# On hearing the first Bruckner (in spring)



## Steve Wright

(Apologies for the lame pun)

So, I've just begun my Bruckner journey, with Symphonies 7 (Wand/Kolner/RCA) and 4 (Jochum/BPO/DG) and am, predictably, hooked. 

He's going straight up there with Beethoven, Brahms and Schubert for me, and for some moods only he will do.

So my question is: if you were beginning your Bruckner journey, where would you go next? Symphs 8 and 9 (if so, which conductor(s)?)? A set?

I'd like to hear Karajan doing Bruckner I think, and his 7 and 8 look special. But Amazon reviewers also rave about the 8 by Maazel and the BPO.

Boxes... Jochum, Wand (Kolner, again), Karajan? What would you recommend? 
As I said before in a Brahms thread, I tend more towards lush and ethereal than granitic and bombastic, though I imagine I'm in for a bit of all of these... 
Thanks very much as ever!


----------



## Skilmarilion

Perhaps you could try to the 6th -- its adagio, in particular, is a must-listen.

I became hooked on Bruckner via the 8th however. From start to finish, it may be his most successful effort, with some really extraordinary music spread across all its movements. If you take to the 8th, you will probably like the 5th as well, which has an equally grand finale.

I left the 9th until last. At first I felt that I preferred the 7th and 8th, but it really grew on me with repeated listens. For me it has the strongest combination of first movement and scherzo, and the adagio ... isn't too bad either. :tiphat:


----------



## Triplets

Agree about the Adagio of the 6th. The Bruckner that really hooked me was the 9th. The recording was Gunter Wand, I think with a North German Radio Orchestra.
Karajan's Bruckner cycle is very good. I think Bruckner was one of his real strengths and the Berlin PO is terrific. The other cycle that I own is Jochum/Dresden. Jochum seems to take a few more liberties with rubato here and there but sometimes can obtain thrilling results, as in 5. 
Furtwangler Eighth is really special, particularly the Vienna 1944 recording, and suprisingly good sound for the vintage.
I don't listen to 1,2 or 3 that much, although I do enjoy the First movement of 2 quite a bit. I've never warmed to 3.


----------



## brotagonist

I cannot go into all of my logic and head-pounding and decision-making, but this is what I ended up with, and it is ecstasy for me :tiphat:

3 Nagano
4 Haitink
5 Abbado
6 Nagano
7 Chailly; Karajan
8 Karajan
9 Rattle


----------



## phlrdfd

I do think you should explore Karajan's Bruckner, but I don't recommend buying his boxed set. The only real must-have in there is the fifth, which can be found separately. The fourth and seventh with the BPO on EMI, the seventh and eighth with the VPO on DG and an earlier recording of the 9th from the 60s with the BPO on DG are all superior to the recordings from the boxed set in my opinion.
Some other recommendations:
4: Abbado/VPO, but the live Lucerne recording is also great
5: Sinopoli 
6: Celibidache (probably my single favorite Bruckner recording)
9: Giulini/VPO

I think Karajan is probably tops in 7 and 8. If you don't mind videos, there is a DG DVD of Karajan conducting the 8th with the VPO in the cathedral at St. Florian, where Bruckner was organist for a number of years, that is sensational.


----------



## Mahlerian

Karajan was a fine Brucknerian, but you will need to get a proper recording of the real version of 3, the 1873 original. I'd recommend Tintner or Young.


----------



## Becca

I came to Bruckner via the 4th and that was the only one I knew for many years. After that it was the 7th, 6th & 9th. 

As to HvK, I can't speak for his earlier Bruckner forays but his smoothed over, lush later works just seem so antithetical to what Bruckner is all about. Those of us in southern California were lucky to have Carlo Maria Giulini as MD of the Los Angeles Philharmonic in the late 70s & early 80s (wow, what a change after Mehta!) and so experienced much of his wonderful Bruckner. My own particular favourites are most of the Klemperer recordings which do seem to come close to what I imagine Bruckner as expecting, his 6th being a particularly great example.

Regarding the 8th, there seem to be two schools of thought on it, one of which is exemplified by Giulini and the other, much angrier and harsher is by Barbirolli. I have the latter and strongly recommend it.

The 9th ... complete or incomplete? That is the perennial question. I go strongly for complete based on the knowledge of what Bruckner was intending for a last movement. It is also worth remembering that he suggested using the Te Deum as a finale when he realized that he wasn't going to finish the work so it stands to reason that he didn't envisage the work as being a 3 movement torso ending with slow movement. To hear that your only real choice of recording is Rattle/BPO. There are some others but they are with an earlier version of the reconstruction (which isn't really a reconstruction , more a fleshing out of a surprisingly complete skeleton)


----------



## Steve Wright

Excellent, thanks everyone.



phlrdfd said:


> I do think you should explore Karajan's Bruckner, but I don't recommend buying his boxed set. The only real must-have in there is the fifth, which can be found separately. The fourth and seventh with the BPO on EMI, the seventh and eighth with the VPO on DG and an earlier recording of the 9th from the 60s with the BPO on DG are all superior to the recordings from the boxed set in my opinion.
> Some other recommendations:
> 4: Abbado/VPO, but the live Lucerne recording is also great
> 5: Sinopoli
> 6: Celibidache (probably my single favorite Bruckner recording)
> 9: Giulini/VPO


Does anyone have opinions on the following cycles (I have seen a couple of people champion each on here):
Jochum / Dresden (box set, EMI)
Jochum / BPO (box set, DG)
Wand / Kolner Rundfunks (box set, RCA)
Wand / BPO (individuals)

That said, I can imagine that Bruckner may be the type of composer for whom it's difficult to find a totally satisfactory cycle...?
Thank you!


----------



## merlinus

This was my introduction to Bruckner and Celibidache. Amazing!!!


----------



## Steve Wright

merlinus said:


> This was my introduction to Bruckner and Celibidache. Amazing!!!


That is indeed powerful stuff. Thanks for the link!
OK, adding Celibidache to my shortlist. He's one for whom the entire set doesn't seem to set me back much more than individual discs. Is this a strong cycle?


----------



## joen_cph

You could/will easily get a lot of further recommendations, but concerning your initial pun, *Inbal/Frankfurt *delivers just the right woodland atmosphere/cuckooing in the early symphonies 00-3 IMO, & I´d recommend checking out their 3rd too, it´s the original version as well.


----------



## KenOC

Steve Wright said:


> OK, adding Celibidache to my shortlist. He's one for whom the entire set doesn't seem to set me back much more than individual discs. Is this a strong cycle?


Strong indeed. If you're a true believe in cheapism, you might want to get this also. It's pretty good!

http://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Symp...29475974&sr=8-1&keywords=bruckner+paternostro


----------



## joen_cph

I must say I really disagree concerning Paternostro. Uncoordinated to a rare degree, and I am not exaggerating. Read negative reviews. The 5th is the best in the set and acceptable, IMO.

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2008/Mar08/Bruckner_symphonies_sch3112.htm


----------



## Steve Wright

KenOC said:


> Strong indeed. If you're a true believe in cheapism, you might want to get this also. It's pretty good!
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Symp...29475974&sr=8-1&keywords=bruckner+paternostro


Thanks! Do I believe in cheapism? Up to a point. 
Most interested, though, in an affordable but best-or-near-best cycle, either by one or a series of conductors. So if Wand, Jochum or Celi will do this for me, I am all ears. Otherwise I will go piecemeal...
Currently reading this with interest (and guilty pleasure as should be working):
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2009/Apr09/Bruckner_Symphonies_Article.htm


----------



## hpowders

Mahlerian said:


> Karajan was a fine Brucknerian, but you will need to get a proper recording of the real version of 3, the 1873 original. I'd recommend Tintner or Young.


Ha! Ha! I'm not throwing away that Karajan/Bruckner Third. Nobody makes the final coda sound so glorious as Karajan!


----------



## phlrdfd

Steve Wright said:


> That is indeed powerful stuff. Thanks for the link!
> OK, adding Celibidache to my shortlist. He's one for whom the entire set doesn't seem to set me back much more than individual discs. Is this a strong cycle?
> 
> View attachment 68470


As I mentioned in my earlier post, I love the 6th from this set. But the tempos for the 6th are less extreme than they are in the other symphonies. In fact, in the 6th, only the second movement has tempos that could be described as very slow. But you should be aware before getting this set that it has some _extremely_ slow tempos. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. I know people who love it, and I like the 5th in addition to that 6th. But it's not standard Bruckner. I believe the 8th symphony runs over 100 minutes. The 4th and 7th are both nearly 80 minutes long, and the 9th is almost that long as well.
If you're just learning the music, it might be good to start with something that's a little less extreme to have more of a reference point before moving on to Celibidache. 
If you really want a complete cycle, either of the Jochum sets would probably be a good way to go. I'd see which you can get a better deal on.


----------



## Vaneyes

Steve Wright said:


> Excellent, thanks everyone.
> 
> Does anyone have opinions on the following cycles (I have seen a couple of people champion each on here):
> Jochum / Dresden (box set, EMI)
> *Jochum / BPO/Bavarian RSO (box set, DG)*
> Wand / Kolner Rundfunks (box set, RCA)
> Wand / BPO (individuals)
> 
> That said, I can imagine that Bruckner may be the type of composer for whom it's difficult to find a totally satisfactory cycle...?
> Thank you!


The Jochum DG box. :tiphat:


----------



## Becca

I am generally against boxed sets and the more works in the set, the less I think it likely to find a completely satisfactory single set. Variety is the spice of life, pick and choose - and have fun doing so.

P.S. I agree with phlrdfd that the Celibidache set is probably not a good starter set given his very slow tempi in some of the symphonies.


----------



## hapiper

Steve Wright said:


> (Apologies for the lame pun)
> 
> So, I've just begun my Bruckner journey, with Symphonies 7 (Wand/Kolner/RCA) and 4 (Jochum/BPO/DG) and am, predictably, hooked.
> 
> He's going straight up there with Beethoven, Brahms and Schubert for me, and for some moods only he will do.
> 
> So my question is: if you were beginning your Bruckner journey, where would you go next? Symphs 8 and 9 (if so, which conductor(s)?)? A set?
> 
> I'd like to hear Karajan doing Bruckner I think, and his 7 and 8 look special. But Amazon reviewers also rave about the 8 by Maazel and the BPO.
> 
> Boxes... Jochum, Wand (Kolner, again), Karajan? What would you recommend?
> As I said before in a Brahms thread, I tend more towards lush and ethereal than granitic and bombastic, though I imagine I'm in for a bit of all of these...
> Thanks very much as ever!


Well I guess I also am going to have to get some Bruckner as your tastes in composers mirrors mine to a T. So I'll have to go look at getting some of at least his more popular symphonies and concertos.


----------



## GraemeG

phlrdfd said:


> As I mentioned in my earlier post, I love the 6th from this set. But the tempos for the 6th are less extreme than they are in the other symphonies. In fact, in the 6th, only the second movement has tempos that could be described as very slow. But you should be aware before getting this set that it has some _extremely_ slow tempos. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. I know people who love it, and I like the 5th in addition to that 6th. But it's not standard Bruckner. I believe the 8th symphony runs over 100 minutes. The 4th and 7th are both nearly 80 minutes long, and the 9th is almost that long as well.
> If you're just learning the music, it might be good to start with something that's a little less extreme to have more of a reference point before moving on to Celibidache.


Well, perhaps. But then, when you do move on to Celibidache, you'll wonder why you wasted your time listening to everyone else.
Although, I do have one caveat about his use of the Nowak edition of the 8th; I wish he'd used Haas.
I keep my Jochum DG box for 1 and 2. But I'll probably never listen to his 4-9 ever again, unless I find time to do a back-to-back comparison exercise.
cheers,
GG


----------



## joen_cph

Remember of course there´s a big difference between early, DG Celibidache and later EMI, in Bruckner. DGs are generally faster and more flexible with tempi.
As already said, the 6th on EMI is probably the most conventional in that set.

Barenboim/teldec-warner wasn´t mentioned. The 4th and 5th would be among my 2-3 selected recordings of those works. An extremely impressive, monumental 4th without the stasis of Karajan/EMI - and check out those final chords of the 5th, so indifferently done by many other conductors by comparison. 

And another recommendation for the DG Jochum set, the sound isn´t top notch though, but the playing engaged, slightly more contrastful than Jochum´s EMI-Brilliant set. The 8th and 9th will exemplify this, the 9th being one of the best there is, IMO.


----------



## Überstürzter Neumann

Steve Wright said:


> (Apologies for the lame pun)
> 
> So, I've just begun my Bruckner journey, with Symphonies 7 (Wand/Kolner/RCA) and 4 (Jochum/BPO/DG) and am, predictably, hooked.
> 
> He's going straight up there with Beethoven, Brahms and Schubert for me, and for some moods only he will do.
> 
> So my question is: if you were beginning your Bruckner journey, where would you go next? Symphs 8 and 9 (if so, which conductor(s)?)? A set?
> 
> I'd like to hear Karajan doing Bruckner I think, and his 7 and 8 look special. But Amazon reviewers also rave about the 8 by Maazel and the BPO.
> 
> Boxes... Jochum, Wand (Kolner, again), Karajan? What would you recommend?
> As I said before in a Brahms thread, I tend more towards lush and ethereal than granitic and bombastic, though I imagine I'm in for a bit of all of these...
> Thanks very much as ever!


I don't know if I am all that qualified to give useful advice. Most of the lads who already posted are much more knowledgeable about music than me, and I got hooked a Bruckner for only a couple of years ago. On the other hand, it would probably not hurt getting the dillettant's perspective as well...
So here we go:
I would continue with no. 4 and 6, then go to the first ones from 0to 3 and wait with no. 5 and the last two ones as they are very demanding. For a set, all of those you list are good ones (ignore my Karajan allergy here), but my favourite is Skrowaczewski/Saarbrucken Radio Symphony Orchestra. Great performances, great sound, no duds and you get all 11 symphonies. I don't know how easy it is to get though, the last time I saw it was in Vienna last summer and it was quite pricey. You may want to check it out on spotify or youtube, here is a link to the last mentioned:



. 
As for the first editions, I am not so fond of neither Tintner nor Young, but prefer Schaller/Philharmonie Festiva. He does the 9th with a reconstructed Carragan finale. The only one I don't care for from him is the 8th.


----------



## Vaneyes

Überstürzter Neumann said:


> I don't know if I am all that qualified to give useful advice. Most of the lads who already posted are much more knowledgeable about music than me, and I got hooked a Bruckner for only a couple of years ago. On the other hand, it would probably not hurt getting the dillettant's perspective as well...
> So here we go:
> I would continue with no. 4 and 6, then go to the first ones from 0to 3 and wait with no. 5 and the last two ones as they are very demanding. For a set, all of those you list are good ones (ignore my Karajan allergy here), but my favourite is Skrowaczewski/Saarbrucken Radio Symphony Orchestra. Great performances, great sound, no duds and you get all 11 symphonies. I don't know how easy it is to get though, the last time I saw it was in Vienna last summer and it was quite pricey. You may want to check it out on spotify or youtube, here is a link to the last mentioned:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> As for the first editions, I am not so fond of neither Tintner nor Young, but prefer Schaller/Philharmonie Festiva. He does the 9th with a reconstructed Carragan finale. The only one I don't care for from him is the 8th.


To name a few, Skrow, Tintner, (Scherchen, Gielen, Wit for Mahler), did the best they could with the bands they had. Spots of brilliance, with some raggedy playing. Tintner's Bruckner set is valuable for original editions familiarity. Cheers! :tiphat:


----------



## Vaneyes

GraemeG said:


> Well, perhaps. But then, when you do move on to Celibidache, you'll wonder why you wasted your time listening to everyone else.
> Although, I do have one caveat about his use of the Nowak edition of the 8th; I wish he'd used Haas.
> I keep my Jochum DG box for 1 and 2. But I'll probably never listen to his 4-9 ever again, unless I find time to do a back-to-back comparison exercise.
> cheers,
> GG


Eliminating Jochum because of editions, seems absurd to me...but, each to his own. :tiphat:


----------



## AnotherSpin

If I would want to keep only couple of more or less complete boxes I will try narrow selection process to:

Barenboim (Berlin)
Chailly
Skrowaczewski
Chelibidache (Munich)

Aditionally I will not be willing to miss some separate versions of 7, 8 and 9 from Karajan, Giulini, Haitink, Suitner, Wand, Boulez, Harnoncourt.


----------



## Vaneyes

91 year-old Skrow's new release, Bruckner 3 with LPO (rec. March 2014).










http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2015/Apr/Bruckner_sy3_LPO0084.htm


----------



## Xaltotun

I prefer Karajan's Berlin 7th and 8th to the later Vienna recordings, so that makes his boxed set even better. In particular his Berlin 8th is one of the only ones that _really_ satisfy me.


----------



## hapiper

Well I listened to the Bruckner and it isn't bad but not really to my liking. It sounds too modern if you will. Having said that though I would like to get 1 or 2 more. Maybe it will grow on me if I listen to more of it.


----------



## merlinus

One other point. For me, the SQ of Bruckner recordings is very important, as with Mahler. Being able to hear all the instruments, notes, harmonies, counterpoint and such very clearly is a large part of my listening enjoyment.

So although I am always greatly impressed by Furtwangler, I can only occasionally listen to his interpretations. Same with others who conducted before the advent of better recording technology. Sadly these are often muddy and muffled, and much is lost.

For example, listening to the SACDs of some of Blomstedt/Leipzig is an incredible experience, and I can hear things that are lost in most recordings of lesser sound quality. And his interpretations are excellent as well.

Celibidiche/MPO is also very good, and there are a number of other choices that offer clear and captivating sound.


----------



## AnotherSpin

hapiper said:


> Well I listened to the Bruckner and it isn't bad but not really to my liking. It sounds too modern if you will. Having said that though I would like to get 1 or 2 more. Maybe it will grow on me if I listen to more of it.


 When I first listened to Bruckner, I almost developed allergy to his music. Only after several years I was hooked, completely and forever, maybe. So, my advise would be: do not rush, and try his simpler or lighter pieces first. 4th, 3th.


----------



## tahnak

Te Deum Barenboim
Helgoland Barenboim
Symphony Nullte Zubin Mehta
Studiensinfonie Eliahu Inbal
Symphony No. 1 Georg Solti
Symphony No. 2 Georg Solti
Symphony No. 3 Volkmar Andrae
Symphony No. 4 Celibidache
Symphony No. 4 Barenboim
Symphony No. 6 Solti
Symphony No. 7 Jochum
Symphony No. 8 Furtwangler
Symphony No. 9 Zubin Mehta


----------



## joen_cph

Nice to see you back, _Tahnak_. A person I knew who´s been collecting for a lifetime and had Bruckner as his favourite composer, called Mehta´s Bruckner 9th the most interesting record by that conductor. I´d personally choose another as a favourite, but it is unusual.


----------



## Becca

joen_cph said:


> Nice to see you back, _Tahnak_. A person I knew who´s been collecting for a lifetime and had Bruckner as his favourite composer, called Mehta´s Bruckner 9th the most interesting record by that conductor. I´d personally choose another as a favourite, but it is unusual.


"interesting", "unusual" those can be really loaded descriptions!


----------



## joen_cph

Becca said:


> "interesting", "unusual" those can be really loaded descriptions!


Mehta´s is usually not seen as "the" recommended version, but obviously it has qualities, as indicated above and here:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-6892/
http://www.classical.net/~music/recs/reviews/l/lon68494a.php

It´s been some time since I heard it, but I might give it another spin.


----------



## marybook2

I also agree that the Adagio of #6 is a must listen to! My favorite recording of this symphony is Horst Stein's rendition with the VPO on London records (1975) I love a slower tempo with the Adagio and this one was perfect. Incidentally, I suspect that alfred newman (the film music composer) used a portion of the theme from the Adagio for the movie The Song of Bernadette.


----------



## Lord Lance

*Recommendations*

Start your journey with these two boxes:


----------



## Orfeo

Steve Wright said:


> Excellent, thanks everyone.
> 
> Does anyone have opinions on the following cycles (I have seen a couple of people champion each on here):
> Jochum / Dresden (box set, EMI)
> Jochum / BPO (box set, DG)
> Wand / Kolner Rundfunks (box set, RCA)
> Wand / BPO (individuals)
> 
> That said, I can imagine that Bruckner may be the type of composer for whom it's difficult to find a totally satisfactory cycle...?
> Thank you!


*Jochum/Dresden (box set, EMI):* Very well done and often thrilling (like how he ends the first movement's coda of the Third for example). But you are going to have to put up with Jochum's volatile tempo choices (too dynamic and unsteady at places for Bruckner's symphonies, which depend on their structuralism the most) as well as the sound, which is harsh at the tuttis.

*Jochum / BPO (box set, DG):* Same as above, more or less. The orchestras (BPO & The Bavarian Radio SO) knew their Bruckner and it shows. Their responses are of vim and vigor, but never short of rapt poetry in the playing. But, depending on how you like Bruckner to be performed, this set, a milestone back then, is a give-and-take proposition.

*-->*When I listened to his performances of the symphonies of the early-mid 1980s (esp. on Youtube), I find myself saying, finally he got it. Not to say that he "had not gotten it before" per se (for he's an expert, not me), but there the tempi choices are more straightforward yet more moving and emotionally absorbing. His last recording of the Fifth with the Concertgebouw, released by Tahra, is among the great recordings of this work and is very special.

*Wand/Kolner Rundfunks (box set, RCA):* I would recommend this ahead of Jochum's two. Here Wand's readings are more steadier and taut yet so alive. He is not as grand as Karajan or Giulini, but the structural integrity is there and his orchestra plays very well for him. He also used the First Symphony's Vienna Edition, which is curious (and something Bruckner should've shied away from, but that's another topic). The recorded sound is especially successful.

*Wand/BPO (individuals):* These are powerful performances, if a tad plodding. Wand's approaches changed little over the years (broader in scope, but overall fairly consistent with his earlier traversals). His 2001 recording of the Eighth is probably his best, most gripping effort in a Bruckner: grand, yet propulsive, with the BPO on top of its form. The Ninth is quite on that level, if a tad short of Giulini visceral realization. But it's a recording worth having.

You're right in that there's really no set of the symphonies that is totally satisfactory. The Karajan set is close. The Wand, a strong contender (and Haitink/Philips). But, you may be better off getting individual recording(s) of the symphonies (good suggestions above esp. re: the original version of Symphony no. III).


----------



## Steve Wright

Super informative, thank you! I must say I am now leaning towards the Karajan set - I've listened to a few excerpts and, without being able yet to talk articulately about Bruckner's music, I like the sound worlds that HvK creates.
A good choice?


----------



## Orfeo

Steve Wright said:


> Super informative, thank you! I must say I am now leaning towards the Karajan set - I've listened to a few excerpts and, without being able yet to talk articulately about Bruckner's music, I like the sound worlds that HvK creates. A good choice?


Absolutely a very good choice.


----------



## Orfeo

Steve Wright said:


> Super informative, thank you! I must say I am now leaning towards the Karajan set - I've listened to a few excerpts and, without being able yet to talk articulately about Bruckner's music, I like the sound worlds that HvK creates.
> A good choice?


Absolutely a very good choice.


----------



## FLighT

Been binge listening to late Bruckner lately myself. I've always been a fan of the 8th. I have all 3 of VK's studio recordings with the BPO, Wand BPO, Haitink, Szell, Harnoncourt, and Tintner. But I want to recommend Bruno Walters Bruckner 9th to you. Made in 1958 (I think) the performance is a great one and the sonics, somehow, sound like it was made in the last decade not almost 60 years ago. While the 9th has all the usual Bruckner symphony traits and flavors there are times when I hear him reaching forward in time to the music that is to come in the decades following his death. Hard to explain, and maybe the conductor emphasizes this (after all Walter was personally acquainted with Mahler). And for me it's not so much the fact that he was unable to get to the fourth movement of the 9th, it satisfies me as is, but, every time I listen the 9th I find myself wondering after where his 10th might have gone.


----------



## Becca

FLighT said:


> And for me it's not so much the fact that he was unable to get to the fourth movement of the 9th, it satisfies me as is, but, every time I listen the 9th I find myself wondering after where his 10th might have gone.


There is much more of the last movement of the 9th than is popularly believed. In addition because Bruckner suggested using his Te Deum as the finale of the Ninth Symphony when it became clear to him that he wasn't going to be able to finish it, it seems clear that he did not want this work to end with the Adagio.

Watch this discussion about it by Sir Simon Rattle...


----------



## merlinus

For me, the adagio ending of the 9th is perfect. The struggle is over, there is acceptance of death, and all ends in peace.

Mahler 10 is another that many have tried to complete, but none of them are Mahler, only attempts to compose and orchestrate what Gustav might have, had he lived. The completed adagio is glorious, and for me, more than enough.


----------



## Mahlerian

merlinus said:


> Mahler 10 is another that many have tried to complete, but none of them are Mahler, only attempts to compose and orchestrate what Gustav might have, had he lived. The completed adagio is glorious, and for me, more than enough.


No, none of the legitimate completions of Mahler's Tenth feature any composition work on the part of the editors. The work is complete in terms of form and would not have been altered by a single bar.


----------



## merlinus

I will take your word re: composition, but definitely not orchestration, one of Mahler's great achievements. And IIRC he was always tinkering with this feature in everything he wrote.


----------



## Mahlerian

merlinus said:


> I will take your word re: composition, but definitely not orchestration, one of Mahler's great achievements. And IIRC he was always tinkering with this feature in everything he wrote.


True, and I am sure that the way Mahler would have finished the work would have been better than what any scholar could do.

Anyway, turning the discussion back to Bruckner, there are a lot of criticisms that can be made of his orchestration, but I've found his originals inevitably more effective than that in the Schalk-affected versions.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> No, none of the legitimate completions of Mahler's Tenth feature any composition work on the part of the editors.


I would really like to hear from a "completer" saying that no composition work was involved. Not that I doubt in any way the pronouncement of Herr Mahlerian in this instance, or in others.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> I would really like to hear from a "completer" saying that no composition work was involved. Not that I doubt in any way the pronouncement of Herr Mahlerian in this instance, or in others.


There are some details in this article.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/mahlers-unfinished-symphony/377362/

The relevant portion:

_As Cooke remarks in his preface, "The thematic line throughout, and something like 90% of the counterpoint and harmony, are pure Mahler, and vintage Mahler at that."_


----------



## KenOC

The Wiki article suggests a very patchy starting point, and hardly one that required no recomposition. Composers and musicologists who have tried their hands include Carpenter, Wheeler, Wolfschlager, Cooke (multiple versions), Barshai, Samale, Mazzucca, and Gamzou. Should we assume these are all pretty much identical except for orchestration?

Naturally Mr. Cooke might claim that his version is closest to the "obvious" plans of Mahler. Whichever version he's speaking of, of course.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> The Wiki article suggests a very patchy starting point, and hardly one that required no recomposition. Composers and musicologists who have tried their hands include Carpenter, Wheeler, Wolfschlager, Cooke (multiple versions), Barshai, Samale, Mazzucca, and Gamzou. Should we assume these are all pretty much identical except for orchestration?


Yes. The form is absolutely identical in every case. The themes and development are identical in every case. There are a few places where the texture is filled out, but they are, as Cooke says, few and far between.


----------



## KenOC

Could be, I suppose.

Purgatorio. Allegro moderato: 170 bars drafted in short score, the first 30 bars of which were also drafted in orchestral score.

[Scherzo. Nicht zu schnell]: about 579 bars drafted in short score.

Finale. Langsam, schwer: 400 bars drafted in short score.

But why, then, did Bernstein and several other refuse to perform any realizations? I'd think they would be anxious.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Could be, I suppose.
> 
> Purgatorio. Allegro moderato: 170 bars drafted in short score, the first 30 bars of which were also drafted in orchestral score.
> 
> [Scherzo. Nicht zu schnell]: about 579 bars drafted in short score.
> 
> Finale. Langsam, schwer: 400 bars drafted in short score.
> 
> But why, then, did Bernstein and several other refuse to perform any realizations? I'd think they would be anxious.


Boulez says he didn't perform the Cooke score because of the lack of counterpoint in some passages. But let me assure you, as someone who has read through both the manuscript score and the Cooke score...he's not making it up.


----------



## Becca

I am intrigued by Youngren's mention that Georg Solti was planning on putting together a version where he selected what he considered to be the best realizations of each movement. That certainly suggests that the structure is identical and that it is only a case of how each person approached the question of 'fleshing out' the short scores.


----------



## GraemeG

Vaneyes said:


> Eliminating Jochum because of editions, seems absurd to me...but, each to his own. :tiphat:


No, that's not what I meant at all. My only caveat with Celi was that he used Nowak in the 8th; I'd have preferred Haas.

As for Jochum DG, well, having got Celi 3-9, I'd only bother with Jochum for 1 & 2, which aren't in Celi's box.
I have a suspicion that when Simpson talked in his _Essence of Bruckner_ book about well-known conductors mucking around with tempos to 'improve' the flow of Bruckner - and thereby demonstrating demonstrating their misunderstanding of his music - he was almost certainly referring to Jochum. As an example Simpson mentioned speeding up tempos at various points in the Finale of the 6th, thus destroying the architecture (illustrated with text) , and when I played the Jochum disc, yup, there it was. And it did sound as sloppy as Simpson said.
Jochum may have been a lovely guy, and his dedication to Bruckner is laudable; I just don't think he really had a clue how to conduct it.
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## joen_cph

GraemeG said:


> As an example Simpson mentioned speeding up tempos at various points in the Finale of the 6th, thus destroying the architecture (illustrated with text) , and when I played the Jochum disc, yup, there it was. And it did sound as sloppy as Simpson said.
> Jochum may have been a lovely guy, and his dedication to Bruckner is laudable; I just don't think he really had a clue how to conduct it.
> cheers,
> Graeme


Jochum was anything but lonely in this approach, rather my assumption would be that he was continuing the earlier tradition. Abendroth and early Furtwängler are other obvious examples; Mengelberg would have been, if any of his Bruckner performances had been recorded. A Van Beinum 1941 is said to be Mengelberg-like http://rec.music.classical.recordings.narkive.com/AgReEHlx/mengelberg-bruckner, http://www.haydnhouse.com/hh8.htm), etc.

I have not read Simpson´s book, but would presume that he prefers Karajan.


----------



## GraemeG

joen_cph said:


> Jochum was anything but lonely in this approach, rather my assumption would be that he was continuing the earlier tradition. Abendroth and early Furtwängler are other obvious examples; Mengelberg would have been, if any of his Bruckner performances had been recorded. A Van Beinum 1941 is said to be Mengelberg-like http://rec.music.classical.recordings.narkive.com/AgReEHlx/mengelberg-bruckner, http://www.haydnhouse.com/hh8.htm), etc.


He does make special mention of the Celibidache 4 (Munich Phil), other than that I recall he though it a tragedy that Horenstein wasn't recorded more when conducting Bruckner. Other than that, he mostly felt than _no-one_ seemed to get it right. Maybe it was the hitherto extreme approach of Celi in the 4th which helped cement that view; Bruckner seemed to benefit from being taken slower rather than faster in his view; or rather, you had to consider carefully - the _adagio_ of the 6th could be taken as slowly as you dared; not so the 8th.

Simpson wasn't really concerned with passing judgement on extant recordings, so much as looking at the music itself.
Personally, I think the live concert experience trumps all; perhaps that's why I'm sympathetic to Celibidache. The magic of the concert hall and the progression of the performance can open possibilities which would never be possible on any recording.
cheers,
GG


----------



## merlinus

Just finished listening to an SACD of Celibidache conducting Bruckner 4, recorded 5 & 6 February 1989 at the Musikverein. It may be the greatest symphony recording I have ever heard.

This is not the concert in the Celi EMI box, which is also excellent, but both the SQ and interpretation are even superior to that one.


----------



## ColColt

I suppose I'm rather easy to please as I've enjoyed all of Bruckner's Symphonies but do favor No. 9 a bit over the others. Favorite conductors have been Karajan, Abbado, Bernstein and Walter-not necessarily in that order.

As for Mahler, I've ran across none I didn't like but love the Resurrection, albeit, very long on my LP and rtr tape.


----------



## Skilmarilion

merlinus said:


> For me, the adagio ending of the 9th is perfect.


It can "seem" perfect, because it has been nearly always perceived as the 9th's de facto ending.

If there were no finale for the 8th, that adagio might also have seemed like a "perfect ending".

I haven't actually heard the Rattle version, but generally am open minded about it.

If only there could have been someone to slap Anton round the back of the head for every moment that he even thought about revising his 1st symphony in 1891.


----------



## padraic

Jochum/BPO box set is on Spotify. Win.


----------



## Ken Cohen

The Skrowaczewski/Minnesota Orchestra performance of Bruckner's 9th deserves mention. The SACD sound is crystal clear with lots of presence. The Minnesota's (Osmo Vanska cond.) best work, for me, is its Beethoven's 9th, which is brilliant. I was at a Toronto Symphony performance of Beethoven's 9th a couple of years ago, it was nearly identical to the Minnesota performance, spectacular second and fourth movements, I had the shivers at many points.


----------



## Lord Lance

GraemeG said:


> He does make special mention of the Celibidache 4 (Munich Phil), other than that I recall he though it a tragedy that Horenstein wasn't recorded more when conducting Bruckner. Other than that, he mostly felt than _no-one_ seemed to get it right. Maybe it was the hitherto extreme approach of Celi in the 4th which helped cement that view; Bruckner seemed to benefit from being taken slower rather than faster in his view; or rather, you had to consider carefully - the _adagio_ of the 6th could be taken as slowly as you dared; not so the 8th.
> 
> Simpson wasn't really concerned with passing judgement on extant recordings, so much as looking at the music itself.
> Personally, I think the live concert experience trumps all; perhaps that's why I'm sympathetic to Celibidache. The magic of the concert hall and the progression of the performance can open possibilities which would never be possible on any recording.
> cheers,
> GG


Inversely, there are some thing that happen only in the recording hall that the live experience cannot imitate.


----------



## EDaddy

My favorite 6th







My favorite 7th (truly transcendent!)







My favorite 8th that I've heard - by far!







A wonderful 9th, though not necessarily my favorite

[Gunter Wand IMO had an especially solid understanding of the nuances, colors, dynamics, etc. required to really bring out the magic in Bruckner's works]


----------



## merlinus

Wand's 8th at Lubeck is marvellous. The 9th, in the same venue, is excellent, but there is some string section congestion in the first movement, no doubt due to the reverberance.


----------

