# Bruckner Cycle...only one



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

If you had to keep just one complete cycle of the Bruckner Symphonies which would you choose? Or, would you cobble together a cycle from different conductors/orchestras?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Cobbling together is almost certainly the better strategy. But the idea of only one cycle or only one of each symphony would mean missing the very different insights that different conductors have brought to the music. How do you choose between Furtwangler, Celibidache (in Munich), Wand, Jochum, Karajan ...? If I really did have to choose only one of each then I would go for Celibidache for most of the symphonies but that would give me a partial set of extraordinary and unusual performances, sublime but a very distinctive view.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Just one: Karajan no doubt.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'd probably stay with Tintner, since that was what opened my ears to Bruckner, and as they say, you always remember your first love.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I guess I'd take Karajan as well.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Probably Karajan, though I would reluctantly sacrifice it for Furtwangler’s 4-9 if given the choice. Wand or Skrowaczewski would also be in the running.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I collected Bruckner on CD one symphony at a time by different composers (Skrowaczewski, Karajan, Chailly, Haitink, Boulez, Jochum, Inbal, Rattle). Of these, I like Haitink (in 7 and 9) best and Karajan (in 1, 4, 5 and 6) least. Since then, I have also got three complete cycles, Tintner, Gielen (missing 0 and 00) and Skrowaczewski (which I have not had time to play yet). I love the Gielen, but the missing 00 and especially 0 is a drawback. So for the time being, Tintner it is for me, but that might change once I've gone through the Skrowaczewski (which will be a while, as I just finished listening to the Gielen box). i do not need the completion of the 9th.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I have three Bruckner cycles at the moment: Karajan, Bochum and Tintner, each of which gives insights. 
If pushed it might just be Karajan


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

I recently got the Karajan on Blu-ray audio...with this much improved sound I’d probably go for Karajan, too. But still, there are so many greats both old and new. I really enjoyed Skrowaczewski and Simone Young from Hamburg.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I find it interesting that Karajan is coming out top for us and wonder if I need to revisit it. My impression to date is that it is deeply impressive but I really need to feel a human touch in Bruckner and Karajan is just too monolithic and monumental for me. For a long time he had me feeling that I didn't greatly care for Bruckner. 

In case you are wondering, I am normally quite a Karajan fan.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

I had not listened to Karajan’s Bruckner in a good while either...prompted by purchasing the Blu-ray version. It has given me a new appreciation for his vision and the virtuosity of the BPO. I agree, there is an earthiness in Bruckner that Karajan misses in his metaphysical quest for transcendence. That’s one of the things I enjoy about Jochum...he does both. I’m suddenly realizing how difficult this is, choosing just one!


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Gray Bean said:


> If you had to keep just one complete cycle of the Bruckner Symphonies which would you choose? Or, would you cobble together a cycle from different conductors/orchestras?


It's not complete but I'd go with *Sergiu Celibidache with the Munich Philharmonic, Symphonies 3-9 plus Te Deum the Mass #3, on Warner Classics*. While Celibidache was alive I was completely unaware of his output; perhaps due to the possibility that he did not like to record, and especially did not like to record in the studio, I gather because he thought the audience was an essential ingredient to the musical experience. Also, probably, the Romanian/Europe-based Celibidache was not very much discussed here in the USA during the 1980s and 1990s when I was still reading magazines such as _Opus_ and _Stereo Review_, and I certainly don't remember seeing any of his records available at record stores.

Celibidache's approach is unique as he slows down the already monster-length Bruckner symphonies to an even longer length, and while you might think that it would be really noticeable, to my ears, it doesn't seem that way. While Bruckner's symphonies are supposed to celebrate some kind of Christian/Roman Catholic ideal; Celibidache curiously identified his approach as Buddhist, perhaps taking a "mindful" take on the performance ("mindfulness" now being all the rage here in America in terms of stress-reduction and "mindful living").

This is not to take a thing away from the other great Bruckner conductors. Celibidache is an unorthodox approach that may not be for everyone.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

I prefer Buckner recordings with the best possible sound quality, which is the main reason why my complete set is Chailly with the Royal Concertgebouw or the Deutsches Symphony-Orchester Berlin 1985-1997. Hat tip to Knappertsbusch, Wand, and others mentioned already in this thread. I know Chailly’s Bruckner doesn’t get a lot of love, but I find it bright and transparent, beautifully played by these orchestras, and sonically excellent.

If I cobbled, I would concentrate just on my two favorites, Nos. 4 and 8. For 4, I like Muti with the Berlin Philharmoniker from 1986 and for 8 Szell/Cleveland from 1969.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

I’ll have to revisit the Chailly and Celibidache sets. I think there is a Celi set on DG, too. Yes...that Muti 4 is a barn burner! I don’t know the Szell performance.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Some of the DG Celibidache recordings are good but it is to the Munich recordings that you must turn if you want to hear his famous/infamous spacious interpretations. These alone are responsible for his reputation for sometimes excessively slow speeds ... and the insights and possibilities that these allowed him. The DG recordings show him in transition towards his Munich style.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Can I get Bruckner officiandos to tell me their preferred symphonies in order of best to worst, please?

I have a variety of cycles and part cycles, but I rarely listen to them, because I just haven't been able to 'get' Bruckner. But it may be merely that I need to be guided as to where best to start...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

As the Chailly box is only 20 euro (free shipping) at JPC, I decided I could use another set.....


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I have a couple of Dohnanyi’s which are very good too


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Can I get Bruckner officiandos to tell me their preferred symphonies in order of best to worst, please?
> 
> I have a variety of cycles and part cycles, but I rarely listen to them, because I just haven't been able to 'get' Bruckner. But it may be merely that I need to be guided as to where best to start...


From the top:
9
8
4,7
3,6
2,5
0,1
00

Others will rate the 8 higher than the 9, and many rate the 5 higher than I do.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

My Bruckner stew:

Jochum in 1,2 and 3 Berlin Phil
Schuricht in 3,5 and 7 Vienna Phil and Stuttgart Radio SO
Knappertsbusch in 4,7,8 and 9 Berlin and Munich Philharmonics
Van Beinum in 5,8 and 9 Amsterdam Concertgebouw
Bohm in 7 and 8 Vienna Phil
Giulini in 7 and 9 Vienna Phil
Wand in 5,8 and 9 Cologne Radio SO
Klemperer in 6 and 7 Philharmonia Orch

Favorites in order: 7,8,5,9,3.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Art Rock said:


> From the top:
> 9
> 8
> 4,7
> ...


Appreciate that. I just put on No. 9 at random whilst waiting for a reply, and I've got to say... it's pretty darn'd compulsive listening compared to anything else of his I've heard.

Should I be worried that, if I recall correctly, there are approximately 68 versions of every symphony?

And, PS. I see you recommend the Tintner. This one?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Appreciate that. I just put on No. 9 at random whilst waiting for a reply, and I've got to say... it's pretty darn'd compulsive listening compared to anything else of his I've heard.
> 
> Should I be worried that, if I recall correctly, there are approximately 68 versions of every symphony?


Yes. 

One of the things I'm planning to do once I got the Chailly (and open the Scrowaczewski) is to make a table for myself which conductor uses what version on which CD.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Can I admit something embarrassing? I’ve been a Brucknerian for about 2 years now, and I have never heard a note of any of the symphonies earlier than No. 4. Seriously. I have no idea why, I guess I just love the rest so much that I haven’t had time for the earlier ones! Absolutely inexcusable, I know. My current ranking is thus:

8
7
9
4
6
5


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> And, PS. I see you recommend the Tintner. This one?
> 
> View attachment 136118


Well, I recommend it from the two I have (the third one is still unopened, the fourth one just ordered), so take it with a grain of salt. It is indeed the Naxos set. I'm a completionist at heart, so if I could have only one set, it would have to have the 0 and 00 as well - otherwise I'd pick the Gielen over Tintner (but I do like the Tintner as well).


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Can I admit something embarrassing? I've been a Brucknerian for about 2 years now, and I have never heard a note of any of the symphonies earlier than No. 4. Seriously. I have no idea why, I guess I just love the rest so much that I haven't had time for the earlier ones! Absolutely inexcusable, I know. My current ranking is thus:
> 
> 8
> 7
> ...


3 is a must. The 00 is more of a curiosity, but 0, 1 and especially 2 are still quite worthwhile.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Art Rock said:


> Well, I recommend it from the two I have (the third one is still unopened, the fourth one just ordered), so take it with a grain of salt. It is indeed the Naxos set. I'm a completionist at heart, so if I could have only one set, it would have to have the 0 and 00 as well - otherwise I'd pick the Gielen over Tintner (but I do like the Tintner as well).


Thanks for the advice. It is enough to get me started!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Thanks for the advice. It is enough to get me started!


And what an expensive afternoon this has turned out to be! Chailly, Karajan and Tintner!  Shakes fist in your general direction!


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Yes....the 00,0,1,2 and 3 are wonderful! I am especially fond of 2.
For the later symphonies I would say my favorites are 8 and 5. But I love them all to distraction.
I have been on a 6 listening glut here lately.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

I will also confess that I found Bruckner dull until I heard some of Furtwangler’s recordings. That opened the door for a lifelong love of Bruckner and sagging Bruckner shelves in my music library.


----------



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

I haven't any complete cycles by just the one conductor but if Horst Stein had managed one I'd have been in like Flynn as I really enjoy his 2nd and 6th. I admire the scholarliness behind Tintner's recordings of the early symphonies which, like Skrowaczewski, he treats with genuine respect, whereas I suspect some other conductors are more cursory with their accounts - as if they are saying that the 'proper stuff' only begins with no.4.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Picking only one cycle! Brutal. I'd prefer to have the unnumbered D minor and F minor, as well as the four-movement 9th, but none of my favorite cycles have the latter. 

Final three: Karajan, Skrowaczewski, Blomstedt

I think my choice would be Skrowaczewski, even without the early unnumbered symphonies.

ETA: Simone Young is out of the running for me, becuase in several I do not prefer the first version. Her set is great, though!


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I actually like the Paternoster but it's a left field choice for those who are put off by over-dramatic or ragged interpretations... most of the Bruckner I like otherwise is "historical"


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

So I'm curious. Over the years, I have accumulated Solti (1 and 6); Jochum (1-9); Haitink (7), Barenboim (1); Mehta (9); Sawallisch (4); Sinopoli (5), plus some karajan... and (apart from the Karajan) none of these names seem to be turning up as recommendations 

Are they all a bit rubbish? Or just unfashionable? Or what?


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Here's a Frankenstein cycle I'd make, with the additional stipulation you can only choose each conductor once. This is really hard!

Unnumbered F minor: dunno
No. 1: Abbado/Vienna
Unnumbered D minor: Young/Hamburg
No. 2: Blomstedt/Leipzig
No. 3: Skrowaczewski/Saarbrücken
No. 4: Wand/NDR
No. 5: Eichhorn/Bavarian Radio
No. 6: Klemperer/Philharmonia
No. 7: Karajan/Berlin 
No. 8: Schuricht/Vienna
No. 9: Harnoncourt/Vienna


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I wouldn't place 3 among the early and therefore more obscure symphonies as some are doing in this thread. I like 2 well enough (a lot, actually) but it does fit within those more obscure ones. 3, however, sounds like mature and ready for the world Bruckner to me.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Heinz Rögner, even though maybe not a cycle -


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> So I'm curious. Over the years, I have accumulated Solti (1 and 6); Jochum (1-9); Haitink (7), Barenboim (1); Mehta (9); Sawallisch (4); Sinopoli (5), plus some karajan... and (apart from the Karajan) none of these names seem to be turning up as recommendations
> 
> Are they all a bit rubbish? Or just unfashionable? Or what?


Barenboim and Jochum have done some superb Bruckner.

If I was forced to keep just one it would be a mish-mash of Simone Young and Stan the Man (sorry that was a bit of a cheat). There are lots of different approaches to Bruckner that I like and some excellent sets out there.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

i listen to the Chailly set the most.
1. Each symphony is complete on one disc. i hate side breaks.
2. The Decca DDD sound is fantastic


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Merl said:


> Barenboim and Jochum have done some superb Bruckner.


For sure!



> If I was forced to keep just one it would be a mish-mash of Simone Young and Stan the Man (sorry that was a bit of a cheat). There are lots of different approaches to Bruckner that I like and some excellent sets out there.


A pan-Oehms set!


----------



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

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> So I'm curious. Over the years, I have accumulated Solti (1 and 6); Jochum (1-9); Haitink (7), Barenboim (1); Mehta (9); Sawallisch (4); Sinopoli (5), plus some karajan... and (apart from the Karajan) none of these names seem to be turning up as recommendations
> 
> Are they all a bit rubbish? Or just unfashionable? Or what?


I think you would see a fair amount of advocation for Jochum - especially the EMI cycle - on other Bruckner threads. As regards Sinopoli's 5th, I wonder if some are suspicious of the high praise bestowed upon it by _Gramophone_ (they rated it higher than Karajan's) - other reviewers have been more muted with their verdicts even when favourably disposed towards it.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Solti,
close 2nd - 
Barenboim first set, with CSO


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

elgars ghost said:


> I think you would see a fair amount of advocation for Jochum - especially the EMI cycle - on other Bruckner threads. As regards Sinopoli's 5th, I wonder if some are suspicious of the high praise bestowed upon it by _Gramophone_ (they rated it higher than Karajan's) - other reviewers have been more muted with their verdicts even when favourably disposed towards it.


Right. So I should hang on to this mish-mash as being of potentially some artistic worth? I had no idea about the Sinopoli. I always confuse him and getting a hotel on Mayfair...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I have the Haitink 7 (which I'm happy with) and the Haitink 9 (which is fantastic).


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> So I'm curious. Over the years, I have accumulated Solti (1 and 6); Jochum (1-9); Haitink (7), Barenboim (1); Mehta (9); Sawallisch (4); Sinopoli (5), plus some karajan... and (apart from the Karajan) none of these names seem to be turning up as recommendations
> 
> Are they all a bit rubbish? Or just unfashionable? Or what?


Solti has a fairly dedicated fanbase but he's not my jam. If you like high-octane brass you'll love it though! I just think he neglects the structure in favor of sheer orchestral virtuosity. Barenboim with the BPO is good though the Chicago set has the same general sound as Solti. I like Jochum's BPO set but it's hardly any different than Karajan. His Dresden set is not my cup of tea, too rushed and bombastic even though I love the Dresden sound.

It's interesting that Enthusiast mentions Karajan's Bruckner as being monolithic and lacking humanity. I can see that with some Karajan, but I think his Bruckner balances that signature sonic beauty with a deep structural awareness. The moderate tempi, impeccable phrasing, and attention to detail really make these performances stand out. For me an example of cold, monolothic Bruckner is Klemperer. I love him in many things but that late-career trudging approach just does not work for such gigantic symphonies.


----------



## Kollwitz (Jun 10, 2018)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Right. So I should hang on to this mish-mash as being of potentially some artistic worth? I had no idea about the Sinopoli. I always confuse him and getting a hotel on Mayfair...


I really like the Sinopoli 5. First movement pacing isn't ideal for me, it doesn't hang together as well as Jochum (SKD, Concertgebouw), Wand (NDR), Haitink (Concertgebouw) or various others, but the adagio is lovely and scherzo very engaging. The final movement is really what the recording is worth listening to for. Whenever I listen, I just keep wanting to turn it up louder and louder. It's really exhilarating and overwhelming, in very good sound.

In short, other Bruckner 5s may be better, and even the final movement may say much more to you in other recordings, but Sinopoli definitely achieved something of real merit, in my opinion.

Haitink's 60s Concertgebouw 7 was very fine. I really like the cycle, though unfortunately 8 is a bit of weak link, which isn't ideal. 1-7 in that cycle are very good. A great orchestra, well recorded.

Mixed cycle is definitely the best move. Listening to a variety of different recordings definitely helped me to understand the symphonies better.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

For me it's my Karajan Bruckner Blu-Ray (all on one disc in 96/24!) and the Georg Tintner/Royal Scottish 0-00 discs as an add-on. I think 3 discs is reasonable for this challenge.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> For me it's my Karajan Bruckner Blu-Ray (all on one disc in 96/24!) and the Georg Tintner/Royal Scottish 0-00 discs as an add-on. I think 3 discs is reasonable for this challenge.


Can I take the Karajan Blu-ray with Stan's unnumbered F minor and D minor? Or maybe Simone Young for those?


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Probably Jochum. Or Celibidache.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Coach G said:


> It's not complete but I'd go with *Sergiu Celibidache with the Munich Philharmonic, Symphonies 3-9 plus Te Deum the Mass #3, on Warner Classics*. While Celibidache was alive I was completely unaware of his output; perhaps due to the possibility that he did not like to record, and especially did not like to record in the studio, I gather because he thought the audience was an essential ingredient to the musical experience. Also, probably, the Romanian/Europe-based Celibidache was not very much discussed here in the USA during the 1980s and 1990s when I was still reading magazines such as _Opus_ and _Stereo Review_, and I certainly don't remember seeing any of his records available at record stores.
> 
> Celibidache's approach is unique as he slows down the already monster-length Bruckner symphonies to an even longer length, and while you might think that it would be really noticeable, to my ears, it doesn't seem that way. While Bruckner's symphonies are supposed to celebrate some kind of Christian/Roman Catholic ideal; Celibidache curiously identified his approach as Buddhist, perhaps taking a "mindful" take on the performance ("mindfulness" now being all the rage here in America in terms of stress-reduction and "mindful living").
> 
> This is not to take a thing away from the other great Bruckner conductors. Celibidache is an unorthodox approach that may not be for everyone.


Celibidache is best for his *codas* and first movements. In turn, he often breaks up the coherence of the scherzos. It's a trade off, really.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Some of the DG Celibidache recordings are good but it is to the Munich recordings that you must turn if you want to hear his famous/infamous spacious interpretations. These alone are responsible for his reputation for sometimes excessively slow speeds ... and the insights and possibilities that these allowed him. The DG recordings show him in transition towards his Munich style.


Yeah, I got a DG of Celibidache's Symphony No. 9, expecting the 76 minute performance I loved on Youtube. Instead, I got a much more orthodox recording.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

I love the Sinopoli 5. Also, both Jochum sets. I think the Haitink/Amsterdam 9 and Haitink/Vienna 3 and 5 are wonderful as well. Interestingly enough, I had never heard the version of the 8th on Simone Youngs set but I loved it. It became a listening obsession for a while. Also like the Solti 6 and his live CSO 8 (I think it was recorded on tour).


----------



## AClockworkOrange (May 24, 2012)

If I were to choose from a single set, I would have to split hairs between Günter Wand or Stanislaw Skrowaczewski - going with Wand if pressed at this moment. Honourable mention to Simone Young too, her set is superb and often uses the original versions (something I believe Wand also does).

In terms of incomplete sets, I love Wilhelm Furtwängler’s recordings as well as Sergiu Celibidache’s Munich recordings and could be tempted to choose one of these over one the two above.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

I intend to revisit that Celi Munich set this week. I haven’t really invested much time in serious listening to that set. Agree about the Young cycle....very, very good. I also love the Skrowaczewski cycle. It is different but excellent. I can’t quite put my finger on what makes it different. Is it the sound of the orchestra? The recording? Sometimes details pop out that one doesn’t hear on other recordings. Any ideas?


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Karajan must be the answer IMO.


----------



## rw181383 (Aug 4, 2017)

It’s hard to pick one cycle, but if forced to do so: Skrowaczewski 

Individual symphonies in order of preference (starting with least favorite):
00 - Young
0 - Barenboim (DG-Chicago)
3 - Tennstedt (Profil), Tintner, Wildner (1877 and 1889 versions), Kubelik (Audite)
1 - Jochum (DG), Suitner 
2 - Giulini, Stein, Sawallisch (Orfeo)
7 - Asahina (JVC), Böhm (Audite), Giulini (BBC), Sado, Tennstedt (LPO)
4 - Celi (EMI), Marthé, Karajan (EMI), Furtwängler 
6 - Stein, Asahina (JVC), Celi, Solti
9 - Giulini (DG), Hausegger, Furtwängler, Kubelik (Orfeo)
5 - Asahina (Canyon), Karajan (1980 Sardana - Live CDR - John Berky), Furtwängler, Barenboim (Teldec), Welser-Möst (EMI), Herbig, Celibidache (Altus), Skrowaczewski 
8 - Suitner (Berlin Classics), Suitner (Weitblick), Asahina (Canyon - 1994), Furtwängler, Karajan (EMI), Kubelik (Orfeo), Giulini (BBC), Wand (Memories)

Just to name a few


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Gray Bean said:


> .. I also love the Skrowaczewski cycle. It is different but excellent. I can't quite put my finger on what makes it different. Is it the sound of the orchestra? The recording? Sometimes details pop out that one doesn't hear on other recordings. Any ideas?


The recorded sound is so impressive in that set. Bruckner demands a deep, punchy sound and the engineers provide that. When Bruckner is recorded too shrill or too bassy (I can think of a few sets that fit that criteria) it takes away a lot from otherwise excellent performances. I find that more than in any other composers work. Think about the Young and Karajan sets. Terrific sound. Obviously you've gotta have great performances too but the sound is a deal-breaker for me in Bruckner. Although I'm always game for historical recordings, I'll often draw the line with Bruckner and say that unless it's in very good stereo, at the minimum, I don't really want to hear it anymore. I don't react like this with some other composer's recorded works (but feel exactly the same about Mahler symphonies these days) but just feel you need the full palette to appreciate Bruckner's sound world. Luckily there is a lot of great Bruckner out there in stellar sound to choose from. Add onto this Stan the Man's excellent phrasing and line you get a great set.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

My favorite order and conductor's names in some order behind it:

5 Wand (BPO), Harnoncourt (RCO 2013 DVD, see below:tiphat 
9 Abbado (Lucerne), Wand (BPO), Haitink (RCO) (the 3 part version)
7 Karajan (VPO), Celibidache (MPO) Wand (BPO) 
4 Wand (BPO), Celibidache (MPO)
8 Celibidache (MPO), Wand (BPO), Karajan (VPO) 
3 Haitink (VPO)
6 Haitink (BRSO 2017)
(00,0,1,2)

I don't know the Tintner set, which is highly rated. And I don't even know the 00-2 symphonies. I heard a completed 9th with Rattle and the BPO live in concert, it was terrible. But I don't generally like completed/reconstructed works.

If I should choose a Bruckner set at gunpoint, it would definitely be the (unfinished) Wand BPO set on RCA (4,5,7,8,9), which I try to convince you guys of tiresome here. But it is really exceptionally good. It seems that there are hardly any complete Bruckner cycles out there to match the individual highlight recordings.

Interesting that 'Seine letzte Aufnahme' by Abbado (9) and Karajan (7) are both their best Bruckner recording. I think that only DG uses this dramatic words on a record sleeve, it sure adds to the experience. As if it was recorded halfway upto the eternal hunting fields. Wand's BPO cycle was interrupted by his death, RCA put it in a decent black box. But where Karajan and Abbado have this special 'last recording' flavor in them, Wand sounds refreshingly vivid all throughout the set. You should really give it a try.

As a little extra(well, big actually), I add Bruckner's 5th with Nikolaus Harnoncourt and the RCO in what would be 'Íhre letzte Aufnahme' together after 20+ years of playing together. I hope you like it:


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Merl said:


> The recorded sound is so impressive in that set. Bruckner demands a deep, punchy sound and the engineers provide that. When Bruckner is recorded too shrill or too bassy (I can think of a few sets that fit that criteria) it takes away a lot from otherwise excellent performances. I find that more than in any other composers work. Think about the Young and Karajan sets. Terrific sound. Obviously you've gotta have great performances too but the sound is a deal-breaker for me in Bruckner. Although I'm always game for historical recordings, I'll often draw the line with Bruckner and say that unless it's in very good stereo, at the minimum, I don't really want to hear it anymore. I don't react like this with some other composer's recorded works (but feel exactly the same about Mahler symphonies these days) but just feel you need the full palette to appreciate Bruckner's sound world. Luckily there is a lot of great Bruckner out there in stellar sound to choose from. Add onto this Stan the Man's excellent phrasing and line you get a great set.


The quality and experience of the orchestra is to me as important as the quality of the recording, especially with Bruckner (and Mahler). So, Wand is much better served in his Bruckners with the BPO as he was with his own NDR orchestra. The VPO is Bruckner's houseband. And Dresden and the RCO are also right up there. The quality of both string sections and copper is absolutely essential to reveal the grand vision of Bruckner's symphonies.

The BPO and RCO are probably the better orchestra's when it comes to Mahler. Mahler requires more agile musicians than Bruckner.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

rw181383 said:


> It's hard to pick one cycle, but if forced to do so: Skrowaczewski
> 
> Individual symphonies in order of preference (starting with least favorite):
> 00 - Young
> ...


This list sent me to my shelves! Asahina is always a thrill. Also, the Giulini B9 on DG is very special indeed. I've got the Sawallisch Orfeo recordings but for some reason I've never warmed to them. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Eichorn/ Bruckner Orchestra, Linz set. I like that set. The Hausegger cycle is very interesting as a historical document.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

If I went for one...

Celibidache MPO Warner (could I just pick the Tokyo No.7 too?)

Barenboim CSO

Knappertsbusch Memories Reverence collection (Plus the No.3 released by Orfeo)

In the end, I would go to Celibidache if given the chance to pick a second CD. I should save up to purchase the complete Warner Box.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Gray Bean said:


> I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Eichorn/ Bruckner Orchestra, Linz set.


I put the Fifth on my "Frankenstein" set. ETA: Oh, wait, the one I rate and listed was Bavarian Radio.

I think I was alone in mentioning Blomstedt/Leipzig, which is too bad. It's a great set!

Skrowaczewski I think I'm sticking with if I can only have one cycle on my desert island.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

And Blomstedt is on SACD. You’re right...a great cycle.


----------



## padraic (Feb 26, 2015)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Can I get Bruckner officiandos to tell me their preferred symphonies in order of best to worst, please?
> 
> I have a variety of cycles and part cycles, but I rarely listen to them, because I just haven't been able to 'get' Bruckner. But it may be merely that I need to be guided as to where best to start...


8, 9, 7, 5, 4, 6, 3, 0, 2, 1, 00

That said, start with 7.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

padraic said:


> 8, 9, 7, 5, 4, 6, 3, 0, 2, 1, 00
> 
> That said, start with 7.


Why's that then? If it's not the best, I mean. Why would you recommend starting with your third-favourite?


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

IMO, 4 and 7 are the most “catchy” if you take my meaning. That magical cello/horn line that opens 7 is pretty amazing. The Adagio is one of the most pensive and beautiful pieces in all of music. The scherzo is an ear worm. Of course, I just answered for someone! Sorry.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Gray Bean said:


> IMO, 4 and 7 are the most "catchy" if you take my meaning. That magical cello/horn line that opens 7 is pretty amazing. The Adagio is one of the most pensive and beautiful pieces in all of music. The scherzo is an ear worm. Of course, I just answered for someone! Sorry.


Thanks! This has been a most helpful thread.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

I just listened to Karajan BPO's symphony 4. There might be others I like as well or perhaps better, such as Bohm, but this confirmed my answer. Bruckner is tough to get all the moving parts right, tougher than Brahms even, and Karajan has such a firm hand with it that this along with the very good sound quality make it an excellent standby cycle.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

bz3 said:


> I just listened to Karajan BPO's symphony 4. There might be others I like as well or perhaps better, such as Bohm, but this confirmed my answer. Bruckner is tough to get all the moving parts right, tougher than Brahms even, and Karajan has such a firm hand with it that this along with the very good sound quality make it an excellent standby cycle.


The one from his complete cycle? Yes. Karajan understands and inhabits the Bruckner ethos, sound world, structure, whatever you wish to call it. Furtwangler is my favorite in Bruckner, but in up to date sound (the recent Blu-ray remastering) Karajan is hard to beat.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Has anyone mentioned the current, ongoing Nelsons cycle on DG? What I realized when reading through this thread: when it comes to Bruckner, we are spoiled for choice.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Gray Bean said:


> Has anyone mentioned the current, ongoing Nelsons cycle on DG? What I realized when reading through this thread: when it comes to Bruckner, we are spoiled for choice.


There's a lot of very good Bruckner out there and many in superb sound. Yep we're lucky punters.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Does anyone do a half-decent fourth movement for the 9th? Or is it considered a bit iffy to be recording fragmentary movements these days?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Don't ask me. I don't like the completed fourth movement at all, and other versions than Rattle would not change my mind.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I only have one: Barenboim/Berlin Philharmonic on Warner/Teldec. I don't think anyone in the thread has mentioned it as a first choice but I think it's very fine. Definitely Barenboim takes the "monumental" approach à la Klemperer with maybe a bit more incisiveness, so I suspect it's not for everyone, but this is how Bruckner "should" sound to my ears. That being said, I ought to hear more Wand, Jochum, & Tintner—plus Heinz Rögner has recently piqued my interest and I just might acquire his partial cycle with the Rundfunk-Sinfonie-Orchester Berlin as it's still quite cheap. Fast, potent Bruckner.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Does anyone do a half-decent fourth movement for the 9th? Or is it considered a bit iffy to be recording fragmentary movements these days?




























Schaller recently got my favourite version of the four movement reconstruction. If you don't like the Cathedral sound, you can turn to Rattle, which is more widely praised than the Wildner recording.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Granate said:


> Schaller recently got my favourite version of the four movement reconstruction. If you don't like the Cathedral sound, you can turn to Rattle, which is more widely praised than the Wildner recording.


Thank you. Will investigate the Schaller then!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Any thoughts on this, please?









As far as I can make out, we have Ozawa conducting #1 in 2009; Paavo Järvi doing #2 in 2019; Blomstedt doing #3 in 2017; Haitink doing #4 in 2014; Haitink again for #5 in 2011; Jansons #6 in 2018; Thielemann #7 in 2016; Mehta doing #8 in 2012 and Rattle's 4-movement #9 in 2018.

A cycle that isn't a cycle!

I can't quite work out if they're all live performances or not. I think they probably are, which might be a problem for some.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I've loved Bruckner since hearing Barenboim's Chicago recording of the 4th symphony in the 1970s. I've owned a lot of sets and individual recordings, taped many from radio broadcasts, and attended a lot of concerts of his symphonies. Today I don't listen to them all anymore. When I want to hear one this is what I turn to
























I have the EMI super audio version fo this made in Japan.








I think this is the best Bruckner symphony recording I know. Hermann Abendroth's 1949 radio broadcast is a close second.








Andante published this collection of Karl Bohm's 7th, Karajan's 8th and Furtwangler's 9th from radio broadcasts. There is an elasticity in Karajan's 8th I never hear in his studio recordings.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

That’s a mighty fine line up, larold! 
I imagine that Berlin set is all live in concert (and probably pricey, too). I enjoy live concert recordings.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Speaking of that sadly now-defunct Andante label, the Karajan/Vienna box has an excellent live Bruckner 5 and Te Deum.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Heck148 said:


> Solti,
> close 2nd -
> Barenboim first set, with CSO


I honestly like Barenboim/Chicago set very much myself (the highlight is their glorious account of the Eighth).

In answering this thread, if pushed, it has to be Karajan/BPO set that I would keep.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Orfeo said:


> In answering this thread, if pushed, it has to be Karajan/BPO set that I would keep.


It's an absolutely fantastic cycle, and don't let anyone convince you otherwise, as I once was. I avoided the complete set for years as a result, silly me.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Knorf said:


> It's an absolutely fantastic cycle, and don't let anyone convince you otherwise, as I once was. I avoided the complete set for years as a result, silly me.


Agreed! It is really fantastic, especially in the Blu-ray remastering.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Skrowaczewski or Jochum for me


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Jacck said:


> Skrowaczewski or Jochum for me


Which Jochum cycle?


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

I'm quite happy with almost all the cycles I have, so I probably wouldn't care too much. It will always be Bruckner at a sufficiently high level of interpretation. Wishy-washy answer, I know... just want to engage.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

DaddyGeorge said:


> I'm quite happy with almost all the cycles I have, so I probably wouldn't care too much. It will always be Bruckner at a sufficiently high level of interpretation. Wishy-washy answer, I know... just want to engage.


I'm really that way, too. The only cycle I've jettisoned was the one by Mario Venzago.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Any thoughts on this, please?
> 
> View attachment 136248


Of all the recordings, my favourites would be 3rd, 7th and 8th. The Thielemann 7th is just the same you can get as a spare with the Staatskapelle. The 8th is really good. But I don't know many recordings of the 3rd as good as this one by Blomstedt.

Listened through not very licit means, but my two cents.

I've been trying again the 1999 Maazel Bruckner cycle and I ended up really bored. I'm not enthusiastic at all with the Nelsons Leipzig recordings. So for a very nice High Range with Sound Quality Bruckner cycle, go for Blomstedt Leipzig or the BR-Klassik new box (excellent 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th).

In my case, I'm going to wait until a website (I can have access to) puts the 24/96 downloads of the Karajan 4-9 symphonies again, like last year.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Knorf said:


> It's an absolutely fantastic cycle, and *don't let anyone convince you otherwise*, as I once was. I avoided the complete set for years as a result, silly me.


Oh, I won't.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Granate said:


> Of all the recordings, my favourites would be 3rd, 7th and 8th. The Thielemann 7th is just the same you can get as a spare with the Staatskapelle. The 8th is really good. But I don't know many recordings of the 3rd as good as this one by Blomstedt.
> 
> Listened through not very licit means, but my two cents.
> 
> ...


Appreciate the feedback. Thank you.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Any thoughts on this, please?
> 
> View attachment 136248
> 
> ...


If you are looking for a BPO Bruckner cycle, I would start off with this one by Gunter Wand. It is incomplete, but the most relevant ones are there. You will not be disappointed, I assure you. Of all the ones in the set you propose, only Haitink and Blomstedt are first rate Bruckner conductors. I would not want Ozawa, Mehta, Jarvi and Rattle in my Bruckner collection. The artwork of these BPO private label issues is great, but it doesn't add to the music:


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> If you are looking for a BPO Bruckner cycle, I would start off with this one by Gunter Wand. It is incomplete, but the most relevant ones are there. You will not be disappointed, I assure you. Of all the ones in the set you propose, only Haitink and Blomstedt are first rate Bruckner conductors. I would not want Ozawa, Mehta, Jarvi and Rattle in my Bruckner collection. The artwork of these BPO private label issues is great, but it doesn't add to the music:


I'm frankly getting exhausted! I fear this thread has brought out the completionist's completionist in me!

I see Gunter Wand did a series of Bruckner with the Kolner RSO. That one would seem to be complete, too. Is it better/worse than the incomplete BPO one you've mentioned?

Appreciate the critique of the Berlin Phil cycle. Thanks to you and Granate, I've decided to forego it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> If you are looking for a BPO Bruckner cycle, I would start off with this one by Gunter Wand. It is incomplete, but the most relevant ones are there. You will not be disappointed, I assure you. Of all the ones in the set you propose, only Haitink and Blomstedt are first rate Bruckner conductors. I would not want Ozawa, Mehta, Jarvi and Rattle in my Bruckner collection. The artwork of these BPO private label issues is great, but it doesn't add to the music:
> 
> View attachment 136291


I have one of Wand's Bruckner symphonies which I listened to with great anticipation, but I honestly didn't think it was up to what I had already heard from Karajan or Jochum.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'm frankly getting exhausted! I fear this thread has brought out the completionist's completionist in me!
> 
> I see Gunter Wand did a series of Bruckner with the Kolner RSO. That one would seem to be complete, too. Is it better/worse than the incomplete BPO one you've mentioned?
> 
> Appreciate the critique of the Berlin Phil cycle. Thanks to you and Granate, I've decided to forego it.


The incomplete BPO set has the (much) better orchestra and better recording. In general, I would ignore the completionist-in-one -go in you, as with cycles like Bruckner's and Mahler's, you are clearly better served with assembling your own. There is not one complete set on the market that equals the best available individual recordings.

Also, IMO you can postpone Bruckner 00-3 and even Bruckner 6, while you can't die without knowing the others.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

DavidA said:


> I have one of Wand's Bruckner symphonies which I listened to with great anticipation, but I honestly didn't think it was up to what I had already heard from Karajan or Jochum.


Taste is personal:tiphat:

To me, Jochum's Bruckner already went out of style long ago, dull. Karajan as a whole is not my cup of tea either, only some specific Bruckner recordings. But even those last ones will always sound stiff and formal compared to Wand and the BPO.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> Taste is personal:tiphat:
> 
> To me, Jochum's Bruckner already went out of style long ago, dull. Karajan as a whole is not my cup of tea either, only some specific Bruckner recordings. But even those last ones will always sound stiff and formal compared to Wand and the BPO.


One man's meat.......

Funny because I felt the same about Wand even though I had high hopes.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

DavidA said:


> One man's meat.......
> 
> Funny because I felt the same about Wand even though I had high hopes.


Which one did you listen to?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

OK. I posted this over in the current listening thread, but I probably should have stuck it here instead. So I'll just repeat it here. Thoughts from a Bruckner newbie with rather too much time on his hands and a lot of recommendations in this thread that he's spent up on... Quote begins:

OK. I cheated. I just listened to the first 2 minutes or so of the scherzo for some of the recordings I've got. Basically, the starting pizzicato strings before the bouncy, pulse-like fortissimo bit. Anything up to around letter G in the score, in essence.

And I wrote down thoughts as I listened, without filtering them too much or trying to knock them into shape. And the results of the Nottingham Jury are in...

Karajan (1975): Clear pizzicato. Good dynamics. Crisp punchy bits. Exciting. Just about as I'd want it played, I think
Giulini: Rather 'four square'. Tempo just a bit on the slow side, with a boxy ryhythm about it, not a pulse. Dull.
Tintner: Rather quietly recorded. Sounds very distant. Must be in the concert hall in the next town. Not good at all. A bit fast, maybe. Too quiet. Gets better though.
Rattle: Good dynamic range. The pulsy bit is all smoothed out to start with. Not good. Seems to get better later on, though. Uneven approach?
Mehta: Rough-edged orchestral sound. Quite exciting. Slightly slow?
Young: Smeared and not pulsy enough by a long shot. Quite poor, I thought.
Abbado: Excellent sound level. Crisp pizzicato to start. Wow: Punchy as all hell. Great brass, but smooth not rough-sounding.
Jochum (1968): Racing pizzicatos. Brass in pulse bit very prominent: good effect. Rather fast, though. Especially on their second appearance, way too fast.

Out of that lot, I think Karajan might be the 'model', the sort-of gold standard you can rely on - but Abbado is perhaps the most exciting that doesn't sound rushed or too-smoothed over.

There are some definite shockers in there: the Tintner is a bit of a horror show, I'm afraid. The Giulini is a bit dull. The Rattle is so smooth I swear someone has taken sand paper to it: not enough fire for me there. And Jochum sounds like he's got a train to catch. The Young was rather uninteresting, too. I may have spent ...unwisely!

But I'm really grateful for NLAdriaan's recommendation of the Abbado. Definitely the most exciting of the lot so far.

*Edited to add:* The Tintner pays re-listening to. It's nowhere near as bad as I initially thought. Don't know what was wrong with my volume levels to start with!

*Edited to add further:* Skrowaczewski's 9th Scherzo is sonically very good. Very brassy and bassy, though and a little distant.Tempo seems about right, maybe a tad fast, but not when the pulse-motif comes back in for second appearance. Doesn't seem terribly exciting, though. Perhaps because of the distance.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> And Jochum sounds like he's got a train to catch.


I've always thought that Jochum _should_ be a polarizing Brucknerian given his eccentric tempi (in both sets); I like him for his wayward attack, which makes Bruckner almost seem like a different kind of composer than I'd gotten used to from other conductors, but I can imagine the counterarguments. Interestingly, this perception runs completely counter to what he describes to be his intention in his Berlin liner notes.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Blancrocher said:


> makes Bruckner almost seem like a different kind of composer than I'd gotten used to from other conductors


I feel this way about the Jochum/Dresden set too. For those who have only heard Karajan, Wand, Klemperer and the more "patient, German school" and don't think they like Bruckner, these performances give you a really different and quite ingenious perspective on the music. I'm not too keen on it but it is very imaginative conducting and you don't get the orchestral sound anywhere else.


----------



## Vahe Sahakian (Mar 9, 2018)

I have my Bruckner recordings from different conductors, in addition to a fine performance which is very subjective my most important requirement is to collect performances recorded in resonant/ live acoustic space, for me a Bruckner recorded in a acoustically dry concert hall is not desirable and if I end up with one I will get rid of it right away.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Well, I'm not sure this thread has _entirely_ helped sort things out, since I now have 9 cycles and my previous mish-mash! I've just purchased this one:









...and I'm really liking it. Very clear sound. Exciting 9th Scherzo. Wonderful opening to the 7th. Annoying applause to begin and end two of the nine symphonies (not sure why, since the applause track at the start doesn't impinge on the music at all, so could have been excised without drama). No symphony 0 or 00.

I'm probably going to dispense with the Young: haven't enjoyed it much.

And I refuse to buy any more!


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, I'm not sure this thread has _entirely_ helped sort things out, since I now have 9 cycles and my previous mish-mash! I've just purchased this one:
> 
> View attachment 136310
> 
> ...


Only Wand's BPO set should be added (essential, and you liked my Abbado recommendation) and perhaps some Celibidache, slow cooking gives another perspective to Bruckner.

You can just sell your Jochum, Rattle and Mehta sets to make room for the real Bruckner boys:tiphat:.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Im surprised you dont like Young. I think its an exceptional set.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Merl said:


> Im surprised you dont like Young. I think its an exceptional set.


My only issue with the Young set myself is that I don't always prefer the original versions. She's a top-shelf Brucknerian.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Jochum is essential! Just my opinion. I prefer the DG set.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

For early editions Young is the way to go.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Merl said:


> Im surprised you dont like Young. I think its an exceptional set.


To be fair, I listened to 2 minutes of her. 

I tend to do it this way: latch on to a bit of a piece I really like and make the comparison on that section alone. I liked her pizzicatos to start the 9th's scherzo: very clear, very nicely articulated. And then the arco bit at figure A sounded very stodgy to me. Almost three notes in legato, rather than three distinct bows. However, I'm prepared to admit that if you read the score, the bowed bits are not staccato at figure A (though they are in the timpani); whereas 5 bars after figure A, they _are_ marked as pizzicato -and that Simone Young's reading is therefore rather accurate. A lot of the recordings I like immediately, however, have the initial arco bits rather more staccato than she does them.

*Edited to add the bit of the score I'm referring to:*









Oh God. This stuff is complicated, isn't it


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> [...] perhaps some Celibidache, slow cooking gives another perspective to Bruckner.
> 
> You can just sell your Jochum, Rattle and Mehta sets to make room for the real Bruckner boys:tiphat:.


So, first off: I recall there being mention of multiple Celibdaches, so which one(s) are you recommending? Munich 3-9?

Happily, I didn't acquire complete cycles of Rattle or Mehta. They are in my miscellaneous symphonies folder...


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

I'd go with the Munich Philharmonic/Celi set...on EMI


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

I have a dozen complete cycles or so, plus a decent sprinkling of other recordings. Not a single one is perfect, but nor is any one other than very good.

And yet only one? Easy, Jochum in Dresden.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> So, first off: I recall there being mention of multiple Celibdaches, so which one(s) are you recommending? Munich 3-9?
> 
> Happily, I didn't acquire complete cycles of Rattle or Mehta. They are in my miscellaneous symphonies folder...
> 
> View attachment 136329


Is there a full Karl Bohm cycle??????


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

CnC Bartok said:


> Is there a full Karl Bohm cycle??????


I don't think so. I know he only did one recorded 5th and it was in the 1930s (I have not heard it). I've never come across the 1st or 2nd by him, much less the '0' or '00.' I'm not sure there a 6th symphony on record either, though I'd be surprised if Bohm never performed it.

I'm sure this will get sorted out, there are much more dedicated Brucknerians out there than me.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> So, first off: I recall there being mention of multiple Celibdaches, so which one(s) are you recommending? Munich 3-9?
> 
> Happily, I didn't acquire complete cycles of Rattle or Mehta. They are in my miscellaneous symphonies folder...
> 
> View attachment 136329


Well, to be honest, your Bruckner folder may benefit from a little Marie Kondo-ing :tiphat:.

Your Barenboim, Bohm, Chailly, Jochum, your Solti's, Sawallisch, Mehta, Rattle, can as well be parked outside, in the non essential folder or waste bin.

From Celibidache, definitely add his EMI Munich set 3-9. And you might give Wand/Berliner (4,5,7,8,9) on RCA a try (understatement).

From Karajan, you might want to add his 7 & 8 with the VPO, also on DG, recorded in his last years and clearly more definite recordings than his DG full BPO cycle.

If you are diving deep into the 8th, it could be worthwile to add Giulini, Haitink and Boulez, all with the VPO, which is the houseband for Bruckner 8. To add these with Wand, Celibidache & Karajan (VPO), mentioned above, gives you the best available coverage of the 8th. I must however admit that the 8th and me aren't a match made in heaven, even after many attempts.

In the end, Bruckner is worth it


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

CnC Bartok said:


> Is there a full Karl Bohm cycle??????


No. That was a little 'ambitious' on my part. That folder only contains #3, #4, #7 and #8. 'Cycle' is meant to mean "lots" rather than "one or two". 

Sorry if I got your hopes up.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> Well, to be honest, your Bruckner folder may benefit from a little Marie Kondo-ing :tiphat:.
> 
> Your Barenboim, Bohm, Chailly, Jochum, your Solti's, Sawallisch, Mehta, Rattle, can as well be parked outside, in the non essential folder or waste bin.
> 
> ...


I've listened to Celibdache #9. The scherzo seemed a bit plodding compared to a lot of the others, but it's certainly got heft behind it. The sound's excellent, too. It's very different from the others, but at the end of it, plausible.

I've got Wand/BPO coming.

I shall not wade into these sorts of threads without warning again, though 

And I think I need to stop acquiring and start listening now...


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I've listened to Celibdache #9. The scherzo seemed a bit plodding compared to a lot of the others, but it's certainly got heft behind it. The sound's excellent, too. It's very different from the others, but at the end of it, plausible.
> 
> I've got Wand/BPO coming.
> 
> ...


Good idea, that's what it's all about. Just let us know what you think.

Celibidache opened up new ideas about Bruckner to me as he lets the music breathe, where most Bruckner conductors have stressful moments in the fast parts too stressed up. I also am very curious what you think of Wand. I think he has the perfect balance, very natural and quite different from what Karajan did with the BPO.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> Good idea, that's what it's all about. Just let us know what you think.
> 
> Celibidache opened up new ideas about Bruckner to me as he lets the music breathe, where most Bruckner conductors have stressful moments in the fast parts too stressed up. I also am very curious what you think of Wand. I think he has the perfect balance, very natural and quite different from what Karajan did with the BPO.


I'll be back in touch. In about 2024, I suspect


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'll be back in touch. In about 2024, I suspect


If you dive into Celibidache, 2024 is quite ambitious


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

I hesitate to ask, but are there any good guides to the Symphonies? I already have the Master Musicians' Bruckner on order, so hopefully that will put some context on the man and his times. But for a layman-ish guide to the works themselves? Any recommendations? Preferably cheap. I have the Eye of Sauron on me at the moment, given my recent purchases...


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Robert Simpson, himself a composer of 15 symphonies, wrote a very well-accepted book about Bruckner ...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Essence-Br...words=bruckner&qid=1590074037&s=books&sr=1-10

You can buy it a lot cheaper here ...

https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?...evick%20simpson&title=essence%20of%20bruckner


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

larold said:


> Robert Simpson, himself a composer of 15 symphonies, wrote a very well-accepted book about Bruckner ...


I would recommend that one also. It covers the symphonies with enough detail to be thorough without being overly technical. I'm cheap, so I checked it out through my library.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Manxfeeder said:


> I would recommend that one also. It covers the symphonies with enough detail to be thorough without being overly technical. I'm cheap, so I checked it out through my library.


Yup. Just made a reservation (it has to come from another city's library in this part of the Netherlands).


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

larold said:


> Robert Simpson, himself a composer of 15 symphonies, wrote a very well-accepted book about Bruckner ...
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Essence-Br...words=bruckner&qid=1590074037&s=books&sr=1-10
> 
> ...


I knew Robert Simpson, somewhat, indirectly, back in the 1980s, so was aware of his work on Bruckner. His book is monstrously expensive, however, even in the cheap versions. (I'm _extremely_ cheap!) And I don't think it's layman-ish!

So thank you. But if anyone has other suggestions, I'm open to them


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Manxfeeder said:


> I would recommend that one also. It covers the symphonies with enough detail to be thorough without being overly technical. I'm cheap, so I checked it out through my library.


That is a good suggestion. Maybe it's time I signed up too!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Not sure if anyone has any opinions on this, for example:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bruckner-Symphonies-Ariel-Music-Guides/dp/0563205121/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1590077071&sr=1-1

That's more my price bracket at the moment!


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Not sure if anyone has any opinions on this, for example:
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bruckner-Symphonies-Ariel-Music-Guides/dp/0563205121/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1590077071&sr=1-1
> 
> That's more my price bracket at the moment!


I have Barford's book on Mahler from that series. He is also a good writer. The book is smaller than Simpson's, so it won't have as much detail, but if it's like the Mahler book, there will be good observations.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> Celibidache opened up new ideas about Bruckner to me as he lets the music breathe...


Translation: he drags it out to absurd and ridiculous lengths. He turns Bruckner into unlistenable dreck that no one who actually understands and cares for Bruckner's music can tolerate for long. It's empty of rhythm, phrasing, harmonic drive, and does violence to Bruckner's essential poetic naivete. Not recommended except to those more interested in narcissistic conductor personalities than the music of Bruckner.

In the words of the greatest conductor I ever played for, usually said to admonish an indulgent singer in opera: "Slow is not expressive. Slow is not beautiful. Slow is slow!"


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Knorf said:


> Translation: he drags it out to absurd and ridiculous lengths. He turns Bruckner into unlistenable dreck that no one who actually understands and cares for Bruckner's music can tolerate for long. It's empty of rhythm, phrasing, harmonic drive, and does violence to Bruckner's essential poetic naivete. Not recommended except to those more interested in narcissistic conductor personalities than the music of Bruckner.
> 
> In the words of the greatest conductor I ever played for, usually said to admonish an indulgent singer in opera: "Slow is not expressive. Slow is not beautiful. Slow is slow!"


OK, but how about his 4th? I think that one is very reasonably paced (except the finale, but I still think it moves without dragging), and the beauty of playing and attention to detail is exceptional. I haven't found the time to dive into his more monstrous, stretched-out accounts of the other symphonies.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> OK, but how about his 4th? I think that one is very reasonably paced (except the finale, but I still think it moves without dragging), and the beauty of playing and attention to detail is exceptional. I haven't found the time to dive into his more monstrous, stretched-out accounts of the other symphonies.


Because I trust you, I will give it another listen. I will confess that I also like Celibidache's Bruckner 6 reasonably well, although it's almost never the recording I turn to, which is more likely to be Klemperer, Young, Karajan, or Skrowaczewski.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Dear Talk Classical,

I was much too grouchy earlier. I made a more polemical post than was quite warranted, and I humbly apologize.

Admittedly, I do find adoration of Celibidache a bit triggering. ("Lets the music breathe." I mean, WTF is Bruckner 9, a sperm whale?)

If you like Celibidache's recordings, please don't let anything I say cause you to dislike them. All I ask is to remember that, in great music, no one conductor can ever have all of the answers. In return, I promise to revisit Celibidache from time to time and see if any more of it speaks to me.

But here's my antidote to Celibidache. A great Brucknerian, in fact one of the greatest: Otto Klemperer. I had wanted to link his 1947 recording with the Concertgebuow Orchestra, but the only links I could find were incomplete. But this one is also pretty darn great. Enjoy!

Bruckner: Symphony No. 4. Otto Klemperer, WDR Sinfonieorchester Köln, 1954.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Knorf said:


> Dear Talk Classical,
> 
> I was much too grouchy earlier. I made a more polemical post than was quite warranted, and I humbly apologize.
> 
> ...





> "I mean, WTF is Bruckner 9, a sperm whale?"


:lol: This made me laugh.

In all seriousness, I'm afraid our tastes converge here as Klemperer in Bruckner always strikes me as too measured, plodding, and joyless. Otto is probably one of my top 5 favorite conductors, especially in Brahms, Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, and (gasp!) Bach. But I think he mostly misses the mark in terms of pacing with his Bruckner, which needs to be a bit more flexible. Full disclaimer: I have not devoted serious time to anything from Celi (Bruckner or otherwise) outside of his 4th, which was recommended to me by flamencosketches a few weeks ago. I've always wanted to dive deeper into his conducting, but always thought life was too short for it. But I thought his 4th was a tremendous performance with moderate, patient tempi allowing for an elastic view of the symphony and a huge proliferation of detail with beautifully-shaped playing. In that recording, for the first time I heard some of the connections between Schubert and Bruckner that people often talk about (though I still think the comparison is a stretch) - it was played in a very balanced, lilting songful way. I can't say I'm in too much of a Bruckner "phase" right now, but I have some listening to do - including revisiting Klemperer and hearing some more Celi - when I feel the urge coming on again.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Listen to that Bruckner 4 I linked, Klemperer/Köln. If you think it plods, I'll eat my hat.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

I’ve always admired Klemperer’s Bruckner. Especially 4 and 8.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Knorf said:


> Listen to that Bruckner 4 I linked, Klemperer/Köln. If you think it plods, I'll eat my hat.


No hat-eating necessary! Very swift and powerful in the best Klempererian fashion (yes, he could be swift when he wanted to...this predates those infamous late-career plodfests by quite some time). Shall have to devote the proper time to listen through the whole thing when the Bruckner itch strikes me.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

I also don't find much I like in Klemperer's Bruckner. The infamous 6th I don't hate, but I didn't cut my teeth on it and his interpretation just strikes me as all wrong. Ironically, Klemperer's interpretation of Mahler 2 just strikes me as all too right - so much so that I rarely listen to other versions of that symphony.

I don't count myself as a fan or hater of Klemperer. He made many recordings I love but I don't seek out his recordings for anything but Mahler. This is also how I feel about Celibidache - I enjoy and seek out his Bruckner but the rest of his catalogue doesn't have much interest for me on the whole. I do like his Symphonie Fantastique and (oddly enough) his Schumann. You can keep the Beethoven and Brahms, though.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Interesting how recordings that we "cut our teeth on" might imprint! The first Bruckner 6 I heard was Blomstedt and the San Francisco Symphony. Still love it and, oddly enough after decades of listening, its still my favorite 6.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Gray Bean said:


> Interesting how recordings that we "cut our teeth on" might imprint! The first Bruckner 6 I heard was Blomstedt and the San Francisco Symphony. Still love it and, oddly enough after decades of listening, its still my favorite 6.


Blomstedt always had a way with Bruckner. I love his SF 4th too.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Not sure if anyone has any opinions on this, for example:
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bruckner-Symphonies-Ariel-Music-Guides/dp/0563205121/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1590077071&sr=1-1
> 
> That's more my price bracket at the moment!


I consider myself to be quite a fan to Bruckners music, but I don't own any special book on him nor an analysis of his work. Not that I am illiterate, as I do have the 4 part de la Grange on Mahler (assembled through used books stores, as I am Dutch). To me Bruckners symphonies are pretty much self-explanatory. And I like to stay away from any biographical books on Bruckner, as this will only spoil my great appreciation for his work. You will soon find out what I mean once you start digging. Music scores of his symphonies would be interesting, though. But I don't have them.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Knorf said:


> Translation: he drags it out to absurd and ridiculous lengths. He turns Bruckner into unlistenable dreck that no one who actually understands and cares for Bruckner's music can tolerate for long. It's empty of rhythm, phrasing, harmonic drive, and does violence to Bruckner's essential poetic naivete. Not recommended except to those more interested in narcissistic conductor personalities than the music of Bruckner.
> 
> In the words of the greatest conductor I ever played for, usually said to admonish an indulgent singer in opera: "Slow is not expressive. Slow is not beautiful. Slow is slow!"


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Manxfeeder said:


> I have Barford's book on Mahler from that series. He is also a good writer. The book is smaller than Simpson's, so it won't have as much detail, but if it's like the Mahler book, there will be good observations.


Thank you for that. Very helpful.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> I consider myself to be quite a fan to Bruckners music, but I don't own any special book on him nor an analysis of his work. Not that I am illiterate, as I do have the 4 part de la Grange on Mahler (assembled through used books stores, as I am Dutch). To me Bruckners symphonies are pretty much self-explanatory. And I like to stay away from any biographical books on Bruckner, as this will only spoil my great appreciation for his work. You will soon find out what I mean once you start digging. Music scores of his symphonies would be interesting, though. But I don't have them.


I find I'm not hugely good at music in the abstract. 
I generally need to have some investment in the life story or the historical context before I can make sense of what I'm listening to.
I've already worked out that having "a" music score of "a" Bruckner symphony isn't necessarily going to be very helpful, though: the version of the score is unlikely to match the version of what's been recorded! I shall just chance my arm at IMSLP, I thinK!


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I find I'm not hugely good at music in the abstract.
> I generally need to have some investment in the life story or the historical context before I can make sense of what I'm listening to.
> I've already worked out that having "a" music score of "a" Bruckner symphony isn't necessarily going to be very helpful, though: the version of the score is unlikely to match the version of what's been recorded! I shall just chance my arm at IMSLP, I thinK!


Bruckner's life story will only harm the appreciation of his music, abstraction of the man from his music might actually be your rescue here.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> Bruckner's life story will only harm the appreciation of his music, abstraction of the man from his music might actually be your rescue here.


I'm curious to know why you think that.

I mean, is the fact that he was merely a humble organist and teacher at Sankt Florian for 10 years likely to diminish him in my mind's eye? That a simple, provincial man can hardly be thought to have created these works? Or is that old trope that 'the music tells us nothing of his life and his life tells us nothing of the music'?

I take those points, if so. By I'd counter with the case of Wagner, where the story of the man is disgusting whilst that of the music is glorious. It's not that the one tells you nothing about the other, but actually tells you the _opposite_ of the other! I still wouldn't have listened to the music without reading the biography, though: they can inform each other, nevertheless.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

^Bruckner may not have been a hateful cultural demagogue, but he definitely seems to have been some kind of psychopath. Maybe it's as you say, that the story of the man informs the story of the music in a negatory way, but I would maybe agree with Adriaan that the less you read up on Bruckner's life, the better.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> ^Bruckner may not have been a hateful cultural demagogue, but he definitely seems to have been some kind of psychopath. Maybe it's as you say, that the story of the man informs the story of the music in a negatory way, but I would maybe agree with Adriaan that the less you read up on Bruckner's life, the better.


Blimey. I knew he had a nervous breakdown in 1867 and had bouts of depression, but I've never seen him called a psycopath before! Oh well. The biography is on order anyway...


----------



## AClockworkOrange (May 24, 2012)

Unfortunately he only recorded a number of the Symphonies rather than a full set but I find Klaus Tennstedt to be very underrated as a Bruckner interpreter. He has recordings of Symphonies No’s. 3, 4, 7 and 8 (4, 7 & 8 with the London Philharmonic, the Eighth both live and studio).

Günter Wand’s Berlin Recordings are phenomenal. I touched upon his complete cycle in my previous post but my introduction to him and Bruckner was with his Berlin Recordings - the Eighth being the first. It was the Fifth Symphony from this set which made that Symphony a favourite amongst Bruckner’s Symphonies.

Otto Klemperer, though he may be one of my favourite conductors, is to me hit & miss in Bruckner. I can’t put my finger on why but his recordings of Bruckner either connect or don’t.

I recently bought an Audite 5CD set on Hans Knappertsbusch. I look forward to hearing his recordings of the Eighth and Ninth in this set.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

flamencosketches said:


> ^Bruckner may not have been a hateful cultural demagogue, but he definitely seems to have been some kind of psychopath. Maybe it's as you say, that the story of the man informs the story of the music in a negatory way, but I would maybe agree with Adriaan that the less you read up on Bruckner's life, the better.


I think that's going too far. He was definitely an odd guy, but I think he was basically a very naive country person who always thought he was doing the right thing and just had strange personality quirks (some of the more worrisome quirks that he's infamous for never transpired to anything at all). Never meant to do harm to anybody. In one of my music books he's described as "the kind of person that people awkwardly shift their gaze and fall silent when he enters the room." I do enjoy the anecdote, though, that after a successful rehearsal of his 5th symphony he tried to tip the conductor!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I think that's going too far. He was definitely an odd guy, but I think he was basically a very naive country person who always thought he was doing the right thing and just had strange personality quirks (some of the more worrisome quirks that he's infamous for never transpired to anything at all). Never meant to do harm to anybody. In one of my music books he's described as "the kind of person that people awkwardly shift their gaze and fall silent when he enters the room." I do enjoy the anecdote, though, that after a successful rehearsal of his 5th symphony he tried to tip the conductor!


He did, it was Hans Richter he tipped with the injunction to 'have a beer on me and drink my health' -and Richter kept the thaler tip as a watch chain fob for the rest of his life!

Your view 'bit simple, bit parochial, not psycopathic' is what I'm getting from my reading of the New Groves entry for him, by the way.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

From what I’ve read, Bruckner probably suffered from OCD. He had a “counting mania”. Hardly a psychopath.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Bruckner was also from peasant stock, simple, parochial, pious and one of the greatest organists and composers who ever lived. He was insecure about his musical gifts. You will find many stories about this trait. Another thing, like Beethoven, he was unlucky in love.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Awesome, unexpected Monty Python! Thanks, NLAdriaan!

I agree that Blomstedt is excellent in Bruckner, Merl. I still find it odd that his 2000s cycle with Leipzig gets so little attention. To be fair, it was expensive, and not always easy to find. And now it's out of print.

Tennstedt's Bruckner is also underrated. Pity he never made a complete set.

ETA: Oh, and yeah, Bruckner was hardly a psychopath. He was quirky and awkward, with a variety of odd predilections and neuroses, but he wouldn't harm a fly. As musician, he was extraordinarily naive, in the poetic sense. A good way to get to understand Bruckner's music is through his amazingly original and dramatic motets, _Ecce sacerdos_ especially, or _Christus factus est_. Recommended listening!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I do want to hear more of the case for him having been a psychopath. I've always understood he was a bit simple and naive - qualities that don't fit well with psychopathy - but confess I know nearly nothing about his character. Was his alleged psychopathy something to do with his attitude to women or something like that?


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/apr/01/sex-death-dissonance-anton-bruckner-concertgebouw-orchestra

Here is your introduction to the other world of Anton Bruckner. Not your typical naive poet from the farm. However, he was certainly interested in some naivity... I don't see how such autobiographical knowledge will help you better understand his music?


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Just to be clear for any who don't know, when I call Bruckner naive in the poetic sense, I am referring to Friedrich Schiller's _Über naive und sentimentalische Dichtung_. (Coincidentally, this is also the source of John Adams's Brucknerian symphony in all but name, _Naive and Sentimental Music_.)

Schiller considered there to be two categories of poetry, concerning the poets' relationship to the world and the subject of their poetry: naive and sentimental. Naive poets are about essentially direct narrative or descriptive interaction or expression, without internal conflict of any kind; sentimental are more about the poet's subjective or introspective interaction with the subject, e.g. more about the poet or the poet's relationship to the subject, than the subject itself.

It's imprecise, and really no poet or artist is all just one category. But an example might be Toscanini as a "naive" conductor, Furtwängler as a "sentimental" conductor. (You have to disregard current most common usage of both words to get at what Schiller was on about.)

Bruckner was a quirky guy, but his interactions with music, religion, and indeed the world were direct and without guile. Even the stuff about him that is strange, such as his obsession with seeing dead bodies, or occasionally propositioning maidens who were far too young for him, were expressions of his poetic naivete about the world, and not something sinister, even if more than a few eyebrows were understandably raised.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

So, Schiller is a shrink now? Only estranged lumberjacks would whitewash the twisted mind of Bruckner, using the definitions of a poet

This might be of help in Rome, where they still look for theories to defend the 'naive' actions of countless religious officials.

Or the defense team of Harvey W., as the court of appeal might accept Schiller's theory to absolve the naive power abuse of poor little Weinstein. 

If anyone from the 19th century could have said something of the 'devoted Catholic composer' from Austria, it would have been Freud. But even Freud's ideas went out of fashion.

I find it pretty simplistic to even think about religion as a blanket to cover sexual power abuse. The true nature of religion is to help the weak, not to trap and abuse them and walk away from it with a bible in your hand.

I find Bruckner one of the best examples to regard the work of an artist as completely separated from his personality. Even more so, you can't enjoy art freely if you have to take into account the person who made it. From what I know about Bruckner, I have no interest whatsoever to come anywhere near to the man. I do however truly like most of his work. The same abstraction goes for the person in the orchestra who reproduces the notes or for the one who crafted a brilliant kitchen appliance that I love to use.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> So, Schiller is a shrink now? Only estranged lumberjacks would whitewash the twisted mind of Bruckner, using the definitions of a poet
> 
> This might be of help in Rome, where they still look for theories to defend the 'naive' actions of countless religious officials.
> 
> ...


Under no circumstances am I suggesting Schiller's ideas about _poetry_ have any bearing on convicting or absolving someone of a _crime_. That's a bizarre, unrecognizably distorted reading of what I posted.

What crimes did Bruckner commit, or get accused of committing, exactly? He was a weird guy, but I see no evidence he was a criminal. If you know of some, let's see it.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/apr/01/sex-death-dissonance-anton-bruckner-concertgebouw-orchestra
> 
> Here is your introduction to the other world of Anton Bruckner. Not your typical naive poet from the farm. However, he was certainly interested in some naivity... I don't see how such autobiographical knowledge will help you better understand his music?


Well... it's an interesting article!

I'm not saying the biography helps me understand the music better, _per se_. But I find putting things into context helpful in a general sense.

I probably can't explain it very well, but I will say that, for example, I had always known that he never composed something once, but was forever fiddling with it afterwards. In my mind, back in the 1980s, this meant his music probably wasn't very good: if its own composer kept having to revise it, it probably wasn't top-shelf stuff.

But now, I have read enough to understand that he was a low-born provinicial, running in high-brow artistic circles in Vienna, and naturally enough felt profoundly insecure. Plus his father died when he was rather young, which doesn't help. Thus he kept studying and taking diplomas until he was around 40, just to prove (to himself as much as anyone else) that he was 'up to the job'. Then his revolutionary symphonies weren't well-received and his friends persuaded him to re-write and curtail them, to make them more palatable to audiences. Being profoundly insecure, he went along with these suggestions for the most part. So by knowing something about his biography, I now know that the multi-revisionist in him doesn't mean his music is poor, but that his friends were misguided and he wasn't self-assured enough to be able to stand up to them.

It's not a profound insight about the music, therefore. But understanding his biography a little has removed a little bit of doubt about it that I had acquired when I was less well-read about his life.

In the same way, the bit about him kissing the skulls of Beethoven and Schubert... well, if you had zero confidence about your musical abilities, wouldn't you want to 'imbibe genius' in some way? I don't find it ghoulish to contemplate him doing that. I find it perfectly understandable, given his father's death when he was just 13, his general back-water background, and so on; plus the mid-nineteenth century strange relationship with matters of death, sentimentality and such like.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well... it's an interesting article!
> 
> I'm not saying the biography helps me understand the music better, _per se_. But I find putting things into context helpful in a general sense.
> 
> ...


Well said. There seems to be a desire with some here to turn Bruckner into a villain. So typical of many people nowadays who push their 21st Century sensibilities back in time, all the while feeling morally superior. Bruckner was a wounded individual and probably very strange but he was no criminal, "psychopath" or sexual abuser of young women.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

If you pick any cycle, you leave out the mighty Giulini B9!
So no single cycle for me, only mix&match.

As for books I believe this one hasn't been mentioned yet: a 2-volume work by Crawford Howie:

https://www.amazon.com/Crawford-Howie/e/B001HOU76K/

I was lucky to purchase both volumes in 2010 as now prices are insanely high.









But you can download some chapters of the revised edition from this site: https://www.abruckner.com/articles/articlesEnglish/HowieBrucknerBio/


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Azol said:


> ...But you can download some chapters of the revised edition from this site: https://www.abruckner.com/articles/articlesEnglish/HowieBrucknerBio/


That looks to be a good resource. Thanks!


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Yes,, indeed. That Giulini/Vienna B9 is one of the glories of the catalogue IMO.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

flamencosketches said:


> ^Bruckner may not have been a hateful cultural demagogue, but he definitely seems to have been some kind of psychopath. Maybe it's as you say, that the story of the man informs the story of the music in a negatory way, but I would maybe agree with Adriaan that the less you read up on Bruckner's life, the better.


Totally clueless post. Wagner is a 'hateful cultural demagogue' and Bruckner 'is a psychopath?' Where do you get this stuff?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

flamencosketches said:


> ^Bruckner may not have been a hateful cultural demagogue, but *he definitely seems to have been some kind of psychopath*. Maybe it's as you say, that the story of the man informs the story of the music in a negatory way, but I would maybe agree with Adriaan that the less you read up on Bruckner's life, the better.


Psychopath? Do you really know what one is or have you been watching too much Dirty Harry? :lol:


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

It is a word that people throw around too casually. Do you feel lucky punk?!?!?!


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well... it's an interesting article!
> 
> I'm not saying the biography helps me understand the music better, _per se_. But I find putting things into context helpful in a general sense.
> 
> ...


It's a way of looking at it, as valid as any.

Interesting that you mention Bruckner's endless revisions. This is quite customary with artists or even with any creative outing. Mahler was constantly revising and discussing his work. Rembrandt and many other master painters changed many details in his paintings, which are now discovered through x-ray. Software is constantly being revised and updated, to improve it. I don't think that there are that many self-assured people around. In many cases, self-assured and absolute behavior tends to be a mask. Fortunately, we can keep learning.

I don't need to understand, justify or defend Bruckner's awkward behavior. I just don't find the person of the composer Bruckner of any interest to still fully enjoy his music.

Admiration for the work is something else than admiration for the person. It is quite customary here to admire and identify with composers, conductors or even recordings, and to immediately pull the trigger at someone with perhaps another opinion, in the most absolute or rude terms. They are splattered all over this thread already, it's a pity.

So, I leave the discussions on the alleged personality of Bruckner, and what to think of it, to others.

And I hope you will enjoy your musical discovery tour of Bruckners work!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> It's a way of looking at it, as valid as any.
> 
> *Interesting that you mention Bruckner's endless revisions.* This is quite customary with artists or even with any creative outing. Mahler was constantly revising and discussing his work. Rembrandt and many other master painters changed many details in his paintings, which are now discovered through x-ray. Software is constantly being revised and updated, to improve it. I don't think that there are that many self-assured people around. In many cases, self-assured and absolute behavior tends to be a mask. Fortunately, we can keep learning.
> 
> ...


Do we need to justify Beethoven's awkward behaviour to enjoy his music?

He was quite a compulsive reviser too thoughnot quite in Bruckner's class!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

So, first thing to say is that the idea that you don't need to know the composer to enjoy the music is a perfectly sound one and I'd have no issues with someone saying to me, 'You know, you don't need to read his biography to 'get' the music'. That was true of me and Bach, me and Beethoven -though I've since back-filled my biographical knowledge about both, to useful ends.

But, second, what was said here was more along the lines of, 'You _mustn't_ read the biography because it will spoil the music for you'. I had to go back and get the exact quotes, in case I was misunderstanding them, but no: "Bruckner's life story will only harm the appreciation of his music". That's quite a statement.

And third, what was also said here was, 'Best to remain ignorant'. Again, the actual quote was "I would maybe agree that the less you read up on Bruckner's life, the better". That again is an extraordinary thing to say.

I like and respect the people who wrote those things. A lot, actually.

But I've never actually heard "it's better to remain ignorant" advanced as a serious argument before, in any context whatever, let alone classical music. What's doubly weird is that I've read the long essay on Bruckner in the New Grove now, plus all the Wikipedia stuff... and find not a shred of anything there that might warrant such an 'ignorance is bliss' approach. I'm genuinely puzzled at such strong advice of this nature being proffered in this specific context.

I can almost understand someone saying it of Wagner, for example. The racist, anti-semite is not a good advert for his music (though the music is great enough to withstand knowledge of its source, even so). I could even imagine someone advancing the argument about Britten, for example, that the less you know about him and his vindictive way he had with the people he 'dropped', the better.

But Bruckner? His worst behaviour seems to have consisted of a social gauchness that led to him tipping a conductor and propositions of marriage to young girls who he'd only just met! It makes no sense to me at all. I can't wait to have my Master Musicians book delivered so I can find out what was so toxic about Bruckner!


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Well I never knew any of this about Bruckner, so thanks for a good thread so far guys n gals. I'm off to hunt for a no-holds barred biography, any recommendations anyone? 
I do agree with the sentiment that says knowledge of a composer's private life shouldn't really have a bearing on the appreciation of the music. Music is surely what we make of it, such is the power of it's own internal "life" to transcend its circumstantial and perhaps grimy genesis.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> Well I never knew any of this about Bruckner, so thanks for a good thread so far guys n gals. I'm off to hunt for a no-holds barred biography, any recommendations anyone?
> I do agree with the sentiment that says knowledge of a composer's private life shouldn't really have a bearing on the appreciation of the music. Music is surely what we make of it, such is the power of it's own internal "life" to transcend its circumstantial and perhaps grimy genesis.


Don't disagree at all (see sentence 1 of the post above yours ).

But I found that it _enhanced_ my appreciation of a good Bach cantata to know that he had a week to write and rehearse it. Obviously, you _can_ take it on entirely its own terms, but throwing some historical context around it, I think, helped me appreciate it in a different way.

I also remember seeing this big 'wall' of cantatas and thinking I'd never get my head around them. When you see them as a the output of a 'jobbing' composer who had a routine to follow and a 'quota' to complete, they became very much less intimidating to me and very much more approachable in consequence.

It's a bit like the pyramids. They're impressive enough, on their own terms. But they do become a bit more wondrous when you realise the people who built them had only chisels and rollers!

Anyway, see me in mid-June, once my Master Musicians biography has arrived and been devoured. If it's any good, I'll be sure to recommend it 

Everything else I looked at was either aimed at the professional musicologist and/or had a price tag with more digits than seemed entirely feasible!


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Don't disagree at all (see sentence 1 of the post above yours ).
> 
> But I found that it _enhanced_ my appreciation of a good Bach cantata to know that he had a week to write and rehearse it. Obviously, you _can_ take it on entirely its own terms, but throwing some historical context around it, I think, helped me appreciate it in a different way.
> 
> ...


I agree in return AB regarding how background knowledge _can_ enhance listening, it's just not necessary for me. As a quick digression, I too have a thing about that "wall' of cantatas. A friend is shaming me into listening to them as I've resisted them so far, but not for the reasons you did. He sent me a link to one just the other day and it has converted me (in the musical sense that is.. ) and has encouraged me to listen to more.

I find I never ever think of the life of a composer as I listen to their music, not even someone like Shostakovich who's oeuvre, as we all know, was particularly determined by his circumstances and yes, even when the snare and ff marches start, I do not particularly think of Stalin (well maybe I acknowledge somewhere, as to why my feet are goose stepping), such is the inevitable power of music well crafted to my ears.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Thanks for the thoughts! I really came to love Bruckner’s music years before I was interested in reading about his life. But, knowing even a little about his life and worldview certainly brings his music into clearer focus. The glorious choral music is surely connected to his 19th Century Catholic Faith. I’ve always found the Te Deum slightly alarming! His obsession with form, in the symphonies, was most certainly an expression of his OCD as well as his insecurity concerning his musical gifts. 

I remember reading that he played the organ for an exam in Vienna. He was given a theme and asked by the examiners to improvise on the spot. Afterwards one of the examiners exclaimed, “He should be examining us!” 

I noticed the Bach Cantatas were mentioned. I have the Gardiner Bach Pilgrimage Box of the Cantatas. A bit daunting to say the least. Since I love Bach I was wondering, any advice on how to approach them?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Gray Bean said:


> Thanks for the thoughts! I really came to love Bruckner's music years before I was interested in reading about his life. His choral music is glorious.
> 
> I noticed the Bach Cantatas were mentioned. I have the Gardiner Bach Pilgrimage Box of the Cantatas. A bit daunting to say the least. Since I love Bach I was wondering, any advice on how to approach them?


Well, yes, but you won't like it! 
Give them to a charity shop and go buy Suzuki's cycle on BIS instead (hold on to your wallet!)

For my sins, I have both. I didn't actually send my Gardiner to the charity shop, but it was a close-run thing and the rips I did from them were long ago consigned to the Recycle Bin without hope of recycling!

It's not that Gardiner is bad, you understand. Just that I don't think he's very good when compared to Suzuki. I can't quite put my finger on the difference. I don't think it's tempo, so much as clarity. Suzuki just sounds cleaner, more precise. I imagine it's an approach that not everyone will appreciate, though.

So, being slightly more serious about it. My strong suggestion is to forget the words, unless you're desperately interested in them. For the most part, they are full of pious sentimentality that just doesn't ring very true these days. At their worst, they are full of pleas to God to smite the Turks and assorted Papists. It's not very edifying stuff! I started translating them when I began with them. Got about 30 under my belt, and then just gave up: the texts really aren't as good as the music!

I would get the big ones under your belt first. 1, 140, 147, 106, 31, 4. I would definitely try and hear Suzuki's re-imagination of the mostly-lost 190, too. 127 is especially lovely for the soprano movement and its interpretation of a mechanical clock or organ. 21 is good. 50 is excellent. And 130 has an excellent fight with a dragon (for St. Michael's day). No. 19 is another quite good one for St. Michael, as is 149 (anything with trumpets is excellent, basically!). Number 80 is essential because of its use of the Martin Luther hymn 'Ein feste Burg...'.

After that, you could try doing what I did: find out what cantatas would have been performed on the Sunday corresponding to the current date and listen to it (or them: there are multiple cycles of cantatas, so there are frequently 2 or 3 which relate to any given Sunday) throughout that week, trying to get a sense of how it fitted into the liturgy and gospel reading for the relevant day back in 172x.

You could also make a special study of the non-Leipzig cantatas (i.e., the ones he wrote before 1723, in Arnstadt, Mühlhausen and Weimar), as they don't quite fit the Leipzig pattern, neither in form nor function.

I would recommend investing in a copy of Alfred Dürr's definitive guide to the cantatas in translation (unless your German is excellent!): but it isn't cheap. 

I don't know if you read music or not, but my understanding of the cantatas went through the ceiling after I invested in the complete set of scores for them, though they are stupidly expensive. Free scores from the old Bach Society printings are, of course, available for free at IMSLP.

If you are feeling brave, too, you can dip your toes into reading the discussions about the various cantatas at https://bach-cantatas.com/. Personally, I find they are often rather 'precious' or full of themselves, so I could only take that site in small doses (it's 1990s design flair is also massively off-putting!)

There will be a million ways to do this, so take all the above with a pinch of salt. It's only what worked for me.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Gray Bean said:


> I noticed the Bach Cantatas were mentioned. I have the Gardiner Bach Pilgrimage Box of the Cantatas. A bit daunting to say the least. Since I love Bach I was wondering, any advice on how to approach them?


What's been working for me is my own personal Bach pilgrimage, listening to the appropriate cantatas on their corresponding day in the liturgical calendar. And I've been keeping a journal, noting what stands out or seems remarkable. Every single cantata has something remarkable or distinctive about it: quite incredible, really. I'm not religious, but listening in this manner has been very enjoyable, and spaced out my listening very nicely. (If it's not clear, I have the Gardiner Bach box as well, a Christmas gift from my wife.)


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Knorf said:


> (If it's not clear, I have the Gardiner Bach box as well, a Christmas gift from my wife.)


Kudos to your wife!


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Thanks for the helpful advice, AB and Knorf. I now have a place to start. I’ve got a pretty big Bach collection. Presently 
I have the Gardiner Box, the Harnoncourt/Leonhardt Box, and the Rilling Box as well as some odds and ends singles. I loved Suzuki’s take on the B minor Mass. I suppose I might invest in his cantata cycle. I’ve been eyeing his set of the Secular Cantatas.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I have also the Suzuki box of secular cantatas. It is fantastic!


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Knorf said:


> I have also the Suzuki box of secular cantatas. It is fantastic!


I will look into that. The only one I know is the Coffee Cantata. I guess that is considered one of the Secular Cantatas? I looked at my shelf and see that I also have Kuijken's The Liturgical Year in 64 Cantatas box set. I'm thinking I'll start with that one.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Gray Bean said:


> I will look into that. The only one I know is the Coffee Cantata. I guess that is considered one of the Secular Cantatas? I looked at my shelf and see that I also have Kuijken's The Liturgical Year in 64 Cantatas box set. I'm thinking I'll start with that one.


It's a good way to do them, but be warned that 106 is not part of the liturgical year (it was written for a specific funeral), so you'll be missing out on a gem there. I don't think 147 is included in the 18 volumes of Kuijken's set that I've seen, so you'd be missing out on that too. I expect there are others you would do well to listen in parallel to the liturgical year approach, too.

Most of the secular cantatas are numbered 201 and up to about 216. Coffee, peasant, hunting, plus quite a few involving Hercules, Phoebus and other assorted minor deities. There are occasional 'congratulatory' cantatas in the sub-200 range, mostly wishing Leopold (prince of Anhalt-Köthen) happy birthday or happy new year -so those are from his Köthen period, before Leipzig.

I found the Kuijken much more closely miked than the Suzuki. I couldn't fault the musicianship, but there was no 'room' for the music to breathe, for myself at least. I would suggest following the Kuijken ordering but comparing as many recordings of a given cantata as you can (eg, Gardiner v. Kuijken) and see what works for your own ears best.

Enjoy the ride!


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Bruckner would have approved this discussion


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

The Suzuki box is indeed expensive! Couldn’t find it for sale on Amazon or anywhere else for that matter. I did order his set of the Secular Cantatas. Saw that Richter’s Cantata set is remastered on two Blu-ray Discs. As an aside, I simply loved Suzuki’s recording of Beethoven 9 from last year.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Gray Bean said:


> The Suzuki box is indeed expensive! Couldn't find it for sale on Amazon or anywhere else for that matter. I did order his set of the Secular Cantatas. Saw that Richter's Cantata set is remastered on two Blu-ray Discs. As an aside, I simply loved Suzuki's recording of Beethoven 9 from last year.


I had to buy it disk-by-disk back in the day, which I think you can still do. 55 CDs at €15 each... Not _completely_ bonkers at €825, but your point is a sound one nonetheless! Rilling is quite good, too... and much cheaper. Also a different, more old-school, approach, which it's good to have these days.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Gray Bean said:


> Thanks for the helpful advice, AB and Knorf. I now have a place to start. I've got a pretty big Bach collection. Presently
> I have the Gardiner Box, the Harnoncourt/Leonhardt Box, and the Rilling Box as well as some odds and ends singles. I loved Suzuki's take on the B minor Mass. I suppose I might invest in his cantata cycle. I've been eyeing his set of the Secular Cantatas.


Nice off-topic discussion:lol:

But while being at it, and as quite one sided advice is being given: forget Suzuki, certainly nice, but second hand. You can better invest in the man who taught Suzuki: Ton Koopman. Koopman released a full series of Bach cantatas on his private label. With Koopman's own Amsterdam Baroque orchestra and choir. The full 67 CD box (both secular and sacred cantatas) is now up for sale at only €228. https://www.challengerecords.com/products/156758191635.56

I would also prefer this one over Suzuki if Suzuki was cheaper.

And while you are at it, you might also want to get Bach's complete organ works by Ton Koopman, issued on Teldec as part of the famous Bach 2000 complete edition, but also re-issued separately:








I guarantee you will love it. I also have the full Leonhardt/Harnoncourt set and many separate recordings, including Herreweghe and Suzuki, but Koopman beats them all. I also must say that Gardiner is not at all my cup of tea (apart from a few of his later recordings on his own label SDG, which are quite good). Gardiner's Bach generally leaves me cold, where Koopman always finds the right touch.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

NLAdriaan said:


> Nice off-topic discussion:lol: .


Maybe ask a mod to split it off as a separate subject? Many people interested in it will not see it because it is a Bruckner thread.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> Nice off-topic discussion:lol:
> 
> But while being at it, and as quite one sided advice is being given: forget Suzuki, certainly nice, but second hand. You can better invest in the man who taught Suzuki: Ton Koopman. Koopman released a full series of Bach cantatas on his private label. With Koopman's own Amsterdam Baroque orchestra and choir. The full 67 CD box (both secular and sacred cantatas) is now up for sale at only €228. https://www.challengerecords.com/products/156758191635.56
> 
> ...


Hmmm. Someone called "*NL*"-something recommends recordings by a *Dutchman* and the *Amsterdam* Baroque orchestra and choir!! No conflict of interest there, then!! 

(Joke, in case it wasn't obvious ).

In the approximate words of Voltaire, I disagree with everything you wrote, but will defend to the death your right to have written it.

I never got on with the Koopman. I may try and explain why later.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I never got on with the Koopman. I may try and explain why later.


I have written up something that might explain a little as to why I prefer Suzuki to Koopman, but with samples attached so you can make your own decisions on the matter.

In the end, they are very close musically. But there are tiny details of instrumentation, miking distance, articulation that make Suzuki the winner for me, personally.

However, I will grant that the Suzuki is nowhere near as convenient -or cheap- to obtain!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Well, since this thread is already off topic I might as well throw my two cents in! Suzuki is the greatest interpreter of Bach’s cantatas that I’ve heard. Small choir, small band, HIP to the max. But there is just such a sense of devotional intimacy in his readings, and his soloists are of consistently high quality (the latter which I can’t say for Koopman). I find his tempi to be very well chosen next to Gardiner and Koopman who often sound like they’re rushing through the church service to get to Sunday dinner. Overall there is just such a sense of palpable enthusiasm and discovery in the playing and singing of the Bach Collegium Japan, and I truly believe that they may have a closer connection to Bach’s music than many in the West do. I do occasionally turn to Koopman for the larger choir size but that’s about it; I find the interpretations pretty slick. Gardiner usually has good (though very straightforward and academic) soloists and great choral singing but there is a bit of warmth lacking there too. Herreweghe I sometimes find to be too restrained and understated. But then I realize that the complete Suzuki box seems to be rather expensive to obtain, but as I do not collect physical music I don’t take that in mind.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Well, since this thread is already off topic I might as well throw my two cents in! Suzuki is the greatest interpreter of Bach's cantatas that I've heard.


I'm glad it's not just me, then! 

PS. If it's really bothering people that a discussion has veered into different territory, they're more than welcome to talk about Bruckner again (though, to be fair, I thought we'd more or less exhausted that one anyway). Personally, I'm all in favour of free-wheeling where things may go where they fancy.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

I do have the Koopman Bach Organ Works box set. I have enjoyed it very much. Since this has drifted from Symphonic to Choral...what about Bruckner’s choral music? Any favorites and recommendations?


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Gray Bean said:


> I do have the Koopman Bach Organ Works box set. I have enjoyed it very much. Since this has drifted from Symphonic to Choral...what about Bruckner's choral music? Any favorites and recommendations?


Matthew Best on Hyperion.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> Matthew Best on Hyperion.


Definitely Matthew Best, this is the Bruckner choral works cycle to go for! Especially motets are sublime.
Hyperion engineers done stellar job on capturing these performances.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

I think I would put most of Bruckner’s choral music up there with his greatest symphonies. I have the Matthew Best recordings and the Jochum set as well. His motets are masterpieces...the Te Deum is hair raising!


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Hmmm. Someone called "*NL*"-something recommends recordings by a *Dutchman* and the *Amsterdam* Baroque orchestra and choir!! No conflict of interest there, then!!
> 
> (Joke, in case it wasn't obvious ).
> 
> ...


Sorry guys, I can't help it that the post-stamp sized country of the Netherlands has so much to offer musically. Not only Ton Koopman (to whom I will return in a minute:angel, but in so many ways. It could be artsy patriotism (which is the friendly kind), but I am not alone. Gramophone, well known for its raving reviews of UK recordings, thought the RCO is the best symphonic band in the world. And having heard the usual top three quite some times, also live in the last 12 months, I would still agree to that position.

But back to Koopman. I read and listened to a nice Blog by AB, https://absolutelybaching.com/suzuki-or-koopman/
comparing his absolute preferred Suzuki and Koopman in a few fragments of the cantatas. Also if only a few fragments are not enough to form an opinion on such monumental recording projects, it is of course perfectly OK to give some tiny pieces of mortar from the wall of sound that is the Bach cantatas. But it is still funny that I prefer Koopman over Suzuki in all of these fragments. The only benefit of Suzuki might be his BIS recording team. Koopman in all of his recordings for any label uses the same team (Tiny Mathot and Adriaan Verstijnen) and they generally do a good job, also in editing and producing. But Suzuki sounds a bit better defined on BIS, which to me at least doesn't help him. Why do I prefer Koopman? This is based on many recordings and many live concerts through the years. Of course, Koopman has studied everything to the smallest detail, just like the other big names. But to me, Koopman happens to find the exact sweet spot between celebration and devotion and there is much energy in his playing, and ornamentation when possible. Suzuki to me sounds too devoted and not as lively and dynamic as Koopman. The same happens with Herreweghe. Maybe it is because Koopman was raised a catholic, but Koopman brings this unique fresh air to Bach's music, which no other HIP-po can. The Dutch competition might come from Gustav Leonhardt, who was the most dead-serious Bach interpreter around. Frans Bruggen was less focussed on Bach. Gardiner as I already said, just leaves me cold on his Archiv Bach recordings.

But back to Koopman the teacher and Suzuki the student. There is more depth, dynamics and variation in Koopman's interpretations then you will find in Suzuki's. But, as with everything, it remains a matter of personal taste what might work for you. I don't have the tools to add the comparison here, but if you have Spotify, you might try to listen to the secular Coffee Cantata by Koopman and then by Suzuki. Here you exactly hear what I mean. And because it is a secular piece of music, devotion is no issue. Koopman tells a great story, unleashed, extremely well played and his harpsichord spreading energy around, where Suzuki just plays the notes as monotonous as he would with the sacred works.

If you remember that Koopman's most beautiful Bach cantata set can be obtained for 1/4 of the price of Suzuki's second best, I would ignore the Suzuki fanclub and become a Koop-man!


----------

