan and Giulini a run for their money among modern versions.

I got the Philips Duo coupled with his equally fantastic 3rd. Surely this must be one of the best Bruckner bargains of all time! Shamefully it appears to be withdrawn, but Arkivmusic.com offers it as a reissue through their website.

I wasn’t as impressed with Haitink’s 1981 RCO on Philips. A little too tame. The later RCO issued on their own label is better, though I agree with most critics that the VPO is the one to have.


----------



## flamencosketches

^The adage that one is either a great Mahler conductor or a great Bruckner conductor, and not both, has kept me from exploring Haitink's Bruckner recordings, but I have been curious about his Vienna recordings on Philips. Have you heard his 4th or 5th?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^
That’s coming up soon once I finish surveying the 8th, which is almost done as I only have a couple of Kna’s left to go.


----------



## Heck148

flamencosketches said:


> ^The adage that one is either a great Mahler conductor or a great Bruckner conductor, and not both......


???? Really?? Never heard that one....pretty much invalid, imo....Walter, Solti, Giulini, Boulez refute it decisively....


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ^
> That's coming up soon once I finish surveying the 8th, which is almost done as I only have a couple of Kna's left to go.


If you haven't heard it, I think you might love the live Barbirolli 8th too. I've only heard parts of it myself but it sounded like quite a special event.


----------



## flamencosketches

Heck148 said:


> ???? Really?? Never heard that one....pretty much invalid, imo....Walter, Solti, Giulini, Boulez refute it decisively....


Well, now you have.  For what it's worth, I am of the opinion that each of the conductors you named is significantly better or more noteworthy in one composer or the other: Walter, Solti and especially Boulez (who hardly recorded any Bruckner) all shine significantly more in Mahler; Giulini much better in Bruckner (though he did make a damn good Mahler 9th).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I’d say the adage is pretty starkly accurate.

On the Bruckner side of the ledger, you have:

Furtwängler
Karajan
Böhm
Haitink
Giulini
Jochum
Celibidache 
Van Beinum

On the Mahler side, you have:

Barbirolli 
Horenstein
Klemperer
Walter
Bernstein
Kubelik
Mitropoulos
Solti 

I’d say the closest to doing both equally well would be Klemperer, but even there I’d say his Mahler contribution is more significant.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^ 
Interesting to note as well, 5 of the 8 conductors I listed under Mahler were Jewish. For Bruckner, none of the 8 were Jewish.


----------



## Heck148

flamencosketches said:


> For what it's worth, I am of the opinion that each of the conductors you named is significantly better or more noteworthy in one composer or the other: Walter, Solti and especially Boulez (who hardly recorded any Bruckner) all shine significantly more in Mahler; Giulini much better in Bruckner (though he did make a damn good Mahler 9th).


I think Walter and Solti excelled in both Bruckner and Mahler. Giulini produced a great Mahler 9 (top of the heap) and a superb Mahler 1 with CSO for EMI....Boulez is very good with Mahler, haven't heard too much of his Bruckner


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Walter did a great Bruckner 9, but his output was small, especially compared to his Mahler.

No one objectively considers Solti a great Brucknerian.

Giulini’s Mahler 9 has its admirers, including myself, but there is tons of competition. Karajan would actually have a better argument for his justly famous 9th. But neither recording by itself establishes either as a Mahler specialist, particularly in comparison with their Bruckner output.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Walter did a great Bruckner 9, but his output was small, especially compared to his Mahler.


Quality over quantity



> No one objectively considers Solti a great Brucknerian.


Bullcrap....he was the best, his complete set is outstanding...Solti never lets it bog down, get too logy, or disjointed...thrilling performances....I heard Solti/CSO perform Bruckner 7 at Carnegie Hall...greatest Bruckner performance I've ever heard.


> Giulini's Mahler 9 has its admirers, including myself,....


Hey, great is great....his M1 is really fine also.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Hey, great is great....his M1 is really fine also.


It's not on the same level as his Bruckner 8th or 9th. Most would take more extrovert readings such as Barbirolli, Karajan, Walter, Klemperer, and Kondrashin over Giulini's M9. I think Giulini's meditative style suits Bruckner better.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's not on the same level as his Bruckner 8th or 9th.


Agreed, it's above them...tremendous achievement...Giulini gets the escalating climaxes of the 1st mvt better than anyone...Walter and Boulez are very good also.



> Most would take more extrovert readings such as....


I really couldn't care less what you think "most" listeners might choose...Giulini's M9 is really top level...


----------



## DavidA

Heck148 said:


> Agreed, it's above them...tremendous achievement...Giulini gets the escalating climaxes of the 1st mvt better than anyone...Walter and Boulez are very good also.
> 
> I really couldn't care less what you think "most" listeners might choose...*Giulini's M9 is really top level.*..


I find it disappointing.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I find it disappointing.


It's not terrible. I have it on my shelf. But the interpretation is a bit on the bland side compared to the very best. Mahler requires a strong personality on the podium. Bruckner can be played more straight-laced, e.g. Gunter Wand.



Allegro Con Brio said:


> If you haven't heard it, I think you might love the live Barbirolli 8th too. I've only heard parts of it myself but it sounded like quite a special event.


The outer movements are very powerful. But I found the heart of the piece, the Adagio, kind of sloppy. And I don't mean in terms of execution. It just didn't sound as committed as I would like. Phrases seemed to be haphazard. Maybe due to his ill health?

I have an earlier Barbirolli on order as I could not find it anywhere online.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

You could say this about a lot of Bruckner's scherzi and also specific moments within larger movements, but the scherzo of the 8th always struck me as particularly rustic and _pesante_. It transports me right to the Austrian alps, especially that gorgeous middle section.

In my opinion, a false dichotomy has been consistently drawn by music critics, namely the cliche that Mahler is "human, passionate" whereas Bruckner is "spiritual, cosmic". These umbrella terms strip both of these composers' music of their nuances. There's so much overlap between the two in both their music. I find the Ländler in Bruckner's music to be one of the many examples of 'human' qualities in his music. After all Bruckner was a human expressing his happiness, inner turmoil, and reverence to higher power the same way Mahler was, just in different ways, that's all.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^That scherzo was one of the first pieces of classical music that became an “earworm” for me. I think I listened to it every day for two weeks and just tapped my foot and jived along with it. It’s sheer delight!


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^That scherzo was one of the first pieces of classical music that became an "earworm" for me. I think I listened to it every day for two weeks and just tapped my foot and jived along with it. It's sheer delight!


It's ridiculous how catchy it is. And that harp!  
Adding that harp to the 2nd and 3rd movements was just such a nice touch on Bruckner's part.


----------



## Heck148

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^That scherzo was one of the first pieces of classical music that became an "earworm" for me. I think I listened to it every day for two weeks and just tapped my foot and jived along with it. It's sheer delight!


I love the Bruckner scherzi!! Delightful, great tunes...the form is simple, very straight ahead, very easy to apprehend....Bruckner was a real master of this form.


----------



## Heck148

DavidA said:


> I find it disappointing.


The combination of Gulini and Chicago was really quite special...Giulini has been described as more "introspective ", "poetic", etc, as compared with some other conductors who are hard drivers....Giulini's approach, combined with the natural aggressiveness, extroverted, assertive quality of the CSO made for a most successful union...each element of the participants positively affecting the other...the glorious Mahler 9 is perhaps the most prominent example of this combination.


----------



## Knorf

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> You could say this about a lot of Bruckner's scherzi and also specific moments within larger movements, but the scherzo of the 8th always struck me as particularly rustic and _pesante_. It transports me right to the Austrian alps, especially that gorgeous middle section.
> 
> In my opinion, a false dichotomy has been consistently drawn by music critics, namely the cliche that Mahler is "human, passionate" whereas Bruckner is "spiritual, cosmic". These umbrella terms strip both of these composers' music of their nuances. There's so much overlap between the two in both their music. I find the Ländler in Bruckner's music to be one of the many examples of 'human' qualities in his music. After all Bruckner was a human expressing his happiness, inner turmoil, and reverence to higher power the same way Mahler was, just in different ways, that's all.


Very much agreed.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Knorf said:


> Very much agreed.


People definitely like to push false narratives when they're not there. They're helpful in giving some context to the composer's life as an introductory point, but then become way too generalizing. "Mahler was looking for God Bruckner already found God blah blah blah" is just one of them. Like every Shostakovich piece is some kind of subliminal act of rebellion against the USSR. Or there's something to be found in every Tchaikovsky about the inner conflict of being gay. It's like you take one thing and just run with it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The 1963 Barbirolli came in the mail, and even though the recording is more fuzzy than the later one it is indeed a sharper performance. Barbirolli always had a way of making sure the humanity shined though.

I found the Kna's to be all over the map. The 1951 BPO is not well-recorded but had its moments. The 1961 VPO is more inspired and in my estimation the Kna to get. The 1963 Munich version released on Decca is sonically better but more "lumbery" IMO. Finally there was a dimly recorded Bavarian RSO from 1955 that didn't really add much.

I also listened to the second 1949 Furtwangler, the one recorded on March 15 and released on Testament. It is a great performance, and I'm not sure it isn't preferable to the March 14 Audite recording as the sound is more clear (and not marred by terribly intrusive coughing!). Were this the only Furtwangler, it would probably be my desert island version.

So to conclude the survey, I deemed these 10 recordings to be "essential" and several more worth a listen:

*
Wilhelm Furtwängler/Vienna PO (1944)
(Music & Arts, Musical Concepts, DG, Archipel, Andante, Andromeda)
*
The 1944 VPO is one of Furtwängler's greatest recordings, and for that matter of Bruckner, with unfailingly intense and inspired interpretation and execution. Seemingly every emotion of the work, from the tragically angst-ridden to the achingly hushed and poignant, is unearthed here. The sound is remarkably clear for the time period.

*Herbert von Karajan/Berlin PO (1975) (DG)*

Karajan too offers one of his greatest interpretations. The 1975 BPO is uniquely powerful, mystical, and unerring in its musical pacing, particularly in the dramatic finale.

*Herbert von Karajan/Vienna PO (1988) (DG)*

Karajan's later 1988 VPO account offers much the same qualities as his earlier versions but in more full, detailed sound quality. This is a particularly expansive, well-played account, if only missing a touch of the earlier version's magnetic concentration.

*Carlo Maria Giulini/Vienna PO (1984) (DG)*

Giulini likewise belongs on the pantheon of great VPO accounts, presenting a measured, captivating vision from beginning to end that brings out the work's epic grandeur, particularly in the rapt account of the central Adagio.

*Bernard Haitink/Vienna PO (1995) (Philips)*

Haitink's VPO recording is ideal for those valuing impeccable interpretation and beautiful, powerful sound without any imposition of the conductor's will.

*Karl Böhm/Vienna PO (1976) (DG)*

Böhm is grand, opulent, unforced, and with luxurious playing, presenting the work naturally in all its Romantic glory.

*Jascha Horenstein/London SO (1970) (Music & Arts, BBC)*

Horenstein barely registers as a live recording in a uniquely powerful, measured, thoughtful version in excellent sound.

*Günter Wand/Berlin PO (2001) (RCA)*

Eloquence rather than overwhelming power is the touchstone of Wand's valedictory live performance shortly before his death at age 90. The reading is more spaciously inspired than his earlier versions, enhanced by the beautiful sounding BPO.

*Eduard van Beinum/Concertgebouw Orch. (1955) (Decca, Beulah)*

Van Beinum presents an urgently dramatic view at a flowing pace, the Concertgebouw captured in their virtuosic splendor in full, present sound for the time period.

*Pierre Boulez/Vienna PO (1996) (DG)*

Boulez offers incredibly detailed sound in a very impressive, incisive reading, with perfect pacing and execution.

*Further listening:*

Wilhelm Furtwängler/Berlin PO (3/15/1949) (Audite, Music & Arts)
Wilhelm Furtwängler/Berlin PO (3/14/1949) (Testament)
Sir John Barbirolli/Hallé Orchestra, BBC NSO (1963) (Barbirolli Society)
Carlo Maria Giulini/Philharmonia Orch. (1983) (BBC)
Hans Knappertsbusch/Vienna PO (1961) (IDIS, Music & Arts, Altus, Archipel, Melodram)
Sir John Barbirolli/Hallé Orchestra (1970) (BBC, Hunt)
Rafael Kubelik/Bavarian RSO (1963) (Orfeo)
Rafael Kubelik/Bavarian RSO (1977) (BR-Klassik)
Herbert von Karajan/Vienna PO (1957) (Orfeo)
Stanislaw Skrowaczewski/Saarbrücken RSO (1993) (Arte Nova, Oehms)
Klaus Tennstedt/Berlin PO (1981) (Testament)
Hans Knappertsbusch/Berlin PO (1951) (Audite, Tahra, Music & Arts, Andromeda, Profil)
Günter Wand/NDR SO (1987) (RCA, Profil)
Eugen Jochum/Staatskapelle Dresden (1976) (EMI)
Carlo Maria Giulini/Berlin PO (1984) (Testament)
Carlos Païta/Philharmonic SO (1982) (Lodia)
Eugen Jochum/Hamburg St. PO (1949) (DG)
George Szell/Cleveland Orch. (1969) (Sony)
Sergiu Celibidache/Stuttgart RSO (1976) (DG)
Klaus Tennstedt/London PO (1982) (EMI)
Lorin Maazel/Berlin PO (1989) (EMI)
Sergiu Celibidache/Munich Phil. (1993) (Warner/EMI)
Herbert von Karajan/Berlin PO (1957) (EMI)
Hans Knappertsbusch/Munich Phil. (1963) (Decca, MCA, Living Stage, Memories)
Carl Schuricht/Vienna PO (1963) (EMI)
Eugen Jochum/Berlin PO (1964) (DG)
Giuseppe Sinopoli/Staatskapelle Dresden (1994) (DG)


----------



## Knorf

Excellent overview, Brahmsianhorn. 

My top 10 would be slightly different, but of course it would! I certainly share your enthusiasm for most on yours.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Excellent overview, Brahmsianhorn.
> 
> My top 10 would be slightly different, but of course it would! I certainly share your enthusiasm for most on yours.


Well, if nothing else it sounds as if like me you are a fan of the 70s BPO Karajan and share my belief that it is unjustly overshadowed by the more famous VPO. I wonder if it partly suffers merely from being part of a cycle as opposed to a one-off. I feel the same way about the 7th from that cycle.


----------



## Knorf

^ Agreed for both. The Berliner recordings are just a bit more incisive, but still rich and glowing.


----------



## Bradius

My fave Bruckner & one of my all time fave symphony’s. Von Karajan. Just so powerful.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well, if nothing else it sounds as if like me you are a fan of the 70s BPO Karajan and share my belief that it is unjustly overshadowed by the more famous VPO. I wonder if it partly suffers merely from being part of a cycle as opposed to a one-off. I feel the same way about the 7th from that cycle.


I think as well the VP0 was seen as a valedictory recording. It is certainly a superb performance and preference is a matter of taste and sound of the orchestra. The VPO seventh is the same category. There are marked differences in the performances which gives the lie to those who say HvK conducted everything the same. The earlier 1958 recording of the eighth by Karajan is also not to be missed, the slowest and gauntest of the three. Some people still swear by it!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> The earlier 1958 recording of the eighth by Karajan is also not to be missed, the slowest and gauntest of the three. Some people still swear by it!


I have listened to the 1957 EMI twice and found it to be contained, controlled, and straight-laced. Not on the same level as Karajan's later recordings IMO. The live 1957 Salzburg is better.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have listened to the 1957 EMI twice and found it to be contained, controlled, and straight-laced. Not on the same level as Karajan's later recordings IMO. The live 1957 Salzburg is better.


Agreed on all points. I'm with you and Knorf in preferring the 70s BPO recording. Hey, I've just agreed with you, BHS! I'm going for a lie-down. This is all too much. Has anyone mentioned Jansons' killer 8th with the BRSO, from a few years back, yet? That's a terrific Bruckner performance.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I found the Kna's to be all over the map. The 1951 BPO is not well-recorded but had its moments. The 1961 VPO is more inspired and in my estimation the Kna to get. The 1963 Munich version released on Decca is sonically better but more "lumbery" IMO.


Well, rats. I have the 1963 version. And I only missed the right one by two years.


----------



## superhorn

I haven't heard nearly as many Bruckner recordings as Hurwitz, but then I'm not professional reviewer of classical recordings . But I've heard recordings of Bruckner symphonies by the younger generation of conductors by Yannick-Nezet-Seguin, Andris Nelsons , and the not nearly as well known Markus Bosch , Fabio Luisi, as well as fairly recent ones by other conductors such as Simone Young, Franz Welser-Most and others, and even HIP Bruckner by Norrington and Herreweghe. 
I wouldn't describe any of them as "bad ". Orchestras today play so well it's very difficult to find any recording that's actually poorly played ,although even the most stellar ones can have an occasional off night . 
Interpretation is another thing, but I still haven't heard any "bad" recordings of Bruckner recently .


----------



## Knorf

It's one of the "real" dirty little secrets of classical music that basically almost no recordings released are ever actually bad, not in any substantive sense that would be fair to music or to the professionalism of the performers. Critics and cognoscenti squabble over the finest margins. 

But personally I do hold it against critics, who would call themselves professional, when they harshly lambaste a recording for not quite matching their own preferred example, usually by the thinnest of perceptible margins that are totally subjective to begin with. And the fact is, most critics wouldn't be able to correctly identify a recording from a blind listen in the first place. So much is smoke and mirrors.


----------



## DavidA

Knorf said:


> *It's one of the "real" dirty little secrets of classical music that basically almost no recordings released are ever actually bad, not in any substantive sense that would be fair to music or to the professionalism of the performers*. Critics and cognoscenti squabble over the finest margins.
> 
> But personally I do hold it against critics, who would call themselves professional, when they harshly lambaste a recording for not quite matching their own preferred example, usually by the thinnest of perceptible margins that are totally subjective to begin with. And the fact is, most critics wouldn't be able to correctly identify a recording from a blind listen in the first place. So much is smoke and mirrors.


I believe New Zealand radio refused to play David Helfgott's best selling Rachmaninov 3 as they said the playing didn't meet professional standards


----------



## Knorf

DavidA said:


> I believe New Zealand radio refused to play David Helfgott's best selling Rachmaninov 3 as they said the playing didn't meet professional standards


I did say almost.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Knorf said:


> It's one of the "real" dirty little secrets of classical music that basically almost no recordings released are ever actually bad, not in any substantive sense that would be fair to music or to the professionalism of the performers. Critics and cognoscenti squabble over the finest margins.
> 
> But personally I do hold it against critics, who would call themselves professional, when they harshly lambaste a recording for not quite matching their own preferred example, usually by the thinnest of perceptible margins that are totally subjective to begin with. And the fact is, most critics wouldn't be able to correctly identify a recording from a blind listen in the first place. So much is smoke and mirrors.


We are blessed. There are no bad commercially produced whiskies or classical recordings.


----------



## Pure Fool

German recording technology in the '40's was as good as American recording technology a decade later. I conjecture 'Dolf and Joe prioritized recording classical music, especially German composers, as a way to unify the German people.


----------



## Becca

Knorf said:


> It's one of the "real" dirty little secrets of classical music that basically almost no recordings released are ever actually bad, not in any substantive sense that would be fair to music or to the professionalism of the performers. Critics and cognoscenti squabble over the finest margins.
> 
> But personally I do hold it against critics, who would call themselves professional, when they harshly lambaste a recording for not quite matching their own preferred example, usually by the thinnest of perceptible margins that are totally subjective to begin with. And the fact is, most critics wouldn't be able to correctly identify a recording from a blind listen in the first place. So much is smoke and mirrors.


The results of many of my blind comparison threads have upset quite a few personal views of performers ... at least for those who are honest enough to trust what they hear.

As to the perceptible margins, one only has to scan over the various Furtwangler, Toscanini and Karajan threads :lol:

P.S. Regarding the Bruckner 8th, it isn't even in my top 3 of his symphonies.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I can listen to a recording with technical flaws that is at least played musically and with heart. The only recordings that for me are truly “bad” are the ones where they play through a piece robotically, particularly those that do so intentionally to achieve some sort of effect.


----------



## flamencosketches

Becca said:


> P.S. Regarding the Bruckner 8th, it isn't even in my top 3 of his symphonies.


Nor mine. It's probably the only mature Bruckner symphony I still struggle with (outside of sometimes wanting to stop the 7th after the Adagio). I do however really like the use of harp.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Can anyone tell me if the passage starting at 10:20 a fabrication by Haas? I don't hear it in the Nowak (idk about the 1st edition) and it makes it sound like a pivotal part of the movement is gone. If so it's a pretty good fabrication, I'll say


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

flamencosketches said:


> Nor mine. It's probably the only mature Bruckner symphony I still struggle with (outside of *sometimes wanting to stop the 7th after the Adagio*). I do however really like the use of harp.


How come? The 7th is def very top-heavy, but that's why I think Mvts. 3 & 4 provide the perfect counterbalance.


----------



## flamencosketches

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> How come? The 7th is def very top-heavy, but that's why I think Mvts. 3 & 4 provide the perfect counterbalance.


Because the adagio is too devastating/draining, I simply can't go on further.


----------



## Azol

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Can anyone tell me if the passage starting at 10:20 a fabrication by Haas? I don't hear it in the Nowak (idk about the 1st edition) and it makes it sound like a pivotal part of the movement is gone. If so it's a pretty good fabrication, I'll say


Boulez is playing "mixed" Haas 1887/1890 edition while Novak uses 1890 edition hence it may sound strange to anyone got used to 1890 only (the most commonly performed). You might want to check Tintner for pure 1887 edition, the different 1st movement ending will catch you by surprise, I guarantee


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Listened to the Böhm 8th again. Wow, what a fantastic recording! I think maybe it gets overlooked because there is nothing “cutting edge” about it. But if you’re just getting into this symphony for the first time, I can’t think of a better introduction. Dramatic, powerful, beautiful, authoritative, and sumptuously recorded.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Azol said:


> Boulez is playing "mixed" Haas 1887/1890 edition while Novak uses 1890 edition hence it may sound strange to anyone got used to 1890 only (the most commonly performed). *You might want to check Tintner for pure 1887 edition*, the different 1st movement ending will catch you by surprise, I guarantee


Haha that's actually the exact recording which prompted my comment on the first place. The orchestra played impeccably: I just hate that version they used! :lol:


----------



## BachIsBest

Just listened to the following version and was quite impressed; it's a performance of some intensity. The brass playing may leave a bit to be desired in some areas but overall it is quite well-played. However, I'm not sure another recording of Bruckner's 8 is exactly what this thread needs. Oh well - have one anyway and at least this one is rather unique (it is quite fast, practically the same length as Klemplerer but without any cuts).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

BachIsBest said:


> Just listened to the following version and was quite impressed; it's a performance of some intensity. The brass playing may leave a bit to be desired in some areas but overall it is quite well-played. However, I'm not sure another recording of Bruckner's 8 is exactly what this thread needs. Oh well - have one anyway and at least this one is rather unique (it is quite fast, practically the same length as Klemplerer but without any cuts).


My gosh, that is a fantastic performance! And here I was thinking I could finally stop listening to Bruckner 8th's and move on to something else.


----------



## Merl

Rosbaud was an interesting conductor. I found the same with his Beethoven recordings. No-nonsense, forward-moving performances. There's a ruggedness in the Bruckner recording, I've heard of his, that I find similarly enjoyable. I've just picked up his SWR Brahms cycle and I'm looking forward to hearing that too but I have a backlog of stuff to work through first.


----------



## BachIsBest

Merl said:


> Rosbaud was an interesting conductor. I found the same with his Beethoven recordings. No-nonsense, forward-moving performances. There's a ruggedness in the Bruckner recording, I've heard of his, that I find similarly enjoyable. I've just picked up his SWR Brahms cycle and I'm looking forward to hearing that too but I have a backlog of stuff to work through first.


They just released his Mahler 'cycle' (he didn't have a choir so no 2,3,8) newly remastered today. I've heard some of it (the 5 is incredible) and am excited to listen to it all. I do very much agree about the forward-movingness of his performances and the no-nonsense approach but he also wasn't unwilling to, when sensible, throw in some orchestral rubato or whatnot.


----------



## Pure Fool

1996D said:


> Bruckner's music could easily be a film score, no problem.


I was listening to Bruckner's Ninth with my friend and during the scherzo he said, "This sounds like a Star Wars theme."


----------



## Pure Fool

I've just finished reading all 275 posts in this thread, and am surprised no one mentioned Kempe
https://www.amazon.ca/Symphony-No-8...empe+bruckner+8&qid=1600025747&s=music&sr=1-1

or Keilberth. 
https://www.amazon.ca/Symphony-c-Mo...erth+bruckner+8&qid=1600025798&s=music&sr=1-1

I strongly recommend both, especially to anyone who, like me, admires Jochum.


----------



## Guest

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ...Bruckner, armed with a small handful of musical building blocks, fashions a monumental cathedral of sound...


Strange that you would use the "cathedral" analogy since I once read an opinion that the repetitive nature of Bruckner's musical style was an outgrowth of his Catholicism. Even stranger is that I hear it too. I've been in many cathedrals and experienced the awesome presence of God and faith that guided the mens hands who built them. And right now I feel it in the 8th Symphony as I listen to Valery Gergiev with the Münchner Philharmoniker


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Jerome said:


> Strange that you would use the "cathedral" analogy since I once read an opinion that the repetitive nature Bruckner's musical style was an outgrowth of his Catholicism. Even stranger is that I hear it too. I've been in many cathedral and experienced the awesome presence of the God and faith that guided the mens hands who built them. And right now I feel it in the 8th Symphony as I listen to Valery Gergiev with the Münchner Philharmoniker


A lot of people who don't get Bruckner find his repetitions to be pure tautologies, and that included myself when I was much younger and didn't get his music at all. Nowadays I understand they impart a sense of reverence and cohesion, and the music would not flow the same way at all without them. They're logical, not redundant.


----------



## Guest

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> A lot of people who don't get Bruckner find his repetitions to be pure tautologies, and that included myself when I was much younger and didn't get his music at all. Nowadays I understand they impart a sense of reverence and cohesion, and the music would not flow the same way at all without them. They're logical, not redundant.


Yes the repetition does not feel redundant at all, but more like bricks in an immense structure, each one supporting the next, making the towering pinnacle an inevitable climax of the work.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Jerome said:


> Yes the repetition does not feel redundant at all, but more like bricks in an immense structure, each one supporting the next, making the towering pinnacle an inevitable climax of the work.


However, I don't think the repetitions of the scherzi movements apply the same way in terms of architectural structure, mainly given the fact that they are primarily based in repetition. They're dance-like in nature and the repetitions are simply part of the form he intended. To be germane to the thread, let's take the scherzo from the 8th. The structure is pretty much A-A B (that gorgeous rustic middle section) - A A. It's pretty much just repetition of A with the only break in variety coming in the middle section. However, I personally don't care at all: the A section is such a jam I'm just like "hell yeah, play it again!" and I think it suits the piece well. Do you think of the scherzi differently? To me they're not as grand in the architectural scope as the other movements, which adds mental/emotional relief from what are otherwise exhausting symphonies to listen to.


----------



## Guest

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> However, I don't think the repetitions of the scherzi movements apply the same way in terms of architectural structure, mainly given the fact that they are primarily based in repetition. They're dance-like in nature and the repetitions are simply part of the form he intended. To be germane to the thread, let's take the scherzo from the 8th. The structure is pretty much A-A B (that gorgeous rustic middle section) - A A. It's pretty much just repetition of A with the only break in variety coming in the middle section. However, I personally don't care at all: the A section is such a jam I'm just like "hell yeah, play it again!" and I think it suits the piece well. Do you think of the scherzi differently? To me they're not as grand in the architectural scope as the other movements, which adds mental/emotional relief from what are otherwise exhausting symphonies to listen to.


I do think the second movement uses repetition the same as the rest of the symphony. Not repetition of the larger sections, but repetition of individual motifs and melodies, churning out and piling onto one another within each section. Another catholic analogy that might apply is the beads of a rosary and the repetition of the rosary prayers.


----------



## Kiki

I've been listening to Simone Young's and Eliahu Inbal's 1887 version of No. 8. Oh boy, I like it better than the more commonly recorded 1887/90 Haas and 1890 Nowak editions. 

The 1887 version sounds earthier and more assertive, but relatively less refined or solemn. In fact, I love those more (almost) psychotic-sounding passages. On the other hand, although I don't mind hearing the heavier influence of Wagner in the 1887 version, I do like the more "toned down" influence in the 1890 version better.

I think Inbal's quicker tempi and more aggressive attacks suit the music of the 1887 version better. Young's sounds beautiful and creamy, which is great but I miss the aggression. 

Any opinion on other recordings of the 1887 version?


----------



## vincula

BachIsBest said:


> Just listened to the following version and was quite impressed; it's a performance of some intensity. The brass playing may leave a bit to be desired in some areas but overall it is quite well-played. However, I'm not sure another recording of Bruckner's 8 is exactly what this thread needs. Oh well - have one anyway and at least this one is rather unique (it is quite fast, practically the same length as Klemplerer but without any cuts).


I'm very fond of Rosbaud's conducting. I've got his fabulous Bruckner/Andromeda box, which still gets played on a regular basis. Easy to find at give-away prices.









Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Azol

Kiki said:


> I've been listening to Simone Young's and Eliahu Inbal's 1887 version of No. 8. Oh boy, I like it better than the more commonly recorded 1887/90 Haas and 1890 Nowak editions.
> 
> The 1887 version sounds earthier and more assertive, but relatively less refined or solemn. In fact, I love those more (almost) psychotic-sounding passages. On the other hand, although I don't mind hearing the heavier influence of Wagner in the 1887 version, I do like the more "toned down" influence in the 1890 version better.
> 
> I think Inbal's quicker tempi and more aggressive attacks suit the music of the 1887 version better. Young's sounds beautiful and creamy, which is great but I miss the aggression.
> 
> Any opinion on other recordings of the 1887 version?


Tintner has also recorded the 1887 which is very good, but I still prefer the quiet ending of the first movement to the original triumphant one.


----------



## Kiki

Azol said:


> Tintner has also recorded the 1887 which is very good, but I still prefer the quiet ending of the first movement to the original triumphant one.


Thanks! I listened to the Tintner recording on Spotify today. The Adagio is amazingly beautiful. The edges of the 1887 version that I heard from the Inbal are mostly smoothed out, although they are still apparent next to the 1890 version.

Personally I don't mind the 1887 version's loud ending to the first movement; although I have to admit I feel more comfortable with the accustomed quiet ending of the 1890 version. I also think how the big theme of the slow movement transcends itself into sublimity at the climax is more refined and more economical in the 1890 version.

Having said that, I do enjoy the breathlessness of the 1887 Scherzo a bit more than the subtlety of the 1890 version; and overall, the abruptness and unpredictability (perhaps a disillusion due to unfamiliarity?) of the 1887 version more than the refined craftsmanship of the 1890 version.


----------



## BachIsBest

vincula said:


> I'm very fond of Rosbaud's conducting. I've got his fabulous Bruckner/Andromeda box, which still gets played on a regular basis. Easy to find at give-away prices.
> 
> View attachment 145998
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincula


Yes, he was really quite underrated. It's a real pity he died just before taking the top job in Chicago; we might have had some exceptional recordings from that duo. I have the memories set which also includes his Bruckner 3 over the Andromeda (I got it for 8$ I think). He actually recorded every numbered symphony save 1 (I think); you can find them all on youtube and there was even a set released with symphonies 2-9.


----------



## bluto32

I've recently been blown away by this symphony and am planning to acquire some more recordings. So far, I have Karajan BPO (1975) from his DG box set and Furtwangler VPO (1944) on Musical Concepts.

Giulini VPO (1984) is highly regarded in this thread. It appears to have been reissued in the last few years by DG in the following 8-CD set featuring Giulini's 1980s Bruckner 7, 8, 9 with the VPO along with a 1989-91 Brahms cycle, also with the VPO.









I've heard his Bruckner 9 is also first rate, and am therefore tempted to go for this set. (I also have no Giulini recordings at all in my modest collection.) But I may try to acquire the Bruckner 8 by other means if his No.7 or the Brahms are relatively mediocre: any views on these?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Not a fan of Giulini’s Brahms. Too slow.

His approach worked best in Bruckner’s 8th and 9th, which lend themselves to a more grand approach.

Giulini’s Bruckner 7th, IMO is okay but could use more drive. This symphony benefits from a more dramatic, dynamic approach. Furtwängler and Karajan really provide this.


----------



## Knorf

I concur with with my Brahmsianhorn colleague.

I feel that performances that are overly focused on being slow and reverential fundamentally trap Bruckner into one-dimensional expression, when there is so much more to his music. It's not all _Feierlich_! There's a Pentecostal element of a sort as well (for a Catholic, but as one can also hear clearly in some of Bruckner's motets). So the music should catch on fire at times. In short, going slow is hardly the only path to the discovery of the "spiritual" elements in Bruckner's music. That does a severe disservice to both Bruckner's fundamental symphonic concept _and_ "spirituality."


----------



## joen_cph

Knorf said:


> I concur with with my Brahmsianhorn colleague.
> 
> I feel that performances that are overly focused on being slow and reverential fundamentally trap Bruckner into one-dimensional expression, when there is so much more to his music. It's not all _Feierlich_! There's a Pentecostal element of a sort as well (for a Catholic, but as one can also hear clearly in some of Bruckner's motets). So the music should catch on fire at times. In short, going slow is hardly the only path to the discovery of the "spiritual" elements in Bruckner's music. That does a severe disservice to both Bruckner's fundamental symphonic concept _and_ "spirituality."


Rögner often conducts along those less slow lines.

Generally, some of the quicker 8ths are

Rögner - 75:01 minutes (12:34, 13:19, 26:21, 22:45)
Barbirolli, Halle 1970 - ca. 74:30 minutes (14:42, 13:29, 23:37, 22:07) 
Furtwängler BPO (arrangement) 1944 - ca. 77 minutes (15:15, 15:12, 25:12, 22:20)


----------



## wkasimer

joen_cph said:


> Rögner often conducts along those less slow lines.
> 
> Generally, some of the quicker 8ths are
> 
> Rögner - 75:01 minutes (12:34, 13:19, 26:21, 22:45)
> Barbirolli, Halle 1970 - ca. 74:30 minutes (14:42, 13:29, 23:37, 22:07)
> Furtwängler BPO (arrangement) 1944 - ca. 77 minutes (15:15, 15:12, 25:12, 22:20)


Jochum and Boulez both run just over 76 minutes.


----------



## joen_cph

wkasimer said:


> Jochum and Boulez both run just over 76 minutes.


Interesting; I remembered Jochum's DG as fast too, but only checked at 
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8048922--bruckner-symphonies-nos-8-9
where it's 82 minutes. But it turns out that I overlooked that this was his DG 1949 recording.

The later DG however is indeed a little more than 74 minutes 
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7924385--bruckner-9-symphonies
and the EMI is a little more than 76 minutes
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8339801--bruckner-symphonies-nos-8-9

So he seems to have started with a slower tempo, then revising it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Another really great 8th is Böhm/VPO on DG. This one is rising up the list for me as an excellent good-sounding recommendation, especially anyone new to the work. It is in the grand, Romantic tradition and really allows the greatness of the work to come out naturally.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

The Giulini has become one of my all-time favorite recordings of any symphony. It’s like he is telling us an epic poem; every phrase has immense meaning. Some might think he lingers too much, but I think the best Bruckner conductors make something special out of every gesture, not just the “exciting parts.”


----------



## consuono

The ones with which I'm most familiar in my limited experience of Bruckner recordings are the Karajan and Haitink-Concertgebouw, and I love both for different reasons. However on YT I came across a 1957 Klemperer recording which caught my ear:


----------



## haziz

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Bruckner's 8th Symphony is currently on the 16th tier of the Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works:https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit
> ..........................................................
> 
> The main questions of this thread are: *Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it? Do you have any reservations about it? * And of course, what are your favorite recordings?
> .......


Since you asked. No, I do not like this symphony or any symphony by Bruckner. I just re-listened to about half of Karajan's recording of the 8th, and have listened to Jochum's and Wand's recordings. I find his music to be rambling, boring, overly long, tedious and self important. His music generally lacks an overt melody, which I find an important aspect of music that I find enjoyable. So definitely count me as not a fan of this symphony or of his music in general.


----------



## consuono

haziz said:


> Since you asked. No, I do not like this symphony or any symphony by Bruckner. I just re-listened to about half of Karajan's recording of the 8th, and have listened to Jochum's and Wand's recordings. I find his music to be rambling, boring, overly long, tedious and self important. His music generally lacks an overt melody, which I find an important aspect of music that I find enjoyable. So definitely count me as not a fan of this symphony or of his music in general.


I used to think so too, but if you really listen you'll find Bruckner's symphonies are as melodic and meaningfully constructed as any other symphonist's...and honestly Bruckner's symphonies aren't any more "rambling" than Tchaikovsky's, Sibelius's or Mahler's (although "rambling" can be a good thing, too). Bruckner is probably now my favorite among the Late Romantics. And nobody since Mozart wrote as effectively for chorus, imo.


----------



## haziz

consuono said:


> I used to think so too, but if you really listen you'll find Bruckner's symphonies are as melodic and meaningfully constructed as any other symphonist's...and honestly Bruckner's symphonies aren't any more "rambling" than Tchaikovsky's, Sibelius's or Mahler's (although "rambling" can be a good thing, too). Bruckner is probably now my favorite among the Late Romantics. And nobody since Mozart wrote as effectively for chorus, imo.


Life is generally too short to listen to music I don't like. I have tried many times over the years with Bruckner and have by this point given up. I dislike most of Mahler as well, although at least with Mahler I do enjoy some of his works, e.g. I enjoy his symphony No. 4, the first 3 movements of Symphony No. 2, and find his Symphony No. 1 listenable. I don't like his other symphonies. Some of Sibelius is listenable. His Violin Concerto is superb.

Tchaikovsky is divine.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

haziz said:


> I find his music to be rambling, boring, overly long, tedious and self important.


I've never understood the assumption that someone who attempts to write long, grand symphonies must necessarily be "self-important." We don't know what Bruckner thought of himself, and why does it matter?

If anything I find the critique to be self-important.


----------



## Ned Low

haziz said:


> Since you asked. No, I do not like this symphony or any symphony by Bruckner. I just re-listened to about half of Karajan's recording of the 8th, and have listened to Jochum's and Wand's recordings. I find his music to be rambling, boring, overly long, tedious and self important. His music generally lacks an overt melody, which I find an important aspect of music that I find enjoyable. So definitely count me as not a fan of this symphony or of his music in general.


Bruckner's symphonies have so many great melodies and some of them are lyrical. Bruckner's 7th is so lyrical. Have you listened to the first movment? It's beautiful and sublime. His scherz(s)(?) are lyrical and dance like as well. But if you don't like his works, it's fine. No one's judging you.


----------



## Knorf

I judge all.

:devil:  :lol:


----------



## consuono

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've never understood the assumption that someone who attempts to write long, grand symphonies must necessarily be "self-important." We don't know what Bruckner thought of himself, and why does it matter?
> 
> If anything I find the critique to be self-important.


From what I've read Bruckner was extremely humble, self-critical and self-deprecating, but believed in his musical ability. He was something of an oddball (I can relate) and painfully shy. But his music shows that even such nondescript people can have an inner life that is glorious.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

consuono said:


> From what I've read Bruckner was extremely humble, self-critical and self-deprecating, but believed in his musical ability. He was something of an oddball (I can relate) and painfully shy. But his music shows that even such nondescript people can have an inner life that is glorious.


How dare he share it with us


----------



## Becca

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Not a fan of Giulini's Brahms. Too slow.
> 
> His approach worked best in Bruckner's 8th and 9th, which lend themselves to a more grand approach.
> 
> Giulini's Bruckner 7th, IMO is okay but could use more drive. This symphony benefits from a more dramatic, dynamic approach. Furtwängler and Karajan really provide this.


Giulini's approach to Bruckner seemed to mellow (for want of a beter word) during the 1980s with his earlier performances being much more dynamic which I can well attest to from LAPO concerts. As to his 7th, after doing some comparisons this last week I would strongly recommend his 1982 live performance with the Philharmonia Orchestra. It was released on BBC Legends but I encountered it on YouTube.


----------



## hammeredklavier

------------------------------


----------



## hammeredklavier

-------------------------------


----------



## Becca

hammeredklavier said:


> *Film Music Is Bad Bruckner
> by john aschenbrenner January 2, 2021*
> https://pianobynumber.com/blogs/readingroom/film-music-is-bad-bruckner
> Film music has its roots in European symphonic composers. Anton Bruckner was, to my mind, one of the worst composers who ever lived. Yet he is revered by some as a late romantic master. Bombastic and vastly grandiose, his works are a tempest in a teapot, all signifying nothing.
> If you are forced to listen to a Bruckner symphony you'll be subjected to the trumpets going "Ta Da Da Da Da Da" every ten seconds.
> It's as if the cavalry had finally come to save John Wayne. It all sounds like music, surely. But it never adds up to anything worthy of the name "masterpiece." Thus Bruckner was insecure, to say the least. Musicians constantly joke about his revisions to his symphonies. ....


That says far more about the author and his interest in really listening than it does to the music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

-------------------------


----------



## Knorf

Becca said:


> That says far more about the author and his interest in really listening than it does to the music.


Haters gonna hate, I'm afraid.

There is no work of art so beloved, so universally cherished and admired, that there won't be someone out there who prides themselves on slagging it.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Michael Haydn - Missa tempore Quadrigesimae (1794)


Good, but I still prefer any of Bruckner's three Masses or the Te Deum.


----------



## Simon23

My favorite


----------



## Ned Low

hammeredklavier said:


> *Film Music Is Bad Bruckner
> by john aschenbrenner January 2, 2021*
> https://pianobynumber.com/blogs/readingroom/film-music-is-bad-bruckner
> Film music has its roots in European symphonic composers. Anton Bruckner was, to my mind, one of the worst composers who ever lived. Yet he is revered by some as a late romantic master. Bombastic and vastly grandiose, his works are a tempest in a teapot, all signifying nothing.
> If you are forced to listen to a Bruckner symphony you'll be subjected to the trumpets going "Ta Da Da Da Da Da" every ten seconds.
> It's as if the cavalry had finally come to save John Wayne. It all sounds like music, surely. But it never adds up to anything worthy of the name "masterpiece." Thus Bruckner was insecure, to say the least. Musicians constantly joke about his revisions to his symphonies. ....


God! Is this a mockery? The writer of this contemptuous review must be Eduard Hanslick of our time, you know...


----------



## Ned Low

Simon23 said:


> My favorite
> 
> View attachment 151283
> 
> 
> View attachment 151281
> 
> 
> View attachment 151282


Great choices Simon23 for the revised version, yet i would personally go for Inbal or Young if i wanted to listen to the original version.


----------



## Kiki

^

I like the original 1887 version very much, for its passion and earthiness. So often we read about the grandeur and sublimity of Bruckner, but tbh I'm often drawn more to the passionate/aggressive side of his music; and the 1887 version fits that bill better. 

Not limited to the Eighth, Wand has been my favourite Bruckner conductor for a long time, but I'm becoming a defector to the Inbal camp recently. :lol: I really like the Inbal/Frankfurt set.


----------



## Ned Low

He's definitely faster than Tintner


----------



## Kiki

^

He certainly is. :lol: The timing difference is night and day between the Inbal/Frankfurt and the Tintner/Ireland.

I think the Tintner 1887 version is good. It's smooth and beautiful (and obviously slow). But personally I enjoy the grit of the Inbal more.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Ned Low said:


> God! Is this a mockery? The writer of this contemptuous review must be Eduard Hanslick of our time, you know...


I read a blog one time about this girl trying to understand Bruckner and her struggle in doing so. She wasn't just blatantly bashing him with objective value judgements like that guy in the article above, rather expressing a lot of frustration about how she still fails to appreciate Bruckner and complaining about the things about his music that drove her crazy, not far off from what Haziz said and some overlap with what that article said too.

She made this one comment that stood out to me: "The beginning of Bruckner 7 is aggravating because it starts off promising, sounding like a beautiful sunrise, and then immediately becomes boring".

From that comment I could just tell there was something about her personality that meant she would probably never get 'it'.

To be fair, I can't fault her for the way her brain is wired and how she thinks and perceives music, and I, (and nobody else) has the right to insinuate that she is somehow 'wrong'. But I think based on the criteria she seems to set for appreciating music, her efforts will always be in vain for trying to appreciate Bruckner


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> She made this one comment that stood out to me: "The beginning of Bruckner 7 is aggravating because it starts off promising, sounding like a beautiful sunrise, and then immediately becomes boring". '.


Bruckner is not for people who want immediate gratification. The genius of his music is that it is all about anticipation, a process building. The irony of her comment is that it is the more immediately appealing composers who get boring over time.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Bruckner is not for people who want immediate gratification. The genius of his music is that it is all about anticipation, a process building. The irony of her comment is that it is the more immediately appealing composers who get boring over time.


Here's the link if you want to read it: https://www.violinist.com/blog/Mle/20124/13408/

I agree with all of that 100%. The listener needs patience and close careful attention and the music will reveal itself to you. You get out of it what you put into it, as with many things in life. It's like if you want to truly get to know someone intimately, either platonically or as a romantic partner, you need to invest yourself in them and getting to know them. Her comment sorta gives me the image of going on a date and constantly cutting the other person off or mindlessly scrolling through your phone, then complaining to your friends about how boring your date was.

This makes me sound like I'm ragging on her. I'm not, she is perfectly entitled to her own opinion, and if you read through her whole blog, she IS (or was at the time) invested in getting to know him and is more just expressing frustration about trying and trying with Bruckner and it never clicking. I understand her sentiments even, I felt bewildered by a lot of the same things about Bruckner that she was! (his music, she goes into his shortcomings as a person some in the blog, which is irrelevant to me) Time, patience, and listening is key.


----------



## Triplets

EdwardBast said:


> Well, since you've asked: I find Bruckner's Eighth intensely boring. The interminable repetition and sequencing of ideas that weren't particularly interesting in the first place makes me want to open a vein. And the tone of high seriousness, the sense that the composer seems to have thought he was doing something important, just makes it so much worse. For me, Bruckner embodies everything bad about late Romantic and post Romantic music.


The Doom Music at the end of I also just seems like it comes out of nowhere


----------



## Triplets

flamencosketches said:


> I don't really "get" Bruckner's 8th, the "Apocalyptic". I heard the Klemperer recording and really liked it, but I think it's a non-starter for many because it apparently contains cuts, non-canonical cuts at that. I want to hear the Karajan/Vienna. I have a question about that recording...:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... how is it possible that this is on a single disc at over 83 minutes long?! I thought they capped out right at 80 or 81.


There are some CDs that go up to 88 minutes


----------



## Manxfeeder

Kiki said:


> I'm becoming a defector to the Inbal camp recently. :lol: I really like the Inbal/Frankfurt set.


Inbal has a camp? That's good to know. He used to get mentioned a lot about ten years ago, but I haven't heard much about him lately.


----------



## joen_cph

Manxfeeder said:


> Inbal has a camp? That's good to know. He used to get mentioned a lot about ten years ago, but I haven't heard much about him lately.


His 3rd, the original version of the work, is one of the best. Nos.1+2 really good too, for example.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Manxfeeder said:


> Inbal has a camp? That's good to know. He used to get mentioned a lot about ten years ago, but I haven't heard much about him lately.


I have 3, 5 & 9 by Inbal and I'd vouch for them, especially three. But I haven't been camping for years.


----------



## joen_cph

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Bruckner is not for people who want immediate gratification. The genius of his music is that it is all about anticipation, a process building. The irony of her comment is that it is the more immediately appealing composers who get boring over time.


Yes, Bruckner's abruptness, the pauses, the fragments point to yet another dimension of the music, an even greater space beyond the mere occurrences. There's something contemporary in it too.


----------



## HenryPenfold

joen_cph said:


> Yes, Bruckner's abruptness, the pauses, the fragments point to yet another dimension of the music, an even greater space beyond the mere occurrences. *There's something contemporary in it too*.


Definitely. Bruckner was ahead of his time, in many regards. The fact that so many contemporaries and people soon after, clambered over each other to rewrite his compositions, shows that Bruckner was writing his way, not the conventional way. If we ignore all the 'granite-hewn' stuff, the focus on 'blazing brass' and 'Gothic Cathedrals' and ponder the pauses, spaces and the nuanced balances between instruments, we discover a modern composer in old times.


----------



## Guest

HenryPenfold said:


> [...] *If we ignore all the 'granite-hewn' stuff, the focus on 'blazing brass' and 'Gothic Cathedrals' and ponder the pauses, spaces and the nuanced balances between instruments, we discover a modern composer in old times*.


Yes. Exactly why I let drop my subscription to the Bruckner Journal. I mean to say, all that codswallop about "granite", "blazing brass" and "cathedrals".


----------



## Knorf

Regarding Bruckner's modernity, just think about the degree to which his music attracted the attention of the likes of Pierre Boulez! (Who made one of my all-time favorite recordings of the Eighth.) Compared to say, Boulez's interest in Brahms or Dvořák; of course Boulez was also a terrific Mahler conductor already, but Mahler's importance to modernism of the 20th c. was much more obvious. 

Speaking of recordings, one I listened to, enjoyed, and would definitely recommend is Jansons, with the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra. I'll be revisiting that one.

One I sadly don't particularly recommend: Gergiev/Munich. This one is too uniformly slow, cautious, and reverential, and never quite catches fire as my favorite recordings do.


----------



## Guest

Knorf said:


> Regarding Bruckner's modernity, just think about the degree to which his music attracted the attention of the likes of *Pierre Boulez! (Who made one of my all-time favorite recordings of the Eighth.)* [...]


Agreed! I have the DVD recording of his at St Florian's. Magnificent.


----------



## HenryPenfold

TalkingHead said:


> Yes. Exactly why I let drop my subscription to the Bruckner Journal. I mean to say, all that codswallop about "granite", "blazing brass" and "cathedrals".


Indeed, Bruckner reveals so much more (and qualitatively different) than that.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Knorf said:


> Regarding Bruckner's modernity, just think about the degree to which his music attracted the attention of the likes of Pierre Boulez! (Who made one of my all-time favorite recordings of the Eighth.) Compared to say, Boulez's interest in Brahms or Dvořák; of course Boulez was also a terrific Mahler conductor already, but Mahler's importance to modernism of the 20th c. was much more obvious.
> 
> Speaking of recordings, one I listened to, enjoyed, and would definitely recommend is Jansons, with the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra. I'll be revisiting that one.
> 
> One I sadly don't particularly recommend: Gergiev/Munich. This one is too uniformly slow, cautious, and reverential, and never quite catches fire as my favorite recordings do.


The Boulez St Florian is a wonderful performance. I must dig out the DVD because although I listen to the CD a few times per year, it's been about 10 years since I watched the DVD (I wonder if DVDs degrade if you don't play them).

I haven't heard the Jansons or the Gergiev. I streamed the Nelsons, but was underwhelmed and although I have all the others so far, I don't think I'll bother with the 8th.


----------



## Guest

HenryPenfold said:


> The Boulez St Florian is a wonderful performance. I must dig out the DVD because although I listen to the CD a few times per year, it's been about 10 years since I watched the DVD (I wonder if DVDs degrade if you don't play them).
> 
> I haven't heard the Jansons or the Gergiev. I streamed the Nelsons, but was underwhelmed and although I have all the others so far, I don't think I'll bother with the 8th.


Can I mention that I've been to St Florian's and seen Bruckner's embalmed corpse?


----------



## HenryPenfold

TalkingHead said:


> Can I mention that I've been to St Florian's and seen Bruckner's embalmed corpse?


Wow! quite a thing. I'm envious (I love stuff like that).


----------



## Knorf

I hope it was clear re: Jansons and Gergiev I meant among recentish recordings. But overall I can't really name a favorite, just list those I like. The Eighth is so obviously much greater and asks so many profound questions, it's just beyond any single performance or conductor.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Knorf said:


> I hope it was clear re: Jansons and Gergiev I meant among recentish recordings. But overall I can't really name a favorite, just list those I like. The Eighth is so obviously much greater and asks so many profound questions, it's just beyond any single performance or conductor.


That's how I've been thinking about the fifth, in recent times .....


----------



## Guest

HenryPenfold said:


> Wow! quite a thing. I'm envious (I love stuff like that).


Yes, well, he's buried (rather, encrypted) under his huge organ. I'll let you decode that as is your wont...


----------



## Knorf

HenryPenfold said:


> That's how I've been thinking about the fifth, in recent times .....


Absolutely. Imagine asking a photographer to capture everything there is to see in, say, Yosemite National Park on a single roll of film...


----------



## NewYorkMackem

Triplets said:


> The Doom Music at the end of I also just seems like it comes out of nowhere


It really doesn't, it's all derived from the beginning of the movement if you listen closely.


----------



## NewYorkMackem

hammeredklavier said:


> I also find his stuff less appealing than anything in Beethoven, for example.
> Wagner has his fabulous excerpts, Brahms has his formal concision, Tchaikovsky and Mahler have their melodic appeal. -I think that there are too many fine composers of the 19th-century orchestral style, (too many good alternatives), Bruckner just doesn't seem to make the cut for me. The last 4 minutes or so of his 8th symphony 1st movement, for example, to me, he's "Schubert II". At least Sibelius is short, Bruckner is not. I would even rate Schumann above him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Film Music Is Bad Bruckner
> by john aschenbrenner January 2, 2021*
> https://pianobynumber.com/blogs/readingroom/film-music-is-bad-bruckner
> Film music has its roots in European symphonic composers. Anton Bruckner was, to my mind, one of the worst composers who ever lived. Yet he is revered by some as a late romantic master. Bombastic and vastly grandiose, his works are a tempest in a teapot, all signifying nothing.
> If you are forced to listen to a Bruckner symphony you'll be subjected to the trumpets going "Ta Da Da Da Da Da" every ten seconds.
> It's as if the cavalry had finally come to save John Wayne. It all sounds like music, surely. But it never adds up to anything worthy of the name "masterpiece." Thus Bruckner was insecure, to say the least. Musicians constantly joke about his revisions to his symphonies. ....


One of the "worst composers that ever lived" whose works just happened to be championed and performed by the best conductors that ever lived. I know whose opinions I would rather favour.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Bruckner's three Masses


All I remember about No.3 in F minor (which I listened to years ago) is its bombasts. I may have to listen again though.


----------



## ORigel

Manxfeeder said:


> Cobra and Bruckner? Who sits through these things?


I listened to long excerpts for a half-hour. There's good entertainment/comedic value in this "edition" (it's from simulated orchestra, so no brass player blew their way into an early grave from lack of oxygen!) if you are a masochist like me.


----------



## ORigel

I just listened to Musical Concept's remastering of Furtwangler's 1944 live recording with the VPO. So far, I've listened to Celi EMI, Jochum BPO, Klemperer, and Karajan w/ VPO, and Haitink w/ Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra.

It's a fine recording; it lacks the problems with Jochum (too fast), Celi (too slow), and Klemperer's (uninspired). However, I prefer Karajan's to all others so far.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> All I remember about No.3 in F minor (which I listened to years ago) is its bombasts. I may have to listen again though.


Not enough rococo sweets-of-sin, eh? :lol: Sometimes bombast is appropriate.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

ORigel said:


> I just listened to Musical Concept's remastering of Furtwangler's 1944 live recording with the VPO. So far, I've listened to Celi EMI, Jochum BPO, Klemperer, and Karajan w/ VPO, and Haitink w/ Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra.
> 
> It's a fine recording; it lacks the problems with Jochum (too fast), Celi (too slow), and Klemperer's (uninspired). However, I prefer Karajan's to all others so far.


Try the Wand/BPO


----------



## ORigel

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Try the Wand/BPO


I listened to the first movement on Youtube. I like the codas played slow, like Celibidache plays them; Wand is like a less-extreme Celi in that recording.


----------



## Ned Low

ORigel said:


> I listened to the first movement on Youtube. I like the codas played slow, like Celibidache plays them; Wand is like a less-extreme Celi in that recording.


Karajan Vienna is my favourite at the moment. In case you want further listening


----------



## bz3

Listened to Thielemann's live version of this symphony lately. Pretty good, not exactly to my taste but a lively and seemingly brisk reading that loses some of the majesty that so many come to Bruckner for. On the whole it didn't surprise me after hearing his Wagner. It's one I'll return to, but probably won't challenge my favorites in this symphony.


----------



## DarkAngel

bz3 said:


> *Listened to Thielemann's live version of this symphony lately*. Pretty good, not exactly to my taste but a lively and seemingly brisk reading that loses some of the majesty that so many come to Bruckner for. On the whole it didn't surprise me after hearing his Wagner. It's one I'll return to, but probably won't challenge my favorites in this symphony.


We have more than one 8th by Mr T, I prefer the older one with Dresden orchestra (pix 1) vs newest release with WP, it lacks some of the dramatic energy of Dresden performance although neither one would be essential must have purchase for me......

















Dresden 7th also worth checking out although you are forced to buy 2CD set with Wagner filler you may not want....


----------



## DarkAngel

Ned Low said:


> Karajan Vienna is my favourite at the moment. In case you want further listening


That budget price B8 by Maazel is a real gem that flys under many peoples's radar I really love it, much better than the version in his live complete boxset......


----------



## jdec

One of my faves...


----------



## Ned Low

DarkAngel said:


> That budget price B8 by Maazel is a real gem that flys under many peoples's radar I really love it, much better that the version in his live complete boxset......


What i really like about Maazel's 8 is the brass.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

jdec said:


> One of my faves...


That recording is absolute perfection, IMO.


----------



## DarkAngel

^^^ Agree the Boulez 8th comes off well done, a refreshing take on things but strangely a "one off" with no other Bruckner recording I am aware of, Boulez work with Wagner at Bayreuth festival in late 1970s usually indicates that his performances of Bruckner symphonies would be well worth hearing......


----------



## Knorf

There was a fantastic Bruckner 9 with Boulez and the Berliner Philharmoniker available in their Digital Concerthall library, but alas I think it's been hidden back in the vaults. It was stupendous! Certainly good enough to be released commercially, but never has been.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Revising my earlier list slightly. The 2001 Wand/BPO rises to the top of modern versions, and the 1987 Wand/NDR/Lubeck enters the Essentials list right behind it. I actually had never heard the Lubeck recording before finally finding it on YouTube last month. Wand has so many versions it is easy to get them mixed up, so what I heard before was actually the 1993 NDR.

Also, the celebrated 1988 Karajan/VPO continues to fall behind others. The reality is that I have owned it for decades and never been that moved by it. I find the earlier 70s DG BPO version more intense and captivating. I get that for many the 1988 VPO shows Karajan more relaxed and that is a gain, but for me Karajan is at his best when the tension is more palpable.

*Symphony No. 8 in C minor*
*
Essential Recordings:*

*Wilhelm Furtwängler/Vienna PO (1944) (DG, Archipel, Music & Arts, Andante, Andromeda)*

This 1944 VPO performance is one of Furtwängler's greatest recordings, presenting intense, inspired interpretation and execution. Seemingly every emotion of the work, from the dramatically angst-ridden to the achingly hushed and poignant, is unearthed here. The sound is remarkably clear for the time even though inevitably allowances must be made for harshness and lack of full sonority.

*Günter Wand/Berlin PO (2001) (RCA)*

Eloquence is the hallmark of Wand's valedictory live recording shortly before his death at age 90. Every phrase is lovingly sculpted, and the deeply reflective, spiritual interpretation displays the wisdom of years. Above all, it is his deft, sensitive handling of the central Adagio that sets Wand's version apart. The entire performance has a unique glow, with the beautiful sound of the BPO enhanced by the rich, full sound quality.

*Günter Wand/NDR SO (1987) (RCA, EMI)*

Recorded live in the Lübeck Cathedral, Wand's 1987 account is one of hushed, spiritual reverence. There is an underlying intensity throughout, and the power is unleashed to great effect at the climax of the Adagio and coda to the Finale. The reverberant acoustic adds a special aura, even if not quite as full and opulent as his final BPO version.

*Herbert von Karajan/Berlin PO (1975) (DG)*

Karajan's intense interpretation is an ideal blueprint for a work with which he was closely identified. The 1975 BPO is powerful, mystical, and unerring in its musical pacing, particularly in the dramatic Finale. The sound quality is full, present, and opulent.

*Carlo Maria Giulini/Vienna PO (1984) (DG)*

Giulini adds to the list of great VPO accounts, presenting a measured, probing, deeply felt vision from beginning to end that brings out the work's epic grandeur and spiritual qualities. The sound is detailed and present.

*Karl Böhm/Vienna PO (1976) (DG)*

Böhm is grand, opulent, unforced, and with luxurious playing from the VPO, presenting the work naturally in all its Romantic glory. The interpretation is both dramatic and eloquent, captured in perfect sound.

*Herbert von Karajan/Vienna PO (1988) (DG)*

Karajan's 1988 VPO account offers much the same qualities as his earlier version but in more full, detailed sound quality. This is a particularly expansive account, offering more of a valedictory, relaxed interpretation as compared to the earlier version's sense of mystery and magnetic concentration.

*Bernard Haitink/Vienna PO (1995) (Philips)*

Haitink's VPO recording offers an impeccable interpretation in clear, opulent sound without any imposition of the conductor's will. Of particular appeal is the beautifully poignant account of the Adagio.

*Jascha Horenstein/London SO (1970) (Music & Arts, BBC)*

Horenstein barely registers as a live recording in a uniquely powerful, measured, thoughtful version in excellent sound.

*Eduard van Beinum/Concertgebouw Orch. (1955) (Decca, Philips, Beulah)*

Van Beinum presents an urgently dramatic view at a flowing pace, the Concertgebouw captured in their virtuosic splendor in full, present sound for the time period.

*Pierre Boulez/Vienna PO (1996) (DG)*

Boulez offers incredibly detailed sound in a very impressive, incisive reading, with perfect pacing and execution.

*Further listening:*

Wilhelm Furtwängler/Berlin PO (3/15/1949) (Audite, Music & Arts)
Wilhelm Furtwängler/Berlin PO (3/14/1949) (Testament)
Hans Rosbaud/SW German RSO (1955) (Andromeda, SWR Classics, Urania)
Hans Knappertsbusch/Berlin PO (1951) (Audite, Tahra, Music & Arts, Andromeda, Profil)
Sir John Barbirolli/Hallé Orchestra, BBC NSO (1963) (Barbirolli Society)
Günter Wand/NDR SO (1993) (RCA)
Carlo Maria Giulini/Philharmonia Orch. (1983) (BBC)
Hans Knappertsbusch/Vienna PO (1961) (IDIS, Music & Arts, Altus, Archipel, Melodram)
Sir John Barbirolli/Hallé Orchestra (1970) (BBC, Hunt)
Rafael Kubelik/Bavarian RSO (1963) (Orfeo)
Bernard Haitink/Concertgebouw Orch. (1981) (Philips)
Rafael Kubelik/Bavarian RSO (1977) (BR-Klassik)
Herbert von Karajan/Prussian Staatskapelle Berlin (mov. 2-4) (1944) (Koch, Iron Needle)
Bernard Haitink/Concertgebouw Orch. (1969) (Philips/Decca)
Herbert von Karajan/Vienna PO (1957) (Orfeo)
Stanislaw Skrowaczewski/Saarbrücken RSO (1993) (Arte Nova, Oehms)
Klaus Tennstedt/Berlin PO (1981) (Testament)
Eugen Jochum/Staatskapelle Dresden (1976) (EMI)
Carlo Maria Giulini/Berlin PO (1984) (Testament)
Carlos Païta/Philharmonic SO (1982) (Lodia)
Eugen Jochum/Hamburg St. PO (1949) (DG)
George Szell/Cleveland Orch. (1969) (Sony)
Sergiu Celibidache/Stuttgart RSO (1976) (DG)
Klaus Tennstedt/London PO (1982) (EMI)
Lorin Maazel/Berlin PO (1989) (EMI)
Sergiu Celibidache/Munich Phil. (1993) (Warner/EMI)
Herbert von Karajan/Berlin PO (1957) (EMI)
Hans Knappertsbusch/Munich Phil. (1963) (Decca, MCA, Living Stage, Memories)
Carl Schuricht/Vienna PO (1963) (EMI)
Eugen Jochum/Berlin PO (1964) (DG)
Giuseppe Sinopoli/Staatskapelle Dresden (1994) (DG)

.


----------



## Becca

As I noted in a much earlier post, the 8th has never been near the top of my favourite Bruckner symphonies however despite (or because of) that, I decided to listen to a couple of versions beyond the two that I already have (Barbirolli/Halle & Klemperer/NPO). As I had heard Giulini do the 8th with the LAPO in the early 80's, I chose his VPO recording along with Skrowaczewski. Before starting I thought to look for a live Giulini performance given that I found his live 7th much better than his well known VPO performance, and indeed there is one with the Philharmonia from the Royal Festival Hall. I am not going to go into detail but, once again, I find that a live Giulini performance comes out on top if for no other reason that his slightly faster adagio where the others (Giulini/VPO & Skrowaczewski) seem to drag a bit.

In summary, the live Barbirolli/Halle & Giulini/Philharmonia discs come out on top. I won't attempt to rank the other 3 as they all have their good and not so good points*

That's enough Bruckner 8 for now and no, it isn't any higher on my list. Actually between I am Brucknered out for now!

* Yes I know all about the infamous Klemperer cuts but they are only in the last movement, the other three movements are all competitive.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I was listening to Skrowaczewski's 8th today. He's new to me and generally I've been really admiring his interpretations, but something seemed kinda off about the 8th. There's certain lines and parts that I felt he neglected to bring out that are crucial to the flow of the music and conveying the feeling. I felt this way about the subsidiary parts as well as the melody in some areas. For example, the cello melody in the adagio is not brought out at all and gets partially drowned out by other lines.

The pacing didnt feel quite right either, which to be fair is one of the biggest challenges Bruckner poses for conductors. For example, the Scherzo is way too leisurely and lacks a rhythmic punch, a pep in its step. I feel like it should be _pesante_ and dance like, but instead the pacing made the movement fall flat.

This is just nitpicking though, it was still a fantastic performance by a great orchestra and conductor, just not one I'd listen to again.

EDIT: correction, I actually didn't know pesante meant heavy/dragging/ponderous, I thought it meant "peasant" or folk-like. I needed to make this clear because otherwise my comment about the Scherzo would be completely self-contradictory


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Compared to others, I thought Skrow had a nicely flowing Adagio but was otherwise too dull and by the numbers for this dramatic work.


----------



## DarkAngel

> *Essential Recordings:
> 
> Wilhelm Furtwängler/Vienna PO (1944) (DG, Archipel, Music & Arts, Andante, Andromeda)
> 
> This 1944 VPO performance is one of Furtwängler's greatest recordings, presenting intense, inspired interpretation and execution. Seemingly every emotion of the work, from the dramatically angst-ridden to the achingly hushed and poignant, is unearthed here. The sound is remarkably clear for the time even though inevitably allowances must be made for harshness and lack of full sonority.*


Agree the wartime Bruckner 8th with VPO is a great performance and with very good sound for its age, Praga label recently issued nice 2CD set with both VPO and later BPO Bruckner 8ths togehter, I have been buying most of the other historical Praga series.....




















> *Karl Böhm/Vienna PO (1976) (DG)
> 
> Böhm is grand, opulent, unforced, and with luxurious playing from the VPO, presenting the work naturally in all its Romantic glory. The interpretation is both dramatic and eloquent, captured in perfect sound.*


Love it but I like even better a live studio 1974 Bohm 8th (WDR Koln) below which is more powerful and exciting presenting a different style performance, perhaps because it is live or different orchestra but it is one of my very favorite Bruckner 8ths! The sound is excellent probably originally a radio broadcast












> *Herbert von Karajan/Berlin PO (1975) (DG)
> 
> Karajan's intense interpretation is an ideal blueprint for a work with which he was closely identified. The 1975 BPO is powerful, mystical, and unerring in its musical pacing, particularly in the dramatic Finale. The sound quality is full, present, and opulent.*


Really great performance becomes even greater with latest 24/96 HD remaster, more inner detail revealing the amazing beauty and power of this work, need Blu ray player or even easier one of the HD streams like Tidal Master to hear the full 24/96 version....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Just when I thought I had heard it all, I finally came around to Furtwangler's final Bruckner 8th, from April 1954 with the VPO. No one ever talks about this one, deferring to the excellent wartime VPO and 1949 BPO versions. I think this is an unfortunate oversight, because I now notice John Ardoin praised its virtues in the gold standard book on WF recordings, T_he Furtwangler Recor_d.

In short, I was stunned at the overwhelming power and beauty of this performance! This might be to the intense wartime account what the Lucerne Beethoven 9th is to the 1942 9th. More reflective (also more conventional if a bit slower) and much better recorded. As in the Beethoven, some may prefer this interpretation as the wartime version is more hectic. What a fine memorial this made as his last ever Bruckner recording.

I am curious what Granate might think as I do not believe this was included in his survey. By far the best transfer is from Orfeo, although unfortunately only available in their superlative VPO boxset (which includes the wartime Beethoven 3rd, Bruckner 8th, and Brahms 2nd among other goodies).

Highly recommended for fans of the Bruckner 8th. Right at the top of essential recordings for me along with WF's 1944 VPO, Wand's BPO and Lubeck NDR versions, and the Karajan 70s BPO.


----------



## GrosseFugue

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You guys stole my thunder. I was about to post on the three Karajans I listened to this afternoon. I had only heard the 1988 VPO before today. Yes, just as with the 7th, I came away more impressed with the 70s BPO.
> 
> The 1988 VPO has never quite moved me enough. It's best in the loud parts, and now I realize that's because the rest is a little bit slack and stale. Compare just the opening few bars of the Adagio. With the VPO it is played. With the BPO it is _felt_


Oh god, did my Bruckner search not end after Karajan VPO '88 & '89???
Oh god, will I now also have to acquire his 70's BPO???
Oh god, am I missing out???
Oh god, can I not leave this earth before hearing the BPO version???
Oh god!
Sometimes I hate you guys.
But only because you guys are the best.
 :tiphat:


----------



## Phil loves classical

GrosseFugue said:


> Oh god, did my Bruckner search not end after Karajan VPO '88 & '89???
> Oh god, will I now also have to acquire his 70's BPO???
> Oh god, am I missing out???
> Oh god, can I not leave this earth before hearing the BPO version???
> Oh god!
> Sometimes I hate you guys.
> But only because you guys are the best.
> :tiphat:


I suggest you listen to it before buying it. I think the 70's version is more intense, but is also a less comfortable version for repeated listening. I felt the '88 version had more warmth overall, but still power where it was needed. For me the phrasing was perfect and haven't heard anything that improved on it yet.


----------



## Merl

Phil loves classical said:


> I suggest you listen to it before buying it. I think the 70's version is more intense, but is also a less comfortable version for repeated listening. I felt the '88 version had more warmth overall, but still power where it was needed. For me the phrasing was perfect and haven't heard anything that improved on it yet.


I agree. Both are superb but the 88 version does bear repeated listening better. I've just been playing a few I recommended a while back but one really stands out. In a frustratingly uneven set, Janowski's OSR 8th is absolutely first rate and the finale is thrilling. Hugely recommended (even if some of the other symphonies in the set don't quite hit the same heights except the first few).


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ I don't recall hearing this one. Thanks. I'll check it out.


----------



## bluto32

Phil loves classical said:


> I suggest you listen to it before buying it. I think the 70's version is more intense, but is also a less comfortable version for repeated listening. I felt the '88 version had more warmth overall, but still power where it was needed. For me the phrasing was perfect and haven't heard anything that improved on it yet.


I have both of these Karajan recordings and find it hard to choose one over the other. Perhaps the 70s has the edge for me at present, mainly because I find the 80s scherzo too slow (although the 70s scherzo is also somewhat on the slow side).

I prefer Wand in Lubeck (1987, available from Japan as a twofer with No. 9) - perfect tempi throughout and glorious acoustics.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Eight was always my top Bruckner symphony. As I get older, I lean towards the fifth.

However, my favourite eights (until further notice) in no particular order are:

Karajan VPO DG 1980s
Karajan BPO 1970s
Karajan BPO 1950s
Carlo Maria Giulini BPO Live Testament
Carlo Maria Giulini VPO DG
Celibidache MPO EMI/Warner

All rather obvious and orthodox choices

But there are so many others (Barbirolli, Tennstedt, Skrowaczewski, Furtwangler, various Wands and so on)


----------



## Knorf

And Boulez! I still love his Wiener Philharmoniker Bruckner 8.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Knorf said:


> And Boulez! I still love his Wiener Philharmoniker Bruckner 8.


Gosh! What an oversight, on my part! Well spotted, Knorf!


----------



## HenryPenfold

And isn't the St Florian DVD fabulous!

One can only wonder what a third or a fifth from Boulez and the VPO might've been like ......


----------



## Granate

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Just when I thought I had heard it all, I finally came around to Furtwangler's final Bruckner 8th, from April 1954 with the VPO. No one ever talks about this one, deferring to the excellent wartime VPO and 1949 BPO versions. I think this is an unfortunate oversight, because I now notice John Ardoin praised its virtues in the gold standard book on WF recordings, T_he Furtwangler Recor_d.
> 
> In short, I was stunned at the overwhelming power and beauty of this performance! This might be to the intense wartime account what the Lucerne Beethoven 9th is to the 1942 9th. More reflective (also more conventional if a bit slower) and much better recorded. As in the Beethoven, some may prefer this interpretation as the wartime version is more hectic. What a fine memorial this made as his last ever Bruckner recording.
> 
> I am curious what Granate might think as I do not believe this was included in his survey. By far the best transfer is from Orfeo, although unfortunately only available in their superlative VPO boxset (which includes the wartime Beethoven 3rd, Bruckner 8th, and Brahms 2nd among other goodies).
> 
> Highly recommended for fans of the Bruckner 8th. Right at the top of essential recordings for me along with WF's 1944 VPO, Wand's BPO and Lubeck NDR versions, and the Karajan 70s BPO.


In fact I listened to this one in a whole Bruckner Historical challenge around June 2019. Surveying lots of mono recordings. In that new marathon, in the No.8, the Berlin 1949 Audite recording from Furtwängler came 1st once more. I listened to this one but it rested in the second half of the rank. I wasn't very interested as I listened through this performance. But why not another listen?

I'm currently more interested in Stereo Bruckner since the "Official" Knappertsbusch Bruckner recordings are all letting me down. And I'm now being blown away listening to Böhm's Studio No.7 in Vienna. I'm also going to survey the No.8 I own on CD despite not having listened to it in years.


----------



## superhorn

Bruckner's 8th and 9th symphonies for me at least , disprove the notion that his music is a reflection of pure religious faith and lack of doubt and despair .
There is a great deal of anguish and doubt reflected in the first movement of the 8th and the finale, even though the symphony ends in affirmation . The ninth seems to me to be filled with terror and despair , such as in the monstrously dissonant chord at the climax of the slow movement . 
Bruckner was experiencing both failing physical health and mental problems in his last years , and this is certainly reflected in his last two symphonies .


----------



## savae

My favorites in order are:

01.Knappertsbusch Munich 1963 Studio (DXD Hdtt) & Live (Dreamlife)
02.Celibidache Tokyo 1990 Live (iso Altus,Sony)
03.Furtwängler Berlin 1949 Live (iso Praga,Testament)
04.Matacic Tokyo 1984 Live (iso JVC,Altus)
05.Böhm Viena 1976 studio (iso Tower,Universal) & Live Berlin 1969 (Testament)
06.Schuricht Viena 1963 studio (iso EMI,DXD hdtt) & Live (Altus)
07.Giulini Viena 1984 studio (DG) & Live Berlin (Testament)
08.Wand Lübeck 1987 Live (RCA) & Berlin 2001 Live (iso BMG)
09.keilberth Köln 1966 Live (Orfeo)
10.Kubelik Munich 1977 Live (BR Klassik)
11.Kegel Leipzig 1975 Live (Weitblick)
12.Horenstein London 1970 Live (BBC) & Viena 1955 Studio (Pristine)


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## savae




----------



## JTS

The best Bruckner eight is the valedictory Karajan on DG with the Vienna Philharmonic.


----------



## savae




----------



## savae

Probably the best recording of the octave made by Karajan is VPO 1988 (DG), but the best from the point of view of the quality of the recorded sound, but not necessarily from the point of view of purely musical performance.


Karajan performed Bruckner for 50 years,and of the Eighth Symphony he gave 63 concerts in total.



22 recordings of Bruckner's Octave conducted by Karajan are preserved: 4 studio recordings,and 18
live recordings.

Some prefer the 1957 version because it is the greatest, and the slowest of the 4. Others prefer the one from the 1975 cycle because they say it is more direct and energetic. And most say the best is from 1988 because it is the most polished in detail and by the Vienna Philharmonic.

However, some critics prefer Karajan conducting live,as he really was a great conductor. 
And they point out as the best of all the live concert in St. Florian in 1979 with the Vienna Philharmonic (DVD). 
With excellent sound it is undoubtedly an extraordinary performance. No doubt. Although I would not take Karajan to a desert island. Matters of personal taste.


----------



## Knorf

JTS said:


> The best Bruckner eight is the valedictory Karajan on DG with the Vienna Philharmonic.


I actually like the Berliner account better than the Vienna... The greater focus and keen sense of dramatic pacing in the Berlin account put it ahead, if you ask me.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Knorf said:


> I actually like the Berliner account better than the Vienna... The greater focus and keen sense of dramatic pacing in the Berlin account put it ahead, if you ask me.


I might agree with you on this. I bought the Berlin Karajan 8 many years ago when I was pecuniary-challenged. I hankered after the VPO but I couldn't afford it. I had to be responsible with money even though my wife was wantonly wasting money on things like food and clothes for the kids.

In in the fullness of time I acquired the VPO recording and despite my great expectations, it didn't pip the BPO.


----------



## Knorf

In the end, they're both entirely valid, classic accounts that amply reward repeated listening.


----------



## dko22

I'll be controversial here and plump for Tintner because he records an original version of the symphony which at once makes the who thing a bit fresher with new ideas missing from the normally played revisions. I've always thought the finale of this piece is slightly unsatisfactory compared to the tight and compelling first movement and it's never been among my top favourites although all the Bruckner symphonies -- at least from no. 2 onwards, are great. A few years ago, a Japanese friend introduced me to Takashi Asahina and several of his versions -- including no. 5 and 8 if I remember correctly certainly knocked me out. A crying shame that they were never for sale in the West.


----------



## bassaliens22

Many here have expressed their preference for the BPO Karajan 8 over the WPO recording, so I'll go against the grain and say that the WPO recording may be one of the best things Karajan ever did and that the BPO version, while still excellent, doesn't entirely compare in my eyes. 

Yes, the BPO version is a bit faster and has more aggression and forward momentum, that much is certain. But the WPO recording seems to not just be more capable of subtlety and restraint in many of the quieter sections of the music; it's definitely not more relaxed, because there is still a certain intensity throughout and in climaxes that the BPO recording seems to be slightly more loose about. The shaping of crescendos also seems more mature and refined with the WPO recording, like a less-is-more approach to exactly how the orchestra grows in intensity and volume. I also think the sound palette of the WPO is more suited for this work; the Vienna strings and horns just sound right for late Bruckner, which is probably why all my favorite recordings of the 7th, 8th and 9th all feature the WPO. Regardless, both are awesome recordings and Karajan was undeniably a true maestro with this symphony.


----------



## Chilham

Knorf said:


> ... I'll point and laugh at anyone who thinks the "Lord of the Rings Symphony" is worthy of the name.


I've lined that up to listen next week. I'll let you know if you need to point and laugh in my direction. 

I very much enjoyed Simone Young/Hamburg Philharmonic's Bruckner 8th last week.


----------



## EvaBaron

Listening for the very first time ever to this symphony and to any Bruckner symphony ever. It was late so I just decided to blindly follow trout’s list (normally I use at least 3 sources and then decide which recording I’m going to use as reference) and I’m now halfway in the finale of Karajan’s 1988 vienna recording. I definitely don’t dislike it but I’m also not blown away. But I know this is normal and most of my favourite pieces of music I’ve had to listen at least twice to before loving them. I can already say after listening once that the opening of the first and last movements are awesome. Not that impressed by the coda of the first movement. Seemed to repeat one brass note for a minute and then it ends with pizzicato if I remember correctly? In 7 minutes we’ll see how the coda of the finale is


----------



## EvaBaron

Btw I read the first 8 pages of this thread and once I know this work enough to sample different recordings and compare them I’ll be very interested to hear Furtwangler 1944. Regarding tempi, I’m totally fine with extremely flexible tempi, as long as they are judged well for each section. One good example is Furtwängler’s 1949 Brahms 4 performance. Tempi, especially in the last movement are very flexible and they change with almost every variation. But they are judged so well for every individual variation so that it works very well. After hearing this, I had trouble returning to Kleiber, because I just wanted him to speed up sometimes and it’s very frustrating. Unfortunately the 1949 Wiesbaden isn’t on Spotify


----------



## Ludwig Schon

The Furtwängler remastered 1949 on Audite is still a disaster. The audience sound like they‘re collectively dying of emphysema. Unlistenable…


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Ludwig Schon said:


> The Furtwängler remastered 1949 on Audite is still a disaster. The audience sound like they‘re collectively dying of emphysema. Unlistenable…


I still like the 1944 VPO Furtwängler the best, but if you want better sound I’m a strong advocate of the 1954 VPO on Orfeo. Both recordings are in the Orfeo boxset of Furtwängler live VPO recordings.


----------



## Ludwig Schon

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I still like the 1944 VPO Furtwängler the best, but if you want better sound I’m a strong advocate of the 1954 VPO on Orfeo. Both recordings are in the Orfeo boxset of Furtwängler live VPO recordings.


I adore the 1944 version. ‘twas my first time hearing Bruckner, having bought the Unicorn LP (which I still have) as a teenager. Snap, crackle and pop is much more tolerable on vinyl than noise cancelling headphones…


----------



## marlow

flamencosketches said:


> I don't really "get" Bruckner's 8th, the "Apocalyptic". I heard the Klemperer recording and really liked it, but I think it's a non-starter for many because it apparently contains cuts, non-canonical cuts at that. I want to hear the Karajan/Vienna. I have a question about that recording...:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... how is it possible that this is on a single disc at over 83 minutes long?! I thought they capped out right at 80 or 81.


I have this recording and it is on two discs. Still IMO the best recording of this symphony.


----------



## pianozach

I just finished up Musical Directing a production of Rent, based loosely on La Boheme. 

Technically, and musically, it is a Rock Operetta, and the singing styles are only a smidge out of my comfort zone. But as a modern musical, there is a lot of contemporary dance that many of the performers had to manage WHILE they are singing. 

Our Mimi (AND her understudy) would both get out of breath by the time they were nearing the end of "Out Tonight". Other performers were likewise gasping for air during a few songs.

We had to suggest they practice their songs on a treadmill.


----------



## RobertJTh

To me, the greatest Bruckner 8th is Schuricht/VPO. The polar opposite of all those slow, turgid and stolid "cathedral sound" versions out there. It's got a great natural flow, fast but never hurried.
Barbirolli's live Hallé recording (1970) has an even more intense and imposing first movement, but the rest of the performance isn't fully convincing (lapses of concentration and just too many screwups in the orchestra). But that first movement sounds like the gates of hell opening, it's THAT terrifying.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

We all hear music differently. For me the grand cathedral-like versions are what bring the music home. Bohm/VPO is a great example. Schuricht leaves me cold. I feel short-changed.


----------



## LKB

This:



https://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Symphony-Minor-Wagner-Siegfried-Idyll/dp/B00000E2SV/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=20DVZY3YSKRYY&keywords=Haitink+Bruckner+8&qid=1663164791&sprefix=haitink+bruckner+8%2Caps%2C280&sr=8-1



I've owned von Karajan's analog effort with the BPO, his digital with the WPO and the recording linked above, which l consider the best of the three.

Haitink was one of the great Bruckner interpreters, particularly in Symphonies 7, 8 and 9. His studio recording of the Ninth with the RCO for Philips from the early 1980's is one of the finest orchestral recordings I've heard in the last 40 years or so. If you're not familiar with it, seek it out.


----------



## larold

I thought the Bruckner Symphony 8 was tremendous when I was discovering the composer. It hasn't traveled well for me and I neither own a copy nor have I listened to it in years. It is too much the endurance test like the Mahler Third and Ninth. I don't dismiss it as art; I just find it too much time and trouble to hear. I could never sit through it in the concert hall.


----------



## Artran

The 8th was first symphony I've heard by Bruckner and I immediately fell in love with him. It's a work of a genius.


----------



## haydnguy

marlow said:


> I have this recording and it is on two discs. Still IMO the best recording of this symphony.


Yes I believe I have it too. I'll have find it and give it a listen.


----------



## Heck148

larold said:


> I thought the Bruckner Symphony 8 was tremendous when I was discovering the composer. It hasn't traveled well for me and I neither own a copy nor have I listened to it in years. It is too much the endurance test like the Mahler Third and Ninth. I don't dismiss it as art; I just find it too much time and trouble to hear. I could never sit through it in the concert hall.


Why don't you listen to one or two movements at a time. I do this frequently.
No law says you must listen to an entire symphony or opera at one session.


----------



## marlow

Heck148 said:


> Why don't you listen to one or two movements at a time. I do this frequently.
> No law says you must listen to an entire symphony or opera at one session.


I do this often with long symphonies. Find the slow movements particularly satisfying.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I was privileged to hear Thielemann conduct the 8th last night with the Chicago Symphony. Maybe the best concert I’ve ever attended. What a combination that was! His knowledge and passion for the score, the Chicago brass playing with a perfect deep, sonorous tone, and the intimate acoustics at Orchestra Hall. A night I will never forget (punctuated by the fact that I proposed to my girlfriend later in the evening).


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ You didn't specify if she accepted. We need to know.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Luckily for me, yes!


----------



## Becca

Congratulations  I presume that you will be sending invitations to everyone at TC 

I didn't expect that you would have mentioned it had she not said yes!


----------

