# Herreweghe's Bruckner



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Since my recent discovery of Bruckner's music and lack of recordings I have been browsing amazon.com for any good Bruckner (Karajan's symphony cycle looks good, pretty cheap too) and found a few CDs by Herreweghe. Naturally, being a historically informed performance fan, I was excited to see that Bruckner had been performed on instruments of the mid to late 1800s and in period style. The reviews make it seem like they aren't the best recordings around. Herreweghe's Bruckner: worth getting? 

I heard a teensy bit of Mass no. 3 on YouTube and thought it was quite good, but then again, that recording is the only one I've heard of it now and it was only a teensy bit after all.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I've heard Herreweghe's recording of the 4th which I borrowed from my library on interloan a while ago.
It's not bad but I wouldn't trade it for the great ones by such towering Brcuknerians and Jochum,Karajan, Boehm, Solti, Barenboim, Haitink and others . 
Actually, I oculd detect very little difference in sound between Herreweghe's period instrument Champs Elysees orchestra, other than it sounded a bit lighter in sound with less vibrato from the strings .
And as one who is not opposed to HIP performances per se but is somewhat skeptical as to how "authentic" they are , I'm also not sure that this is what the orchestras of the late 19th century actually sounded like .
And how do we know that if Bruckner could miraculously come back today and hear such magnificent orchestras as the Berlin Phil., the Royal Concertgebouw, th e Vienna Phil, Chicago symphony and the Staatskapelle ,Dresden play his symphonies that he would not have been overjoyed by the magnificent sounds they produce ? 
A review of Herreweghe's recording of the 7th I read said that the solo flute "sounded like a penny whistle !" 
Do we REALLY need HIP for Bruckner ? I'm not opposed to the attempt to do this per se, but the notion that 
we NEED it for late 19th and early 20th century composers as a supposed "corrective" to the "inauthentic" performances of our mainstream orchestras is not only ludicrous but offensive as far as I am concerned .
And Herreweghe has just come out with an HIP Mahler 4th, and I hear he plans to do all nine of Mahler's symphonies . David Hurwitz at classicstoday.com thought the performance was awful .


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Interesting, when it comes to romantic music I do like to have a sense of what the "authentic" sound is like even if it isn't _that_ much different. The modern interpretations from Berlin Phil, Concertgebouw etc. are great but it's nice to have HIP around too.

HIP Mahler! What next?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

As someone who can only detect minimal difference between HIP Beethoven and "normal" Beethoven, I would question the need for HIP after the early 1800s.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> As someone who can only detect minimal difference between HIP Beethoven and "normal" Beethoven, I would question the need for HIP after the early 1800s.


In at least 70 years time I'm sure there will be "HIP purists" who only listen to HIP Bruckner, Mahler, perhaps even Schoenberg!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

HIP from mid to late romantic onwards is probably more about size of orchestra, vibrato, pitch, orchestral layout, tempi that do not make a mile of a difference between "modern" interpretations (unless it is a very heavy old school vibrato sound). The point I am trying to make is listening to orchestral music under Herreweghe or Norrington conducting Bruckner and Mahler would sound less of a shock to some than it might compared with the same doing Monteverdi versus Karajan interpreting Monteverdi.

I do not have Herreweghe's Bruckner but I do have Norrington's. Vibrato, size of orchestra, tempi were the main difference that I could hear, which did not seem all that big a deal compared with other "modern interpretations" of Burckner symphonies that I have. Both enjoyable, and I enjoy the differences. That all it maters.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

HIP or no HIP, I don't care, just keep John Eliot Gardiner away from the podium.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Of the two complete cycles I possess, Karajan & Wand, I would say both are as good as each other. I thought the Karajan would be the better of the two as the Berlin Philharmonic characteristically has a more mellow warmth in tone on recordings (IMHO), interpretation-wise both have points to recommend them.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I agree with superhorn and HarpsichordConcerto. I have Herreweghe's Bruckner Fifth, and the HIPness of it does not jump out at you. But of course it's noticeable in the details. Overall, I like the recording very much, but I might be biased since I like generally like Herreweghe's recordings very much.

For me, one thing I always hark for is how well the wood winds can be heard. Not just in solo passages, but also in orchestral tuttis, as impossible as it may seem. I resent it when the wood winds are completely drowned out by the strings and brass. I also think, if the composer took the trouble to write those parts for the clarinette and the bassoon, one should be able to actually hear them.

Of course with Bruckner, I usually hark in vain. But Herreweghe did a really nice job.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

G


Andreas said:


> I agree with superhorn and HarpsichordConcerto. I have Herreweghe's Bruckner Fifth, and the HIPness of it does not jump out at you. But of course it's noticeable in the details. Overall, I like the recording very much, but I might be biased since I like generally like Herreweghe's recordings very much.
> 
> For me, one thing I always hark for is how well the wood winds can be heard. Not just in solo passages, but also in orchestral tuttis, as impossible as it may seem. I resent it when the wood winds are completely drowned out by the strings and brass. I also think, if the composer took the trouble to write those parts for the clarinette and the bassoon, one should be able to actually hear them.
> 
> Of course with Bruckner, I usually hark in vain. But Herreweghe did a really nice job.


I think in modern interpretations _everything's_ drowned out by the brass. Have you heard Herreweghe's Bruckner Mass no. 3? Just from hearing the Kyrie I think it is superb.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Andreas said:


> ... For me, one thing I always hark for is how well the wood winds can be heard. Not just in solo passages, but also in orchestral tuttis, as impossible as it may seem. I resent it when the wood winds are completely drowned out by the strings and brass. I also think, if the composer took the trouble to write those parts for the clarinette and the bassoon, one should be able to actually hear them.
> 
> Of course with Bruckner, I usually hark in vain. But Herreweghe did a really nice job.


Excellent point about the woodwinds. Prominence of woodwind sounds is also a practice of HIP in pre-Romantic periods, where the size of string band is much smaller (think Bach's orchestral suites with only a couple or so strings per part at most, or some even using just one per part). Overly large string sections and brass give that muscular strong type of sound that some "modern" interpretations do/often used to do, that drown out the inner woodwinds.

Overall, I am much, much less fussed when it comes to historically informed performance practice with regards to post early to mid Romantic works. If I am listening to Norrington conducting Bruckner or Tchaikovsky, then it is because I enjoy Norrington's conducting, rather than searching for HIP on Romantic works per se. (Earlier periods, different story).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> G
> 
> I think in modern interpretations _everything's_ drowned out by the brass. Have you heard Herreweghe's Bruckner Mass no. 3? Just from hearing the Kyrie I think it is superb.


I have that recording. I agree. It is superb and even sounds "Classical".


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Thanks everyone, I'll check out Norrington's Bruckner and Tchaikovsky.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Mephistopheles said:


> HIP or no HIP, I don't care, just keep John Eliot Gardiner away from the podium.[/QUOTE
> 
> Don't you like his *Beethoven Cycle *with the Orchestre Revolutinnaire et Romantique?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

John Eliot Gardiner is one of my favourite conductors.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> In at least 70 years time I'm sure there will be "HIP purists" who only listen to HIP Bruckner, Mahler, perhaps even Schoenberg!


HIP instruments, that is, instruments with similar properties to 18th century instruments, might sound great with Schoenberg, especially his serialist baroque and classicist pieces. Not so sure about Mahler though.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

samurai said:


> Don't you like his *Beethoven Cycle *with the Orchestre Revolutinnaire et Romantique?


Not in the least. The trouble with Gardiner is that he excels in Baroque music, which I just do not like (so it's not really his fault), but in the Classical and Romantic music I do like, he butchers it beyond belief with a few exceptions made for choral works.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Mephistopheles said:


> Not in the least. The trouble with Gardiner is that he excels in Baroque music, which I just do not like (so it's not really his fault), but in the Classical and Romantic music I do like, he butchers it beyond belief with a few exceptions made for choral works.


I agree. His Brahms cycle is thin and shallow.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Problems of balance can often be the fault of recording engineers, not necessarily the conductors .
In concert, they can sometimes be the fault of the conductor , or can happen if an orchestra is on tour and playing in an unfamiliar ocnert hall for the first time .
The peculiar acoustics of different concert halls can also be a factor. Balances can sound different from different seats within the auditiorium . There's an orchestra in London called the New Queen's Hall orchestra, named after one which existed long ago in pre WW 2 London, and it uses gut strings and smaller bore bras instruments which its manager and founder John Boyden claims prevent fauloty balances .
Boyden used to be one of EMI's leading record producers and claims that he had a lot of difficulties balancing orchestras because of modern brass which were too loud, so he founded the NQHO about 20 years ago as an independent orchestra . It has so far made an HIP recording of The Pllanets by Holst, a Vaughan Williams album and a few other recordings under different ocnductos, Roy Goodman and Barry Worldsworth, for example .But I doubt that balances were always perfect in the 19th and early 20th century either. 
Boyden's claims on the orchestra's website an d elsewhere strike me as insufferably arrogant and patronizing . He dismisses today's orchestras out of hand and claims that "they all sound alike", which is si,mply not true . Many others in recent years have stated that all or most orchestras sound alike, but I hear absolutley no evidence of this.
It's a physical and acoustical impossibility for orchestra to sound alike, because they are made up of different musicians playing different makes of instruments in concert halls with different acoustics .
I've heard many,many old recordings of orchestras from the 1920s tot he 40s , and hear absolutely no evidence that there was greater differentation in timbre among them . In particular, different woodwind and brass players around th eorchestral world have markedly different timbres , and always have .


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mephistopheles said:


> Not in the least. The trouble with Gardiner is that he excels in Baroque music, which I just do not like (so it's not really his fault), but in the Classical and Romantic music I do like, he butchers it beyond belief with a few exceptions made for choral works.


Baroque is awesome. That's why I like Gardiner.


----------

