# Best/Favorite Bruckner conductor(s)?



## RobertJTh

I think not many composers make it so difficult for conductors to get their interpretations accepted by the audience than Bruckner. If you're not an established and undisputed "Bruckner specialist", it's hard to make your recordings part of what the Bruckner lovers consider their "canon".

So while it's not too hard to come up with a list of conductors that are most people's first choice in Bruckner, I think it's more interesting to look at the unjustly neglected conductors, who either recorded complete cycles of the symphonies that got little attention or made one or more excellent single recordings - which then got neglected because they're not part of an (easy to market) complete cycle.

I guess we can more or less agree that (some of the) great, generally accepted Bruckner specialists are:

- (Eugen) Jochum
- Wand
- Celibidache (though very controversial)
- Tintner
- Skrowazcewski

Then there are the famous "allrounders" who happened to be great Brucknerians too. Some did a complete cycle, some didn't:

- Böhm
- Klemperer
- Giulini
- Karajan (a little controversial, perhaps)
- Haitink (I find him dull as dust though)
- Furtwängler
- Barenboim

And some, slightly more obscure conductors (at least to the general public) who happened to be excellent at Bruckner. Most didn't do complete cycles:

- Schuricht
- Sawallisch
- Rosbaud
- Konwitschny
- Keilberth
- van Beinum

And finally some pretty unknown old-timers, who have to be mentioned because of some single marvelous Bruckner recordings they did:

- (Georg-Ludwig) Jochum
- Andreae
- Abendroth
- Van Kempen

As for a personal pick, I'd chose both Jochum brothers, Schuricht and Sawallisch.
What do you guys think?


----------



## joen_cph

There tends to be a big difference between *Celibidache*'s DG and EMI Bruckner series, the DGs are livelier, and less slow and controversially loaded.

For *Furtwängler*, the earlier the recording, the better. The wartime early 8th and 9th are classics for sure, extremely intense.

For *Jochum*, the DG set seems a more dramatically loaded, than the EMI, to me. The 9th there is fantastic. The EMI might have slightly better sound. *Skrowaczewski, Suitner* and the more uneven *Wand *tend to be good.

For often quicker tempi, I prefer *Rögner,* compared to say *Andreae*, whereas *Abendroth* adds unusual flexibility and is generally interesting in that way.

*Haitink *brings magnificent monumentality to the 8th in the first Concertgebouw DDD recording (1981) and his ditto 9th.

As for *Karajan,* I only really like his late, 'singing' 7th and his EMI 4th and 7th. I don't like the accents he brings to the 8th in the late recording of that symphony. His DG recordings can be a bit stiff, IMO.

*Konwitschny* did a fine, radiant 4th with the Gewandhaus Orchestra (stereo, as opposed to the Czech recording)

Personally, I rarely find* Tintner, Schuricht, Van Beinum, Klemperer, or Rosbaud* interesting, Tintner being the best for me among them though.

Some other interesting historical recordings include *Mravinsky* in the 8th and *Barbirolli *in the 8th too (1970, but poor sound), plus *Swoboda *in the 6th, *Scherchen* in the 2nd, and *Adler* and *Goehr* in the 3rd. Mravinsky's 9th seems somewhat too dry to me.

*Inbal*'s recordings of the symphonies including the early ones and the early versions of some were ground-breaking, ofte very different, and his 0-00-1-2-3 are really good and catchy, IMO. I tend to prefer them to Tintner. The chosen versions of the 4th and 8th Symphony are too different and weaker than the more established versions, however.

*Simone Young* overall has a more slender, often less monumental style I think, but even though I've got her set, I haven't listened that much to it.

As regards *Barenboim*, I don't know the DG set, but the Warner set has some very fine entries and some less succesful, the 4th and the 5th Symphonies being very impressive IMO.

The cheap *Paternostro* set features some of the most disastrous, imprecise and provincial orchestral playing I've heard of classical music on record. The 5th symphony there is a more normal, but not very interesting, performance though.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Tintner did the early symphonies a great service by giving them a fairer crack of the whip than some conductors who might think that the serious business only started with the third or fourth (not to mention those who dismissed '00' and/or _Die Nullte_ altogether...). I also appreciated the reasoning behind his choosing to record the original versions of 1, 2 and 3 irrespective of whether they are considered inferior to later editions.

I wish Horst Stein could have gone the whole hog and recorded the lot - his 2nd and 6th on Decca are tantalising glimpses of what could well have been a fine cycle.


----------



## Heck148

My favorite Bruckner conductors are , with the exception of Walter, non -teutonic:
Solti
von Matacic
Walter
Barenboim (DG set is awesome)

Giulini, Szell, Haitink are good too.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Karajan
Wand
Celibidache
Jochum
Barenboim
Furtwangler


Any takers for Venzago?


----------



## Skakner

Wand
Celibidache
Jochum
Giulini
Barenboim


----------



## RobertJTh

joen_cph said:


> For *Furtwängler*, the earlier the recording, the better. The wartime early 8th and 9th are classics for sure, extremely intense.


Those are terrific, but I always had a soft spot for Furtwängler's Berlin 7th from 1949. Good sound and a great performance - in my opinion they're better in both respects than the two 1951 versions. F.'s single 5 and 6 and his various 4ths never really convinced me.



> For *Jochum*, the DG set seems a more dramatically loaded, than the EMI, to me. The 9th there is fantastic. The EMI might have slightly better sound.


Agreed, one needs both sets for the full Jochum experience. Roughly speaking, I'd take 1-4 from DG and 5-9 from EMI. The EMI Dresden recordings from the 70's tends to be a bit unfocused (same goes for Kempe's Strauss recordings), I slightly prefer DG's clearer 60's sound.



> For often quicker tempi, I prefer *Rögner,* compared to say *Andreae*, whereas *Abendroth* adds unusual flexibility and is generally interesting in that way.


I generally prefer quick tempi in Bruckner, but I find Rögner rather dull and faceless. Same goes for Andreae, but his was the first complete Bruckner cycle, so he's forgiven. Abendroth's Leipzig Bruckner is really exciting, Furtwänglerian.
Schuricht is pretty quick too, his 8th is my personal favorite. In fact, I never liked the 8th that much, till I tried Schuricht and heard it being done right. Splendid Vienna 9th too.



> *Haitink *brings magnificent monumentality to the 8th in the first Concertgebouw DDD recording (1981) and his ditto 9th.


I find his performances giant sleeping pills, sorry, monumentality or not. The one Haitink Bruckner I can tolerate is the 1978 7th.



> *Konwitschny* did a fine, radiant 4th with the Gewandhaus Orchestra (stereo, as opposed to the Czech recording)


It's great, love that fiery finale!



> Some other interesting historical recordings include *Mravinsky* in the 8th and *Barbirolli *in the 8th too (1970, but poor sound), plus *Swoboda *in the 6th, *Scherchen* in the 2nd, and *Adler* and *Goehr* in the 3rd. Mravinsky's 9th seems somewhat too dry to me.


Barbirolli's 8th is a marvel - at least in the first 2 movements. Most terrifying first movement ever. In the second half the ensemble slowly falls apart, alas, everyone sounds tired.
But Swoboda's 6th, really? I know it's the first commercial release ever of the 6th and thus has historical value, but he couldn't hold the orchestra together in the rhythmically difficult first movement, and the rest is a sloppy mess too. Georg-Ludwig Jochum's 6th is far superior, and his 5th is brilliant too (I'd really love a complete G-L Jochum box, he didn't record that much and his vintage Bruckner was amazing, ahead (at the time) of his older brother Eugen.)



> *Inbal*'s recordings of the symphonies including the early ones and the early versions of some were ground-breaking, ofte very different, and his 0-00-1-2-3 are really good and catchy, IMO. I tend to prefer them to Tintner. The chosen versions of the 4th and 8th Symphony are too different and weaker than the more established versions, however.


Inbal was my first Bruckner, and I agree, I should have mentioned him in my list. And yes, the first version 4th and 8th are nice to hear once and never again...



> As regards *Barenboim*, I don't know the DG set, but the Warner set has some very fine entries and some less succesful, the 4th and the 5th Symphonies being very impressive IMO.


Barenboim's Chicago recordings were superb and better than his two later cycles, I think. Maybe the best 1st ever (but Sawallisch's is pretty good too).


----------



## 89Koechel

Very fine, JTh! ... especially, in the specifics, of Jochum, Konwitschny, Rogner, Haitink, Inbal and others! Well, one man would still nominate Furtwangler, as the BEST, and his interpretations, esp. in the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th, are or might be the best, after all. ... Well, van Beinum and Barbirolli are very fine, in our considerations ... but I still regard WF/Furtwangler, as the best, overall.


----------



## rw181383

Giulini 
Wand
Asahina
Suitner
Karajan (his EMI 4th, especially!)
Celibidache (3,4,6,7,8)
Skrowaczewski
Furtwängler


----------



## Knorf

Favorite Cycles (at least for the numbered symphonies):
Karajan
Skrowaczewski
Blomstedt
Young
Wand
Jochum

Favorite Partial Cycles:
Jansons
Abbado 
Schuricht
Klemperer

Honorable mention:
Haitink
Tennstedt
Tintner
Harnoncourt 
Boulez
Walter

Heard but dislike:
Solti (made me think I disliked Bruckner)
Celibidache (give me a break, far too willful and distorted, in a one-dimensional way)
Furtwängler (interpretively way too simplistic in concept, and predictable)

Meh:
Barenboim (reserving judgment for now, though)

Insufficient hearings at this time, but seem worthy:
Gielen
Schaller


----------



## Manxfeeder

Knorf said:


> Heard but dislike:
> Solti (made me think I disliked Bruckner)


My thoughts exactly. His 5th was my introduction to Bruckner, and if I hadn't stumbled on Tintner, I would have stopped there.


----------



## joen_cph

Knorf said:


> (...)
> Celibidache (give me a break, far too willful and distorted, in a one-dimensional way)
> (..)


The Celibidache remark must be based on some EMI recordings (probably not of the 6th, for example), not the DG ones.

The Barenboim not on his teldec/warner 4th or 5th, for example.


----------



## Knorf

joen_cph said:


> The Celibidache remark must be based on some EMI, recordings (probably not of the 6th, for example), not the DG ones.


Don't assume.

But I admit mostly yes. However, the problems I have with the EMI Celibidache are latent in the DG recordings, but no, not as egregious as the EMI. However, I do agree that the Sixth from the EMI is rather good. It's one I do return to from time to time, albeit pretty rarely. There are many better Sixths, in my opinion.

I forget a couple more I could mention.

Add to "meh": Gergiev

Add to "honorable mention": Kubelík, Kertesz


----------



## JTS

Karajan’s EMI recordings of 4 and 7 are amazing. So is the late DG 7 and 8
As for his DG cycle it is everything one might expect. 

Jochum’s is absolutely fine no matter which cycle. 

Tintner a notch or two down

I’ve a mighty fine fifth and ninth from Dohnanyi


----------



## wkasimer

Knorf said:


> But I admit mostly yes. However, the problems I have with the EMI Celibidache are latent in the DG recordings, but no, not as egregious as the EMI.


I prefer the Celibidache's EMI Bruckner to the DG recordings. The latter are pretty mainstream in terms of tempi and interpretation, and lots of conductors do that better than Celi. But the EMI recordings are unique.


----------



## Knorf

wkasimer said:


> But the EMI recordings are unique.


I certainly can't argue with that!


----------



## Ned Low

Initially, I found Celi's Bruckner rather dull until i listened to his 5th with Munich Philharmonic. Superb.


----------



## dko22

I guess Jochum is overall the safest bet (mixing cycles though probably edge to Dresden) but Tintner is superb in the underrated early works, performing in general the original versions which makes all the difference. If I could only have one box, it would probably be him. There are any number of individual great performances such as Celi 6th or Sanderling 7th. Wouldn't really know where to start with no. 9 as surprisingly few conductors are able to completely mess it up, unlike most of the others.


----------



## bz3

I go back and forth on Wand or Karajan, if forced to really narrow it down. I enjoy all the big ones though, and if there were more extant Bohm recordings I think it's very possible he could be my favorite.


----------



## Leo1277

Overall I am not that much into Bruckner compared to Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler (maybe I have to give it another serious go), but in my view for the Bruckner I have listened to seriously, it is Furtwängler. I also have a Karajan full set, which of course is technically far superior, but good old Wilhelm has it, in my opinion. I just wish that AI methods will eventually learn how to de-noise and restore old recordings, that would be so wonderful.


----------



## marlow

Leo1277 said:


> Overall I am not that much into Bruckner compared to Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler (maybe I have to give it another serious go), but in my view for the Bruckner I have listened to seriously, it is Furtwängler. I also have a Karajan full set, which of course is technically far superior, but good old Wilhelm has it, in my opinion. I just wish that AI methods will eventually learn how to de-noise and restore old recordings, that would be so wonderful.


Unfortunately you cannot put in what isn't there


----------



## Leo1277

marlow said:


> Unfortunately you cannot put in what isn't there


Actually yes and no. From an information science point of view, you cannot "restore" noise, because as you say it isn't there. But if you have additional information, for example the score where the AI would be able to see that currently there are, say, the first violins and the oboe playing, then it could try to suss out which is which, and paste in sound of these instruments. First attempts that are in my view quite successful are made for piano recordings. For example, there's a company called Zenph that takes old piano recordings, uses AI to find out whenever a key is hit and how loud, what pedal is being used etc, and from that they try to re-create a clean recording. Along the lines of what some famous pianist once said (I forgot who), "Piano playing is easy, you just have to hit the right keys at the right time". As one of the projects, they "cleaned up" Glen Gould's original Goldberg Variations and thus removed noise, turned it into stereo, and removed his accompanying singing. Now, I even quite like his accompaniment, but it is what it is, and at least technically, it worked surprisingly well. You can find it on YouTube. Now, a piano is much easier to AI analyze than, say, a violin, but give it 20 more years....


----------



## Becca

Manxfeeder said:


> Quote Originally Posted by Knorf View Post
> Heard but dislike:
> Solti (made me think I disliked Bruckner)
> 
> My thoughts exactly. His 5th was my introduction to Bruckner, and if I hadn't stumbled on Tintner, I would have stopped there.


For me it was Karajan's 1st & 5th which made me think that I disliked Bruckner!


----------



## Knorf

Becca said:


> For me it was Karajan's 1st & 5th which made me think that I disliked Bruckner!


I think I saw you write this before, and and to me, it's baffling. I think both of those are awesome, especially the Fifth. But, as always, _de gustibus non est disputandum._


----------

