# Chailly's Bruckner cycle



## Steve Wright (Mar 13, 2015)

... is now out in new packaging, at around half the price of the previous release.
As such, I am tempted - esp as I hear good things, and have his #7 which seems very good to me.
Any opinions on Chailly's Bruckner cycle?


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Chailly's Bruckner can be good to very good. All recordings are decent. But I don't think any of them jump out as definitive or exemplary or innovative. This is one of those reliable sets. You should get it if that's what you're looking for.

If not, then there are many better options. But the standard of the performances can be more varied.

But that's Bruckner for you.


----------



## Steve Wright (Mar 13, 2015)

Herrenvolk said:


> Chailly's Bruckner can be good to very good. All recordings are decent. But I don't think any of them jump out as definitive or exemplary or innovative. This is one of those reliable sets. You should get it if that's what you're looking for.


Thanks for that. I had a listen this evening to his 3 and 5 via YouTube, and again to his 7 with which I'm familiar. And I must say, I'm quite to very impressed. 
Yes, they might not be the last word in drama, tension or that cosmic awe you often want in Bruckner (I can imagine his 8 and 9 may not be the darkest and most gripping out there), but they have something else... immense clarity of sound of course, so that I heard lines and motifs I hadn't fully registered before. And a gentler, more songful quality than the monumental Karajan, or Jochum who to me at moments can seem slightly too impulsive. 
In Chailly's clear, lyrical Bruckner I can hear... who? Schubert, I suppose. Mozart? Even, in some of the brass that sounds calmly magnificent rather than braying, faint echoes of Sibelius 5.
Yes, I'm quite impressed...


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

Steve Wright said:


> Thanks for that. I had a listen this evening to his 3 and 5 via YouTube, and again to his 7 with which I'm familiar. And I must say, I'm quite to very impressed.
> Yes, they might not be the last word in drama, tension or that cosmic awe you often want in Bruckner (I can imagine his 8 and 9 may not be the darkest and most gripping out there), but they have something else... immense clarity of sound of course, so that I heard lines and motifs I hadn't fully registered before. And a gentler, more songful quality than the monumental Karajan, or Jochum who to me at moments can seem slightly too impulsive.
> In Chailly's clear, lyrical Bruckner I can hear... who? Schubert, I suppose. Mozart? Even, in some of the brass that sounds calmly magnificent rather than braying, faint echoes of Sibelius 5.
> Yes, I'm quite impressed...


I've owned this cycle for nearly two years now and I'm prepared to say - on the evidence of his Beethoven, Brahms and Mahler, all of which I have as well - I'm not a Chailly fan. There's something cold about his modus operandi. I much prefer Jochum's Bruckner, Furtangler's, Skrowasczewski's. And Barenboim's.
It's interesting with conductors: there are some who I respect - Haitink, for example - but who I never play - and some who always leave me cold: Abbado for example, though I get much more from his very late concerts. Then there are conductors who seem just plain ridiculous, for example Solti.
I really warm to Kurt Sanderling's music making. And Klemperer's, and I love Celibidache. Ditto Bernstein, apart from his too fraught Mahler. And though I've warmed slightly to some of Karajan's recordings, in the main I hate them with a passion because of his obsession with 'beautiful' sounds. His Beethoven, for example, is as smooth as Mantovani.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

dieter said:


> I've owned this cycle for nearly two years now and I'm prepared to say - on the evidence of his Beethoven, Brahms and Mahler, all of which I have as well - I'm not a Chailly fan. There's something cold about his modus operandi. I much prefer Jochum's Bruckner, Furtangler's, Skrowasczewski's. And Barenboim's.
> It's interesting with conductors: there are some who I respect - Haitink, for example - but who I never play - and some who always leave me cold: Abbado for example, though I get much more from his very late concerts. Then there are conductors who seem just plain ridiculous, for example Solti.
> I really warm to Kurt Sanderling's music making. And Klemperer's, and I I love Celibidache. Ditto Bernstein, apart from his too fraught Mahler. And though I've warmed slightly to some of Karajan's recordings, in the main I hate them with a passion because of his Karajan's obsession with 'beautiful' sounds. His Beethoven, for example, is as smooth as Mantovani.


Once again, I completely agree with you. His Beethoven set is a travesty in my opinion. Too fast. No warmth.
Supposed to be based on "latest research"?

Could Beethoven have approved of Chailly's all surface, no warmth, incredible speed through the first two movements of Beethoven's Pastoral? Toscanini could play Beethoven fast BUT he could pull it off and the warmth was there because the players were completely inspired.
With Chailly, it sounds like just another day at the office. Ho! Hum!

I believe Beethoven would have been very, very angry to hear such beautiful music being skimmed across. But that's just me.

You think his Beethoven is bad? Listen to his Schumann/Mahler Second Symphony. I slept through it.

I want Beethoven. I listen to Karajan or Wand.

I want Schumann, I listen to Bernstein/NY Philharmonic or Karajan.

I want Bruckner (not my cup of tea), I listen to either one of the fine Jochum sets.

I myself, wouldn't touch Chailly/Bruckner-not because I don't like Bruckner, but because I expect commitment in the playing.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Steve Wright said:


> Thanks for that. I had a listen this evening to his 3 and 5 via YouTube, and again to his 7 with which I'm familiar. And I must say, I'm quite to very impressed.
> Yes, they might not be the last word in drama, tension or that cosmic awe you often want in Bruckner (I can imagine his 8 and 9 may not be the darkest and most gripping out there), but they have something else... *immense clarity of sound of course*, so that I heard lines and motifs I hadn't fully registered before. And a gentler, more songful quality than the monumental Karajan, or Jochum who to me at moments can seem slightly too impulsive.
> In *Chailly's clear*, lyrical Bruckner I can hear... who? Schubert, I suppose. Mozart? Even, in some of the brass that sounds calmly magnificent rather than braying, faint echoes of Sibelius 5.
> Yes, I'm* quite impressed*...


The clarity, and the lack of impulsive tendencies are why I seem to generally enjoy Chailly's conducting too, but I haven't yet heard his Bruckner. I do like his Mahler and Brahms cycles though.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Steve Wright said:


> ... is now out in new packaging, at around half the price of the previous release.
> As such, I am tempted - esp as I hear good things, and have his #7 which seems very good to me.
> Any opinions on Chailly's Bruckner cycle?
> View attachment 82721


If it was so extraordinary they wouldn't put it on the market at low budget price.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm a great fan of Chailly's conducting. He does everything just right, brings out all the lines. I have nothing negative to say about his performances and own and listen to many. But once in a while I think of what was once said of Los Angeles...there's no "there" there.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Pugg said:


> If it was so extraordinary they wouldn't put it on the market at low budget price.


I got Karajan's '63 Beethoven Symphony cycle at a budget price, I recently picked up Alicia de Larrocha performing _Iberia_ at a budget price, I'm sure I could think of many other examples. Are you honestly suggesting you have never picked up an excellent recording at a budget price?


----------



## Steve Wright (Mar 13, 2015)

Pugg said:


> If it was so extraordinary they wouldn't put it on the market at low budget price.


Hmmm... Karajan's, Jochum's (EMI at least) and Wand's cycles are also super-affordable, and they seem to be cornerstones of the Bruckner performance tradition (wow, that sounds pompous).
(But the presence of your  suggests I'm being over-literal in even answering this )


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Chailly recorded an amazing B7 (with RSO Berlin) and very very good B0 and B2. I haven't listened to any other, but I am a fan of Chailly conducting. Will look into this set later. But it seems to me at least B7 performance is a different one.


----------



## Steve Wright (Mar 13, 2015)

KenOC said:


> I'm a great fan of Chailly's conducting. He does everything just right, brings out all the lines. I have nothing negative to say about his performances and own and listen to many. *But once in a while I think of what was once said of Los Angeles...there's no "there" there.*


Ken, I've been puzzling enjoyably over this in the shower (OK, enough info already). Do you mean something like: some things can become over-familiar through sheer proximity / we can get set in our ways (LA folks with LA, you with your Chailly collection)?


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Interesting topic. I never tried any of his Bruckner yet, I will keep watching your valuable opinions on his cycle.


----------



## Steve Wright (Mar 13, 2015)

Steve Wright said:


> Ken, I've been puzzling enjoyably over this in the shower (OK, enough info already). Do you mean something like: some things can become over-familiar through sheer proximity / we can get set in our ways (LA folks with LA, you with your Chailly collection)?


Actually no, hang on - you mean that for Chailly it's all in the one register - all 'here' (albeit a good 'here'), no 'there'?


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

Steve Wright said:


> Hmmm... Karajan's, Jochum's (EMI at least) and Wand's cycles are also super-affordable, and they seem to be cornerstones of the Bruckner performance tradition (wow, that sounds pompous).
> (But the presence of your  suggests I'm being over-literal in even answering this )


Steve, do yourself a favor; get the Jochum, perhaps get the Chailly as well. Compare them. Jochum will make you wish Chailly had listened to them and learnt a thing or two.


----------



## Steve Wright (Mar 13, 2015)

dieter said:


> Steve, do yourself a favor; get the Jochum, perhaps get the Chailly as well. Compare them. Jochum will make you wish Chailly had listened to them and learnt a thing or two.


I have the Jochum EMI set, and need to give it more of a listen...ditto the Karajan set.
I suppose my thinking is something like: having heard Chailly's 3, 5 and 7, I think his Bruckner is Bruckner that I could listen to at _any _time. Karajan's and Jochum's Bruckners, for slightly different reasons but to do with things including impulsive rhythm changes, harsh climaxes and more, are music that I _love_ in the right mood but don't _always_ want (but I guess you could say that of almost anything). 
Chailly's Bruckner sounds both beautiful and always nourishing, never jarring or tiring, to me. As graceful as, say, Schubert, yet with all the requisite Bruckner architecture, spirituality and monumentality intact (I think).
But that may be to miss (part of) the point of Bruckner, I know. But, again: I feel it's a set I could keep coming back to again and again, whereas others are for more particular moods. Or something.
I dunno. I'm early in my career with all this, and am probably thinking slightly askew...


----------



## Steve Wright (Mar 13, 2015)

dieter said:


> Steve, do yourself a favor; get the Jochum, perhaps get the Chailly as well. Compare them. Jochum will make you wish Chailly had listened to them and learnt a thing or two.


And actually, tell me (for interest: I'm not challenging!) what you think Chailly missed... something to do with drama, spirituality...?


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

Steve Wright said:


> And actually, tell me (for interest: I'm not challenging!) what you think Chailly missed... something to do with drama, spirituality...?


With Jochum I feel he's inside the music. Chailly sounds 'outside', if you know what I mean. Jochum had been conducting this music since the late 30's. So, for the uninitiated, if you like, Chailly might sound comfortable, but when you get this music inside your marrow, you want more. That's why Celibidache and Furtwangler resonate, the same with Jochum.
Remember that quite often initial discomfort can be an opportunity to grow. So sure, Jochum will change gears, Chailly might seem more comfortable. Comfort, though, is the enemy of inspiration.


----------



## Steve Wright (Mar 13, 2015)

Good explanation, thank you!
I am just listening to the Jochum/EMI B5. It's mightily impressive, with the emphasis on 'mightily'. I think there's room in my world for both this passionate utterance and Chailly's slightly more (yes, good word) comfortable account.
I mostly agree about comfort versus inspiration. Only 'mostly' because, if it's at all a relevant parallel, I do some of my best thinking (I'm a freelance writer) when very calm and collected. Other best thinking comes when stressed.
I don't disagree, though, that Jochum, Celi and Furtwangler probably do reach deeper into the marrow of Bruckner. I wonder if it marks me down as a Bruckner-lite if I say that that is often, _but not always_, what I will want. 
At other times lyricism, beautiful sound, crystal-clear tuttis, and never a fear of having my ears blasted off by brass climaxes will hold sway.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Mr. Steve, how many Bruckner sets/performances have you heard?


----------



## Steve Wright (Mar 13, 2015)

Herrenvolk said:


> Mr. Steve, how many Bruckner sets/performances have you heard?


Well, here's my collection, most (though I'll confess not all) of which I have listened to properly. Some faves in bold:
Sets: Karajan/BPO (*3, 5, 9*), Jochum/Dresden (*5, 6, 9*)
plus
2: *Inbal*
3: *Inbal*, Tintner
4: Karajan EMI, Masur, Wand/BPO, *Jochum/BPO*
5: *Barenboim/BPO*
6: *Stein/VPO*
7: Wand/Kolner, *Chailly, Haitink*, Tintner, D'Avalos
8: *Maazel/BPO*, Jochum/BPO, Wand/BPO
9: Barenboim/BPO, *Harnoncourt/VPO*
On top of those I have heard online, off the top of my head, Sawallisch's 6, Chailly's 3 and 5, and Celibidache's 3 and 4- and have been very impressed with all of these....


----------



## Steve Wright (Mar 13, 2015)

PS Oh and also Skrowaczewski's 2 via YouTube. Again, very impressed - enjoyed it in similar ways to Chailly's, i.e. wonderful clarity of sound. I may treat myself to a cycle by Skrow, Chailly or Celi come next pay day...


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

Steve Wright said:


> Good explanation, thank you!
> I am just listening to the Jochum/EMI B5. It's mightily impressive, with the emphasis on 'mightily'. I think there's room in my world for both this passionate utterance and Chailly's slightly more (yes, good word) comfortable account.
> I mostly agree about comfort versus inspiration. Only 'mostly' because, if it's at all a relevant parallel, I do some of my best thinking (I'm a freelance writer) when very calm and collected. Other best thinking comes when stressed.
> I don't disagree, though, that Jochum, Celi and Furtwangler probably do reach deeper into the marrow of Bruckner. I wonder if it marks me down as a Bruckner-lite if I say that that is often, _but not always_, what I will want.
> At other times lyricism, beautiful sound, crystal-clear tuttis, and never a fear of having my ears blasted off by brass climaxes will hold sway.


I write as well, fiction. It's true what you say about the need to be very calm and collected.


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

Steve Wright said:


> PS Oh and also Skrowaczewski's 2 via YouTube. Again, very impressed - enjoyed it in similar ways to Chailly's, i.e. wonderful clarity of sound. I may treat myself to a cycle by Skrow, Chailly or Celi come next pay day...


Alleluia to pay day


----------

