Wand's WDR Bruckner Set On Sony
Mark S
version (ASIN: B0042U2HLY).
I have to say that I don't see what all the hoopla is about. Middle-of-
the-road, super-objective Bruckner with little if any interpretive
viewpoint. Who needs it? Sure, you can hear lots of details, but to
what end? Forest from the trees stuff here.
The band plays well enough, if the strings are a little thin in spots
compared to the usual major orchestra suspects. And the sound is
excellent for the age of the recordings.
I scanned through previous rmcr threads on Wand's Bruckner, and it
seems that most people don't find him at all a top recommendation. I
hadn't listened to this entire cycle until now (I could have got the
thing as a free promo at any time when I was working in the CD biz,
but based on hearing his 7th in this cycle when it was released on RCA
Gold Seal, I never bothered), and I don't know that I missed anything.
Am I wrong? Do the many other Wand Bruckner recordings out there offer
a more-compelling take, or is it more of the same with a better band?
Compared to my other recently purchased Bruckner cycle (Maazel), this
set seems non-competitive, even at the super-low price.
Gerard
>
> I scanned through previous rmcr threads on Wand's Bruckner, and it
> seems that most people don't find him at all a top recommendation.
Meaning?
M forever
You are very wrong. Wand's Bruckner in general has a very strong inner
coherence, he traces the inner "logic" of the music more compellingly
than many, indeed most other conductors out there. He doesn't just
make all the inner detail audible, he also shows how everything hangs
together organically. His phrasing is very idiomatic, natural and
"just right", his sense of micro timing very secure. And while those
"early" recordings from the 70s already show that very clearly, he got
better and better. It's a little hard to explain, but many people
could hear that. I know you don't believe in conspiracy theories - and
it wasn't a conspiracy which put Wand into the place he occupied in
the music world in his late second career, you know.
M forever
I forgot: while I think Wand "bettered" most of his 70s recordings
later, the 9th is still one of the most outstanding 9ths I know. It
brings out the at times very sharp dissonances and edgy textures,
makes the 9th sound much more "modern" than most other performances.
At the same time, the opening is the most "misterioso" sounding I have
heard.
Mark S
I certainly respect your opinion, and I find myself agreeing with
pretty much everything you say, except that I wouldn't say that, "he
(Wand) traces the inner "logic" of the music more compellingly than
many, indeed most other conductors out there," as I find that most
conductors achieve exactly the same thing BUT with an added aspect of
- how to say it - mystery or majesty that seems to escape Wand (which
conductor(s) would you say is/are less-successful in tracing the inner
logic of Bruckner than is Wand?).
Which is why I called it a "forest from the trees" debate, as in Wand
showing us plenty of clearly delineated "trees" without conveying an
extra-musical sense of what a forest is all about. I realize this
sounds strange coming from somebody who tends to greatly enjoy
objectivity in his Bruckner (and Mahler, for that matter), but there
it is.
Gerard
But _that_ is exactly what makes his early recordings so special. No fake
grandeur, not making the music sound more "important" than it is, and more or
less "let the music speak for itself" - something not many conductors can
deliver with Bruckner.
Romy the Cat
Wand is very serious Bruckner interpreted; his NDR orchestra had good
Bruckner tune and the people who work with Wand on recording side were
uselessly slightly higher qualification then usual industry retards.
The box set that you refer is budget version but in really it is more
“expensive” version then the rest crap the Sony put out is it
“reportedly” was mastered at 88K, whatever they meant, even though I
do not think they understand what they claim. I have this Bruckner
set. Yes they are not the best Wand’s take on the Bruckner symphonies
(with arguable exception of the first one) but they are not bad. In
fact I feel that any Bruckner lover must have this set for those $20.
The problem is that any box set with 10-12 symphonies will have
something good and something bad. Will you pay $20 for one of the best
Bruckner First? Well, I would pay $20 only from the Wand’s Scherzo
from the Bruckner First. The rest come as the complimentary bonus.
Bob Harper
The NDR 4th, Berlin 5th and 7th, and the NDR (either cathedral or
concert hall) 8th are better, but while the NDR 9th from Japan (only
available from there, AFAIK) is a stupendous performance, so is this
first one. Your description is completely accurate. That Wand was among
the greatest Brucknerians is not, to my ears, disputable.
Bob Harper
whisky...@yahoo.com
Oddly enough I was listening to a Wand performance of Bruckner's 9th
(coupled with Schubert's 8th) in the car on my morning commute, and
even through car speakers it was apparent that it was a very great
performance. The Schubert is very good too. The recording is:
Apr 20, 1993 Berlin Konzerthaus
Günter Wand Conductor,
Deutsches Symphonie-Orchester Berlin Orchestra
Janet Berridge Liner Note Translation
Michael Berridge Liner Note Translation
Anton Bruckner Composer
Wolfgang Seifert Liner Notes
Holger Siedler Remastering
Birgit Fauseweh Graphics
Doesn't appear to be available at US Amazon or many other places. I
picked my copy up at a Half-Price Books in Dallas for all of $4.98.
Brand new, still in shrink-wrap, not a cut-out. I saw another copy in
the store at Parker Road in Plano, begging to be bought. So if anyone
is in a Far North Dallas suburb -- Plano, Richardson, Allen, zip over
and liberate this copy.
M forever
>
> Apr 20, 1993 Berlin Konzerthaus
> Günter Wand Conductor,
> Deutsches Symphonie-Orchester Berlin Orchestra
> Janet Berridge Liner Note Translation
> Michael Berridge Liner Note Translation
> Anton Bruckner Composer
> Wolfgang Seifert Liner Notes
> Holger Siedler Remastering
> Birgit Fauseweh Graphics
>
> Doesn't appear to be available at US Amazon or many other places. I
> picked my copy up at a Half-Price Books in Dallas for all of $4.98.
> Brand new, still in shrink-wrap, not a cut-out. I saw another copy in
> the store at Parker Road in Plano, begging to be bought. So if anyone
> is in a Far North Dallas suburb -- Plano, Richardson, Allen, zip over
> and liberate this copy.
Available from amazon.com here:
http://www.amazon.com/Schubert-Symphony-Bruckner-Gunter-Wand/dp/B003NB99GE
Also in this box set:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002QEXC9Y
M forever
Yes, the NDR orchestra had "good Bruckner tune" - they still do,
actually - but does anyone understand what Romy is blabbering about in
the rest of the post, especially about Sony?
M forever
I am afraid I can't really help you here. I don't want to let this
degrade into a pointless "obviously you are missing something here"
thing which would not be very constructive.
However, obviously you *are* missing something here! ;-) LOL
I think I was right - that wasn't very constructive of me! :-) LOL
again
But I really don't now what else to tell you. I have a feeling you may
not really have much of a real affinity or sense for Bruckner*, even
though you can obviously appreciate his mastership as a composer.
Maybe that is why you can't "see" what so many think is really special
about Wand's Bruckner. And not just his Bruckner - he was outstanding
in a lot of other repertoire, too. Later in his life, he concentrated
mostly on his core repertoire of the German-Austrian symphonists, but
he was actually very good in other repertoire, too. Somewhat
surprisingly even for me who tended to see him as a somewhat stern
figure, too, his NDR live recording of Carmina Burana is one of the
most deft and humorous (paralleled really only by Jochum), for
instance.
But I digress. I wish I could tell you more but I really can't think
of anything constructive here. But I am pretty sure it's not a
conspiracy! I saw Wand live fairly often in the 80s and 90s and many
of these concerts are among my greatest concert experiences ever. You
could also feel that many other concert goers felt the same, too. His
concerts usually had a very special sense of occasion. You could feel
that everyone was listening spellbound, you could cut the atmosphere
with the proverbial knife. Somehow, it was just "the real thing".
A lot of that comes across for me in the recordings, too, and
apparently for many others as well, so I don't know why not for
you...
*Nor for Mahler, I have often had the impression from your postings,
too.
Mark S
>
> But I really don't now what else to tell you. I have a feeling you may
> not really have much of a real affinity or sense for Bruckner*, even
> though you can obviously appreciate his mastership as a composer.
> Maybe that is why you can't "see" what so many think is really special
> about Wand's Bruckner.
Many people hear nothing special in Karajan's Bruckner, whereas I find
his interpretations to be pretty well unbeatable, even if the sound DG
provided isn't the greatest. Many dislike Maazel's Bruckner or Solti's
Bruckner or Mehta's or Chailly's or Jochum's. It's usually a matter of
taste, though taste can be influenced by extra-musical baggage we
carry around with us.
I've been re-listening to the 8th in this Wand set today - thought I'd
give it another go around. As I said, the playing is decent enough,
though there are some major irritations in the second movement, which
includes a number of 2nd & 3rd-player trumpet flubs in the movement
proper, and the fact that the orchestra isn't together in last notes
of the Trio section.
I think the real complaint I have about Wand in this particular
Bruckner set is that I don't feel a sense of forward momentum in what
he's doing. The English are fond of the phrase "hanging fire," and
that's a phrase that I'd apply to the music making here. I also find
his choices in certain articulations to be pedantic, and that they
contribute to the sense of his not pulling the trigger, as it were. I
don't feel the sense of inevitability that I hear in the hands of
Giulini, Furtwangler and Jochum, not to mention the occasional
cataclysmic climaxes that are a hallmark of Karajan's Bruckner.
Perhaps Wand is simply a less-aggressive musical personality than I
typically warm to. Certainly, his climaxes are not the overwhelming
fare we find with Karajan and Maazel, nor does he sustain the long
line with the same energy and forward impulse as others (Karajan,
Maazel, Jochum, Giulini, for example).
For me, it's a bit like visiting a picture gallery and having a very
clear look at every picture in the gallery without ever feeling a
sense that a real great picture is around the corner. Perhaps that's
actually a strength of Wand's Bruckner, ie: that you are experiencing
the music in the moment without anticipating what's coming. For me,
the great conductors keep an underlying tension going that never
really lets you relax until the music reaches the point that you
instinctively knew it would reach, and I don't get that with Wand. My
fault, I'm sure...except that I get it so clearly with so many others.
>I saw Wand live fairly often in the 80s and 90s and many
> of these concerts are among my greatest concert experiences ever. You
> could also feel that many other concert goers felt the same, too. His
> concerts usually had a very special sense of occasion. You could feel
> that everyone was listening spellbound, you could cut the atmosphere
> with the proverbial knife. Somehow, it was just "the real thing".
> A lot of that comes across for me in the recordings, too, and
> apparently for many others as well, so I don't know why not for
> you...
Perhaps I don't get it because the recordings under discussion in this
thread predate the 1980s and 90s and perhaps don't show Wand at his
absolute best as a Bruckner conductor. I asked above if his later
Bruckner recordings were better than this set under discussion, and
from what people have written, they are. You seem to be taking me to
task for not liking what Wand was doing in the 80s and 90s when I am
not discussing his music making from the later period, but this set
from the 70s (how could I? I haven't heard his later recordings). I'd
be interested in hearing his later recordings because there is
certainly enough in this WDR set to intrigue me into further
investigating Wand's Bruckner, especially as one poster noted that
after his 70s recordings, Wand's Bruckner "got better and better." It
could be that the 1970s-era WDR wasn't able to fully realize Wand's
vision of Bruckner, and that his later recordings do.
I'm open for suggestions on Wand's later recordings that will serve to
open my eyes to his magic in Bruckner, so, suggest away.
David Fox
I just re-listened to Wand's BPO 8th this evening. It seemed to amply
display Wand's virtues that were previously discussed in this
thread.
DF
Romy the Cat
> Many people hear nothing special in Karajan's Bruckner, whereas I find
> his interpretations to be pretty well unbeatable, even if the sound DG
> provided isn't the greatest. Many dislike Maazel's Bruckner or Solti's
> Bruckner or Mehta's or Chailly's or Jochum's. It's usually a matter of
> taste, though taste can be influenced by extra-musical baggage we
> carry around with us.
You are quite right about it. DG did destroy a lot of Karajan's
Bruckner recordings. I do not have problems with SOME of Karajan's
Bruckner performances but they are very boring in the “flat” DG
Sound.
> I think the real complaint I have about Wand in this particular
> Bruckner set is that I don't feel a sense of forward momentum in what
> he's doing. The English are fond of the phrase "hanging fire," and
> that's a phrase that I'd apply to the music making here. I also find
> his choices in certain articulations to be pedantic, and that they
> contribute to the sense of his not pulling the trigger, as it were. I
> don't feel the sense of inevitability that I hear in the hands of
> Giulini, Furtwangler and Jochum, not to mention the occasional
> cataclysmic climaxes that are a hallmark of Karajan's Bruckner.
> Perhaps Wand is simply a less-aggressive musical personality than I
> typically warm to. Certainly, his climaxes are not the overwhelming
> fare we find with Karajan and Maazel, nor does he sustain the long
> line with the same energy and forward impulse as others (Karajan,
> Maazel, Jochum, Giulini, for example).
This is in a way ironic as I fell that this Wand’s “holding of the
forward momentum” is the greatest thing that Wand even did with
Bruckner. He demonstrates it to a different degree during the
different performing events but where he goes all the way “slow” then
he did accomplish the greatest of his interpretation, particularly at
1,4,5,8 and 9 symphonies. BTW, in my view this is how Bruckner shall
be played.
> For me, it's a bit like visiting a picture gallery and having a very
> clear look at every picture in the gallery without ever feeling a
> sense that a real great picture is around the corner. Perhaps that's
> actually a strength of Wand's Bruckner, ie: that you are experiencing
> the music in the moment without anticipating what's coming. For me,
> the great conductors keep an underlying tension going that never
> really lets you relax until the music reaches the point that you
> instinctively knew it would reach, and I don't get that with Wand. My
> fault, I'm sure...except that I get it so clearly with so many others.
Good illustration, for sure Wand teaches patience, something that many
conductors can’t not afford as then need to “immediately impress” the
Morons in the listening halls.
> I'm open for suggestions on Wand's later recordings that will serve to
> open my eyes to his magic in Bruckner, so, suggest away.
You might try the 4th Symphony from Hamburg’s Musikhalle 2001
The Cat
M forever
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:24:50 +1000, Mark S wrote
> (in article
> <3197074e-a737-4963-8b3c-e77e9be56...@y19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>):
Although Tintner's Bruckner recordings no doubt have some value, I
don't think they are even in the same class, nor do many others seem
to think so. Of course, that doesn't mean that you are "wrong" - but
can you elaborate on this opinion a little?
M forever
>
>
>
> > But I really don't now what else to tell you. I have a feeling you may
> > not really have much of a real affinity or sense for Bruckner*, even
> > though you can obviously appreciate his mastership as a composer.
> > Maybe that is why you can't "see" what so many think is really special
> > about Wand's Bruckner.
>
> Many people hear nothing special in Karajan's Bruckner, whereas I find
> his interpretations to be pretty well unbeatable, even if the sound DG
> provided isn't the greatest. Many dislike Maazel's Bruckner or Solti's
> Bruckner or Mehta's or Chailly's or Jochum's. It's usually a matter of
> taste, though taste can be influenced by extra-musical baggage we
> carry around with us.
I am not "many", and as you know, I find things to value in the
Bruckner recordings of all of the above, and in those by many other
conductors as well, even in some of Barenboim's later BP recordings
which you heartily disliked. Nor do I carry any "baggage" against any
of these people. But we aren't talking about what many can *not* hear
in Wand's interpretations. We are talking about what many *can* hear
but what you, apparently can't.
> I've been re-listening to the 8th in this Wand set today - thought I'd
> give it another go around. As I said, the playing is decent enough,
> though there are some major irritations in the second movement, which
> includes a number of 2nd & 3rd-player trumpet flubs in the movement
> proper, and the fact that the orchestra isn't together in last notes
> of the Trio section.
Yes, even though they are "studio" recordings, they are very lightly
edited. Many of the individual movements were actually done in single,
completely unedited takes because Wand preferred to do it this way.
Small flubs and accidents may be mildly annoying if you are out to
count beans, but they don't change much about the musical coherence of
the performance.
> I think the real complaint I have about Wand in this particular
> Bruckner set is that I don't feel a sense of forward momentum in what
> he's doing. The English are fond of the phrase "hanging fire," and
> that's a phrase that I'd apply to the music making here. I also find
> his choices in certain articulations to be pedantic, and that they
> contribute to the sense of his not pulling the trigger, as it were. I
> don't feel the sense of inevitability that I hear in the hands of
> Giulini, Furtwangler and Jochum, not to mention the occasional
> cataclysmic climaxes that are a hallmark of Karajan's Bruckner.
> Perhaps Wand is simply a less-aggressive musical personality than I
> typically warm to. Certainly, his climaxes are not the overwhelming
> fare we find with Karajan and Maazel, nor does he sustain the long
> line with the same energy and forward impulse as others (Karajan,
> Maazel, Jochum, Giulini, for example).
Completely disagree. The long line and the continuous pulse are always
there. One of the hallmarks of his interpretations actually.
Sonically, these recordings aren't always as impactful or
"overwhelming" as these other ones or his own later ones which is
mostly due to the somewhat smallish, slightly dry and cold studio
sound. But the general musical quality is still there. In a way, they
may even stand out a little more because the lack of "sumptuous" sound
makes one concentrate on them more.
No, that's not it, and that's not what I meant when I said he "got
better and better". These WDR recordings are musically already quite
special, but he managed to still get better and better because no
matter how often he conducted a more and more concentrated repertoire
which he already knew very well, he apparently still studied these
scores intensely every time he conducted them.
> I'm open for suggestions on Wand's later recordings that will serve to
> open my eyes to his magic in Bruckner, so, suggest away.
You could start with the ones he made in Cologne. Oh wait, you already
did. Well, you can move on to pretty much any of the later ones, but
frankly, I doubt you will "get it". That's not to put you down, but I
really don't know what to tell you that might help you to "open your
eyes", especially since you so steadfastly resist having them opened.
You got a lot of responses here, not just from me, but you still spend
a lot of time arguing that what you can't "see" simply can't be there.
And if that is your attitude, I don't think there isn't much I or
anybody else can do to "help" you. Sorry.
Mark S
> > I'm open for suggestions on Wand's later recordings that will serve to
> > open my eyes to his magic in Bruckner, so, suggest away.
>
> You could start with the ones he made in Cologne. Oh wait, you already
> did. Well, you can move on to pretty much any of the later ones, but
> frankly, I doubt you will "get it".
I found a lengthy 1985 Gramophone review of this WDR set that argues
the pros and cons, with the pros outweighing the cons:
M forever
Far outweighing them indeed, in this reviewer's view:
"Chief merit of Wand's Bruckner is its strength of purpose: he knows
where each symphony is going
Gunter Wand [photo: Conifer and he moves it on its way unhurriedly and
monumentally, as in the grand tradition, but with a controlled
momentum that generates intensity, incisiveness and power. He is less
given to mystical brooding than Karajan, less filled with the light of
common day than Haitink. But the sheer structural grandeur of the
music, its marvellous contrasts of epic struggle with interludes of
Dvoidkian rustic simplicity, these come across in the best of Wand's
readings with a refreshed illuminatory oratory that does not exclude
visionary insights. The musical small print is not always read with
such care as by Karajan, but the total effect refutes any charge of
myopia—the view is wide, noble, enthralling. The performances of the
Seventh, Eighth and Ninth are immensely exciting as well as moving,
hewn out of rock."
Didn't I tell you? I somewhat disagree with "the musical small print
not always read with such care as by Karajan", but overall, this is a
pretty eloquent and "precise" description, I would say.
I find it interesting that he says about the 9th symphony:
"The horns and trumpets stalk like spectres through its introduction
in Wand's tense reading"
because I also singled out that particular moment and said it sounds
more "misterioso" than any other I know - apparently that impression
is shared by others. I find it hard to describe just why it sounds so
misterioso. One might think that it is particularly vague and
nebulous. But on the contrary, everything stands out very clearly. The
horns have both a mysterious and also slightly threatening quality.
It's not just that you hear these horn calls - you feel *something* is
calling out of the mists!
Anyway, you probably spent some time trying to find some decidedly
negative reviews, but I don't think there are any, at least not by
reasonable reviewers. And beyond that, even Hurwitz usually gives
Wand's Bruckner very high marks (not that we care, but it's mildly
interesting to note).
So, again, sorry - it's really just you!
M forever
I wonder what "Dvoidkian rustic simplicity" means, though. Do you have
any idea?
Gerard
> On Aug 17, 12:53 am, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 16, 1:57 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I'm open for suggestions on Wand's later recordings that will
> > > > serve to open my eyes to his magic in Bruckner, so, suggest
> > > > away.
> >
> > > You could start with the ones he made in Cologne. Oh wait, you
> > > already did. Well, you can move on to pretty much any of the
> > > later ones, but frankly, I doubt you will "get it".
> >
> > I found a lengthy 1985 Gramophone review of this WDR set that argues
> > the pros and cons, with the pros outweighing the cons:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/3o2xmgq
>
> Far outweighing them indeed, in this reviewer's view:
>
> "Chief merit of Wand's Bruckner is its strength of purpose: he knows
> where each symphony is going
> Gunter Wand [photo: Conifer and he moves it on its way unhurriedly and
> monumentally, as in the grand tradition, but with a controlled
> momentum that generates intensity, incisiveness and power. He is less
> given to mystical brooding than Karajan, less filled with the light of
> common day than Haitink. But the sheer structural grandeur of the
> music, its marvellous contrasts of epic struggle with interludes of
> Dvoidkian rustic simplicity,
What is Dvoidkian?
>
> these come across in the best of Wand's
> readings with a refreshed illuminatory oratory that does not exclude
> visionary insights. The musical small print is not always read with
> such care as by Karajan, but the total effect refutes any charge of
> myopia�the view is wide, noble, enthralling. The performances of the
> Seventh, Eighth and Ninth are immensely exciting as well as moving,
> hewn out of rock."
>
> Didn't I tell you? I somewhat disagree with "the musical small print
> not always read with such care as by Karajan", but overall, this is a
> pretty eloquent and "precise" description, I would say.
>
> I find it interesting that he says about the 9th symphony:
>
> "The horns and trumpets stalk like spectres through its introduction
> in Wand's tense reading"
>
> because I also singled out that particular moment and said it sounds
> more "misterioso" than any other I know - apparently that impression
> is shared by others. I find it hard to describe just why it sounds so
> misterioso. One might think that it is particularly vague and
> nebulous. But on the contrary, everything stands out very clearly. The
> horns have both a mysterious and also slightly threatening quality.
> It's not just that you hear these horn calls - you feel *something* is
> calling out of the mists!
> Anyway, you probably spent some time trying to find some decidedly
> negative reviews, but I don't think there are any, at least not by
> reasonable reviewers. And beyond that, even Hurwitz usually gives
> Wand's Bruckner very high marks (not that we care, but it's mildly
> interesting to note).
"we"? Speak for yourself.
>
> So, again, sorry - it's really just you!
That's twice "sorry" within one decade!
It was not known that you could spell it.
Bob Harper
>
> I wonder what "Dvoidkian rustic simplicity" means, though. Do you have
> any idea?
'Dvorakian'. The program they use to convert magazine text to
internet-accessible text does odd things like that.
Bob Harper
Mark S
> Anyway, you probably spent some time trying to find some decidedly
> negative reviews, but I don't think there are any, at least not by
> reasonable reviewers.
Not really. I know that Wand's Bruckner has been universally praised,
so to go searching for negative reviews would be a fool's errand. I
checked only Gramphone as I imagined there would be a lengthy review
available that was worth reading and I was right. Gramophone's review
is pretty much a rave, though the reviewer does have some quibbles:
"These Bruckner performances, recorded between 1974 and 1981, vary in
quality both as interpretations and recordings. The best of them rank
among the very best I have heard. If the performance of the Third
Symphony errs on the side of stodginess, the Fourth is lovely
throughout, horns blooming, strings rich and supple, woodwind mellow
and grazioso---truly a 'Romantic' symphony. Richard Osborne found the
playing of No. 5 the noisiest he knew, and I'm not surprised. It is
fashionable to rate this as the greatest of the nine, mainly because
of its astonishing finale, but no one has yet persuaded me to elevate
it above the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth. Wand is perhaps too down-to-
earth here, accelerating tempos as if he lacked confidence in the
music's ability to withstand a sustained broad approach. Karajan (DG
2707 101, 10/78) proves him wrong. The Sixth, the 'Cinderella' of the
late symphonies, receives patchy playing and recording. So marked is
the difference between one movement and another that one could assume,
probably erroneously, that several weeks elapsed between sessions. Or
perhaps the Cologne weather suddenly changed for the better and
everyone cheered up in the end! The Scherzo is scrappily played by the
strings, who are unrecognizable as the same section which plays with
such finesse in the finale. Again, Wand's tempos fluctuate
unconvincingly in the first movement. The performance (of the Ninth is
one) to which I believe many other listeners will feel powerfully
drawn. But one would have to be very powerfully drawn to Wand's
Bruckner as a whole to lay out the cost of this box when the complete
sets by Karajan or Haitink or Jochum are all cheaper, more consistent
and, in the main, better played."
It may well just be me. Having imprinted my Bruckner on Karajan &
Furtwangler, the lack of mystery coupled with the above-cited caveats
that Gramophone mentions as aspects of Wand's WDR cycle may be what is
putting me off.
Gerard
>
> It may well just be me. Having imprinted my Bruckner on Karajan &
> Furtwangler, the lack of mystery coupled with the above-cited caveats
> that Gramophone mentions as aspects of Wand's WDR cycle may be what is
> putting me off.
The same lack of mystery was very attractive to me.
It's almost like playing Bruckner the same way the symphonies by Haydn are
played. The "mystery" is artificial and can be missed, at least in Wand's view.
M forever
I don't remember the 6th particularly standing out negatively in that
way, but it's also a long time since I last listened to it - in recent
times, I have mostly listened to his NDR 6th which is fabulous. I am
also getting another 6th on Profil, with the MP, soon. I think the
sheer number of recordings of pretty much the same small core
repertoire that Wand concentrated on in his late career over and over
again in itself is pretty telling - and they seem to keep coming!
> It may well just be me. Having imprinted my Bruckner on Karajan &
> Furtwangler, the lack of mystery coupled with the above-cited caveats
> that Gramophone mentions as aspects of Wand's WDR cycle may be what is
> putting me off.
I don't find there is a "lack of mystery" there at all. In fact, the
concentration on the music's inner substance often brings out the
"mystery" particularly well. Just not in such an "obvious" way. More
in the "spiritual message" in the notes, if you catch my drift.
Again, without wanting to put you down, there are obviously elements
of Wand's Bruckner that you simply don't "get", and what I don't get
in my turn is why you so insist that whatever you don't "get" isn't
there, even if many people tell you it is. I don't want to invoke the
"majority opinion" here in order to lend more weight to what I say,
simply because "they" say it, that doesn't mean it must be true. It
should make you pause and think though when you see there is such
overwhelming praise for Wand's Bruckner from so many different and
critical voices. There might just be more there than mere hagiography,
don't you think?
I also poked around for reviews a little, in particular reviews of the
Wand/DSO set which came out on Profil a while ago, and I found these
listener responses to a BBC review:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio3/F6643901?thread=7204405
which are very typical, especially the many references to that concert
with the 9th at the BBC Proms. It sounds like hyperbole, and I wasn't
there, but I was at a number of other Wand concerts which stirred
exactly the same response in me and others.
Bob Harper
(snip)
Ha. Oscar Wilde might well have written this famous line from Lady
Windermere's Fan about you:: "I can resist everything except temptation."
Putting people down is a seemingly permanent temptation in your case.
Bob Harper
M forever
Some people do indeed invite that more or less every time they say
something - like you. That has less to do with me than with you and
just how full of shit you are though. I just point out the obvious.
And since you don't really have anything of substance to respond
(since you are so full of shit that there is little room for
substance), all you can do is fling some of that shit.
However, when I say that I don't want to put Mark down I mean it,
because he doesn't deserve it. He deserves the kind of detailed answer
I gave him anyway. You know, all the actual message content that you
ignored and snipped just to fling some more shit around.
Mark S
> > It may well just be me. Having imprinted my Bruckner on Karajan &
> > Furtwangler, the lack of mystery coupled with the above-cited caveats
> > that Gramophone mentions as aspects of Wand's WDR cycle may be what is
> > putting me off.
>
> I don't find there is a "lack of mystery" there at all. In fact, the
> concentration on the music's inner substance often brings out the
> "mystery" particularly well. Just not in such an "obvious" way. More
> in the "spiritual message" in the notes, if you catch my drift.
You don't find a lack of mystery, whereas I - and the Gramophone
reviewer as well - do find a lack of mystery. Nothing wrong with your
agreeing with part of his review (ie: the part you quoted earlier)
while disagreeing with other parts of the same review. I found it to
be a very balanced and honest review that tilted heavily towards a pro-
Wand viewpoint. Sure, a good percentage of the "mystery" in Bruckner's
music is right there in the printed notes of the score, but it's still
up to the conductor and the orchestra to render that mystery into a
performance. For my taste, Karajan and Furtwangler do a better job of
making the mystery "obvious." Nothing wrong with being obvious.
I would be interested to see how this same reviewer regarded this
cycle in light of the numerous Wand recordings (not to mention
numerous non-Wand cycles that have received great reviews) that have
been issued since 1985. Perhaps his perspective on this earliest cycle
have been modified in the intervening decades.
> Again, without wanting to put you down, there are obviously elements
> of Wand's Bruckner that you simply don't "get", and what I don't get
> in my turn is why you so insist that whatever you don't "get" isn't
> there, even if many people tell you it is.
It wouldn't be the first time. I don't necessarily "get" Mozart. I
very much appreciate Mozart's music, but I can count on two hands the
Mozart pieces that I really love (well, make that two hands, two feet
and any other appendages I might have handy). I know I'm in a minority
here, and I certainly don't go to the extremist view that was held by
Glenn Gould, but there are many, many other composers out there whose
music appeals to me much more than does Mozart's.
>I don't want to invoke the
> "majority opinion" here in order to lend more weight to what I say,
> simply because "they" say it, that doesn't mean it must be true. It
> should make you pause and think though when you see there is such
> overwhelming praise for Wand's Bruckner from so many different and
> critical voices. There might just be more there than mere hagiography,
> don't you think?
Could be. OR - it could simply be the power of received opinion
overwhelming the senses. After all, it works for religion, where
"majority opinion" serves as a pseudo-authority that allows people to
believe what they will. It certainly worked for Meyerbeer back in the
day when his operas were at the top of the heap. So if could be (could
be, not must be) for Wand's early Bruckner cycle - majority opinion
says his Bruckner is unparalleled, so it shall not be criticized!
>It sounds like hyperbole, and I wasn't
> there, but I was at a number of other Wand concerts which stirred
> exactly the same response in me and others.
Hmm. I have never known you to be one to cite the supposed authority
derived from ones opinion aligning with the opinions of "others" as a
claim for ones opinions being correct. I hope this isn't the start of
a trend on your part. :)
Gerard
> On Aug 17, 2:18 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On 8/17/11 11:01 AM, M forever wrote:
> > (snip)> Again, without wanting to put you down, t
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > Ha. Oscar Wilde might well have written this famous line from Lady
> > Windermere's Fan about you:: "I can resist everything except
> > temptation."
> >
> > Putting people down is a seemingly permanent temptation in your
> > case.
>
> Some people do indeed invite that more or less every time they say
> something - like you. That has less to do with me than with you and
That is pure BS. It has everything to do with you, and you alone.
>
> just how full of shit you are though. I just point out the obvious.
> And since you don't really have anything of substance to respond
> (since you are so full of shit that there is little room for
> substance), all you can do is fling some of that shit.
Old clichés forever.
>
> However, when I say that I don't want to put Mark down I mean it,
> because he doesn't deserve it.
HAHAHAHA.
How can someone like you know or decide who "deserves" it. It is your character,
your mindset, to put people down. You cannot help it. It's your nature.
M forever
> On Aug 17, 11:01 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It may well just be me. Having imprinted my Bruckner on Karajan &
> > > Furtwangler, the lack of mystery coupled with the above-cited caveats
> > > that Gramophone mentions as aspects of Wand's WDR cycle may be what is
> > > putting me off.
>
> > I don't find there is a "lack of mystery" there at all. In fact, the
> > concentration on the music's inner substance often brings out the
> > "mystery" particularly well. Just not in such an "obvious" way. More
> > in the "spiritual message" in the notes, if you catch my drift.
>
> You don't find a lack of mystery, whereas I - and the Gramophone
> reviewer as well - do find a lack of mystery. Nothing wrong with your
> agreeing with part of his review (ie: the part you quoted earlier)
> while disagreeing with other parts of the same review. I found it to
> be a very balanced and honest review that tilted heavily towards a pro-
> Wand viewpoint. Sure, a good percentage of the "mystery" in Bruckner's
> music is right there in the printed notes of the score, but it's still
> up to the conductor and the orchestra to render that mystery into a
> performance. For my taste, Karajan and Furtwangler do a better job of
> making the mystery "obvious." Nothing wrong with being obvious.
This isn't really a Karajan vs Wand thing though. It's more a "you
simply don't get it" thing. I like both Wand and Karajan, and
Furtwängler and many other Bruckner conductors, for the various
approaches and qualities they all bring to the table.
All I am saying is suggesting to you consider there might possibly
things there that you (gasp!) don't get but that I and others get and
appreciate a lot - and in the end, it might widen your Bruckner
horizon, too.
> I would be interested to see how this same reviewer regarded this
> cycle in light of the numerous Wand recordings (not to mention
> numerous non-Wand cycles that have received great reviews) that have
> been issued since 1985. Perhaps his perspective on this earliest cycle
> have been modified in the intervening decades.
Likely, as all our opinions and perceptions shift. Myself, whenever I
come back to these recordings, I seem to have it in the back of my
mind that, well, these are older recordings, the playing isn't quite
as sonorous and polished as Wand's later recordings with the BP, DSO,
NDR, MP, and other orchestras, so they are of mostly "historical"
interest - and then I invariably find myself fascinated by the clear
vision and taught music making that is already very apparent there -
to me at least.
Religion works that way because it is enforced on people. You know
that. Who would enforce the Wand "cult" if there was any? Like I told
you in the beginning, there is no conspiracy here. Myself and the many
other people who find Wand's Bruckner extraordinary really mean that.
At least I can say that in my case. I don't see others being
controlled by some kind of behind-the-scenes-conspiracy either. Do you
see any evidence for that?
> >It sounds like hyperbole, and I wasn't
> > there, but I was at a number of other Wand concerts which stirred
> > exactly the same response in me and others.
>
> Hmm. I have never known you to be one to cite the supposed authority
> derived from ones opinion aligning with the opinions of "others" as a
> claim for ones opinions being correct. I hope this isn't the start of
> a trend on your part. :)
Not at all. In fact, I am somewhat amazed that, given how subtle Wand
was as a conductor, and how "unshowy", he has such a wide following.
It suggests to me that there was a deep quality in his music making
which "reaches" a lot of people. It was certainly very obvious during
live concerts just how dense the atmosphere was, how intensely people
really listened. I remember most of these concerts literally as if
they were yesterday.
Mark S
> I am somewhat amazed that, given how subtle Wand
> was as a conductor, and how "unshowy", he has such a wide following.
> It suggests to me that there was a deep quality in his music making
> which "reaches" a lot of people. It was certainly very obvious during
> live concerts just how dense the atmosphere was, how intensely people
> really listened. I remember most of these concerts literally as if
> they were yesterday.
He's no more unshowy as a conductor than were Toscanini and Karajan,
conductors whose music making reached a far-broader public than did
Wand.
In Wand's defense, he didn't have the PR machine that those two had
over the decades, what with his working in politically relegated
obscurity in East Germany for all those years.
BTW - just to be clear, I find this Wand cycle far preferable to
either of the Barenboim cycles or the Solti cycle. While that might be
a case of damning with faint praise, I don't want to leave the
impression that I've consigned this cycle to the sell-off pile. I'll
certainly return to it again, if for no other reason than to see if I
can hear what others say I'm missing.
Bob Harper
rainstorm.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
> On Aug 17, 12:03 pm, M forever<ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am somewhat amazed that, given how subtle Wand
>> was as a conductor, and how "unshowy", he has such a wide following.
>> It suggests to me that there was a deep quality in his music making
>> which "reaches" a lot of people. It was certainly very obvious during
>> live concerts just how dense the atmosphere was, how intensely people
>> really listened. I remember most of these concerts literally as if
>> they were yesterday.
>
> He's no more unshowy as a conductor than were Toscanini and Karajan,
> conductors whose music making reached a far-broader public than did
> Wand.
>
> In Wand's defense, he didn't have the PR machine that those two had
> over the decades, what with his working in politically relegated
> obscurity in East Germany for all those years.
I don't think Wand worked in East Germany. Cologne 1945-74, NDR 1982-90,
guest conducting between and after. I think he didn't *want* to be
'famous' in the sense that T, F, and K, for example, were.
Bob Harper
M forever
You didn't really say that before, but I still agree. There is nothing
intransparent, random or mysterious about my reactions. When I see BS,
I call BS. When I see a serious contribution, I respond to it taking
it as seriously as it deserves.
Gerard
Obviously you never see your own "writings".
M forever
> On Aug 17, 12:03 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am somewhat amazed that, given how subtle Wand
> > was as a conductor, and how "unshowy", he has such a wide following.
> > It suggests to me that there was a deep quality in his music making
> > which "reaches" a lot of people. It was certainly very obvious during
> > live concerts just how dense the atmosphere was, how intensely people
> > really listened. I remember most of these concerts literally as if
> > they were yesterday.
>
> He's no more unshowy as a conductor than were Toscanini and Karajan,
> conductors whose music making reached a far-broader public than did
> Wand.
Come on, that is nonsense. Toscanini and Karajan were much, much
"showier", in their on-stage and off-stage presence.. People like you
and me look past that while many get totally hung up on that, but they
definitely were.
I thought Wand was a great "show", too, but in a very different sense.
It was great to watch him conduct because his conducting was just as
subtle and to-the-point as the audible result of it (no surprise
here). He conducted far ahead, in very clear, often fairly big but
smooth beats, showed what was to come next far ahead in time, too, so
you could see and hear that he was really in control. Incidentally, I
would recommend you to watch some of the videos which came out on TDK,
with mostly Bruckner symphonies again, of course. It is very clear
what I am talking about in the videos.
There is one place in the first movement of the 9th, in the lyrical
second theme where Wand slightly hesitates before beating down -
obviously not intended at that moment - and the sound of the orchestra
instantly changes and mellows as the strings also hesitate very
slightly to play on 1. It's just a very brief moment, and actually a
little "accident", but it demonstrates just how much he actually
influenced what the orchestra was actually playing.
But that is a different kind of "show" from what we usually associate
with that term.
> In Wand's defense, he didn't have the PR machine that those two had
> over the decades, what with his working in politically relegated
> obscurity in East Germany for all those years.
>
> BTW - just to be clear, I find this Wand cycle far preferable to
> either of the Barenboim cycles or the Solti cycle. While that might be
> a case of damning with faint praise, I don't want to leave the
> impression that I've consigned this cycle to the sell-off pile. I'll
> certainly return to it again, if for no other reason than to see if I
> can hear what others say I'm missing.
You should. You should also check out some of the later ones. It
doesn't really matter which ones, but it might be best to start with
the "obvious" ones like the ones he did with the NDR and BP. I just
got the Profil set with DSO recordings, and I am going to get some of
the other ones on Profil. The MP 9th is in the mail and I look forward
to that particularly to see how Wand and the playing culture of the
orchestra which at that time did a lot of Bruckner with Celibidache
interact.
There is quite a bit of non-Bruckner repertoire out there which I,
unfortunately, as it will make me look uncritical, can generally
recommend without reservations. The Beethoven and Brahms symphonies
are great, too. I mentioned earlier that the Carmina Burana is
particularly good. A real fun performance, believe it or not.
M forever
> On 8/17/11 12:26 PM, Mark S wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 12:03 pm, M forever<ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I am somewhat amazed that, given how subtle Wand
> >> was as a conductor, and how "unshowy", he has such a wide following.
> >> It suggests to me that there was a deep quality in his music making
> >> which "reaches" a lot of people. It was certainly very obvious during
> >> live concerts just how dense the atmosphere was, how intensely people
> >> really listened. I remember most of these concerts literally as if
> >> they were yesterday.
>
> > He's no more unshowy as a conductor than were Toscanini and Karajan,
> > conductors whose music making reached a far-broader public than did
> > Wand.
>
> > In Wand's defense, he didn't have the PR machine that those two had
> > over the decades, what with his working in politically relegated
> > obscurity in East Germany for all those years.
>
> I don't think Wand worked in East Germany. Cologne 1945-74, NDR 1982-90,
> guest conducting between and after. I think he didn't *want* to be
> 'famous' in the sense that T, F, and K, for example, were.
He was actually in Cologne from 1938 or 1939 on. I don't think he
"minded" being "famous", but he was not interested in making all the
compromises associated with traveling all over the world and guest
conducting, such as little rehearsal time. He was also very critical
and not always easy to digest. In later years, when he wasn't the
youngest anymore, he could also be cranky and impatient sometimes. But
as demanding as he was, he was usually respectful to the musicians who
he always addressed as "dear colleagues". But he knew what he wanted
and insisted on very detailed and intense rehearsals. Most of the
orchestras he worked with respected his professionalism and the depth
of his insights anyway. He did not get along with the CSO at all
because they thought they were the greatest orchestra in the world
anyway and didn't want to be told what to do by some cranky old dude
from Germany. Their loss, obviously - and our gain. So we got to see
him in Berlin more often. I also went to Hamburg and Lübeck a few
times to see him conduct.
herman
Gerard
These are the same recordings.
M forever
> So are these different recordings, if I may ask?
>
>
> http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B0042U2HLY/ref=s9_simh_bw_p15_d0_g15_...
No, there is only one set of recordings with the WDR (or at that time,
Kölner RSO).
Beware of the green box though - the recordings have been treated with
aggressive noise reduction which resulted in very audible - at least
with headphones - artifacts in the noise background in quiet moments.
You know, these "gargling", "distant bell ringing" sounds. And
applying that wasn't even necessary. There isn't much analog tape his
on the original recordings.
Dunno if there is a difference between the green box and this new Sony
release though. I doubt it. It has the same stuff on the back about
24bit remastering blablabla.
For that reason, I collected the recordings in their earlier,
untampered-with CD releases which looked like this:
http://www.amazon.de/Sinfonie-7-G%C3%BCnter-Wand/dp/B000025N3V
The very first CD releases looked like this:
http://www.amazon.de/Bruckner-Wand-KRSO-Symphony-No/dp/B000UGJ1NG
I don't think there is any difference between those two series apart
from the covers. But I can't tell you for sure as the white ones are
the only ones I currently have (I think I threw the green box in the
trash, literally). So if you want these recordings, you should collect
the earlier edition individually.
herman
Yeah, that's right. I believe I once owned a copy of Wand's Brahms
symphonies in that bad remastered series.
Frank Berger
Why would you even suspect that they are different? A Bruckner discography
I looked at showed only one Wand Cologne cycle, FWIW.
herman
> herman wrote:
> > So are these different recordings, if I may ask?
>
>
> >http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B0042U2HLY/ref=s9_simh_bw_p15_d0_g15_...
>
> Why would you even suspect that they are different? A Bruckner discography
> I looked at showed only one Wand Cologne cycle, FWIW.
because they look different, and because Wand worked for a very long
time in Köln.
M forever
He did have kind of thin hair, too, though...
Frank Berger
One set was released in 2002, the other in 2010. It's not uncommon for
re-releases to look different. Usually for the worse.
I do wonder why Wand's Cologne set, recorded for RCA, was released initially
on EMI.
M forever
> >> herman wrote:
> >>> So are these different recordings, if I may ask?
>
> >>>http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B000063X5K/ref=s9_simh_bw_p15_d0_g15_...
>
> >>>http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B0042U2HLY/ref=s9_simh_bw_p15_d0_g15_...
>
> >> Why would you even suspect that they are different? A Bruckner
> >> discography I looked at showed only one Wand Cologne cycle, FWIW.
>
> > because they look different, and because Wand worked for a very long
>
> One set was released in 2002, the other in 2010. It's not uncommon for
> re-releases to look different. Usually for the worse.
>
> I do wonder why Wand's Cologne set, recorded for RCA, was released initially
> on EMI.
That's because they weren't recorded for RCA, but for Deutsche
Harmonia Mundi and I think EMI originally had the distribution for
those, then the catalog was sold to RCA.
Gerard
> herman wrote:
Wasn't it released initially (LP) on harmonia mundi?
Gerard
Not everyone looked at that discography.
Roland van Gaalen
(even though I already own various recordings by each of Furtwangler, Knappertsbusch, Van Beinum, Schuricht, Klemperer, Jochum, and Haitink).
Purely for my entertainment, I would be interested in knowing if Wand, as a Bruckner interpreter, was taken seriously by Celibidache; I suspect not.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl
Bob Harper
Ho ho. Not exactly the sort of transparency to which I was alluding. But
then you knewq that and sought to make a cheap point. You failed.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Michael, you are an astonishingly arrogant and irritating personality,
but with respect to Wand's genius and greatness I agree completely.
Watching him in those TDK videos is, indeed, fascinating. It's clear
that the orchestra is *completely* at his command, even in the latest of
the recordings when he had to be assisted to the podium. He looks
utterly frail until the music begins, at which point he is a man
possessed. I have only a few of the Munich recordings (Brahms 1,
Bruckner 4, and Schubert 9), but recommend them unreservedly. I intend
to acquire the rest as time and budget permit, and look forward to
getting and hearing the DSO recordings as well.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Are you sure that's a fair explanation of his work with the CSO? Given
how cranky he is accepted to have become in his later years, perhaps
there was fault on both sides. Something like Carlos Kleiber without the
charisma, maybe. Perhaps Don Tait might come out of hiding and comment,
or even better Henry Fogel. That said, I do envy your opportunities to
see him live. I saw him once, as long ago as 1968, in Munich. I didn't
know who he was, but I remember a Beethoven 5th that was overwhelming.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
> On Aug 17, 4:57 pm, herman<her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> So are these different recordings, if I may ask?
>>
>> http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B000063X5K/ref=s9_simh_bw_p15_d0_g15_...
>>
>> http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B0042U2HLY/ref=s9_simh_bw_p15_d0_g15_...
>
> No, there is only one set of recordings with the WDR (or at that time,
> Kölner RSO).
>
> Beware of the green box though - the recordings have been treated with
> aggressive noise reduction which resulted in very audible - at least
> with headphones - artifacts in the noise background in quiet moments.
> You know, these "gargling", "distant bell ringing" sounds. And
> applying that wasn't even necessary. There isn't much analog tape his
> on the original recordings.
> Dunno if there is a difference between the green box and this new Sony
> release though. I doubt it. It has the same stuff on the back about
> 24bit remastering blablabla.
Has anyone yet reported on the sound of the new box compared with the
Gold Seal releases? I'd be curious to know. I have the 9th only Gold
Seal (listened to it last night--wow), but would love to get the new box
if the sound isn't messed up.
Bob Harper
M forever
> On8/17/11 12:46 PM, M forever wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 3:35 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 17, 2:18 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> (snip)> Again, without wanting to put you down, t
>
> >>>> (snip)
>
> >>>> Ha. Oscar Wilde might well have written this famous line from Lady
> >>>> Windermere's Fan about you:: "I can resist everything except temptation."
>
> >>>> Putting people down is a seemingly permanent temptation in your case.
>
> >>> Some people do indeed invite that more or less every time they say
> >>> something - like you. That has less to do with me than with you and
> >>> just how full of shit you are though. I just point out the obvious.
> >>> And since you don't really have anything of substance to respond
> >>> (since you are so full of shit that there is little room for
> >>> substance), all you can do is fling some of that shit.
>
> >>> However, when I say that I don't want to put Mark down I mean it,
> >>> because he doesn't deserve it. He deserves the kind of detailed answer
> >>> I gave him anyway. You know, all the actual message content that you
> >>> ignored and snipped just to fling some more shit around.
>
> >> Like I said. You are more transparent that the Northwest sky after a
> >> rainstorm.
>
> > You didn't really say that before, but I still agree. There is nothing
> > intransparent, random or mysterious about my reactions. When I see BS,
> > I call BS. When I see a serious contribution, I respond to it taking
> > it as seriously as it deserves.
>
> Ho ho. Not exactly the sort of transparency to which I was alluding. But
> then you knewq that and sought to make a cheap point. You failed.
On the contrary. You failed. Because I knew what you wanted to say -
just yet another attempt at defamation through pseudo-psychological
hinting at "deeper problems" - the most unoriginal and immature way to
try to insult people - and I not only turned that around against you -
my reply even made sense. Because I really am transparent in that way.
You are just way out of your depth with me. That's because you are a
simple-minded idol worshiper, not an intellectually mature adult. You
don't even have the class to admit when you have been outmanouvred.
That's what bothers me about people like you. You simply have no
class, no standards, no respect. That's why you preach catholic
morals while at the same time you have a slutty daughter whoreing
around in London. But how could she have any class coming from a
hypocritical background like yours? Of course she turned out a slut!
Gerard
Disgusting forever - and his eternal clichés.
herman
>You simply have no
> class, no standards, no respect. That's why you preach catholic
> morals while at the same time you have a slutty daughter whoreing
> around in London. But how could she have any class coming from a
> hypocritical background like yours? Of course she turned out a slut!
I don't know what this is about, and I don't want to know. But you
can't tell someone he has no class and then say this. This is really
shameful.
It's bad enough that people are constantly doing pissing contests
about their jobs &c, but this is beyond.
Remember this place is supposed to be about music?
Gerard
Didn't you read that stuff before?
It's about the fourth time that Disgusting forever comes with it.
M forever
> On 18 août, 05:30, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You simply have no
> > class, no standards, no respect. That's why you preach catholic
> > morals while at the same time you have a slutty daughter whoreing
> > around in London. But how could she have any class coming from a
> > hypocritical background like yours? Of course she turned out a slut!
>
> I don't know what this is about, and I don't want to know. But you
> can't tell someone he has no class and then say this. This is really
> shameful.
It is indeed! Not so much from my point of view, but it certainly is
from Harper's, the self-appointed moral apostle and tireless defender
of the Catholic Church - and then it turns out his "standards" don't
even apply to his own family. I couldn't care less, of course, but it
shows clearly just what a complete hypocrite he is. And what's funny
on top of that is that he told us about that without even realizing
how much that contradicts his religious ranting. But that's the nature
of hypocrites. They preach to others, but for themselves, they pick
and choose as they see fit.
> It's bad enough that people are constantly doing pissing contests
> about their jobs &c, but this is beyond.
>
> Remember this place is supposed to be about music?
Indeed again, and who made by far the most contributions to this
thread? Who discussed Mark's comments with him in detail and replied
to every one of his points and questions?
I'll give you a hint: that was me.
And who made only a very small contribution to the thread but suddenly
started a completely uncalled-for ad hominem attack against me,
bizarrely in response to my statement that I wanted to avoid putting
down Mark even though the thread was about what he didn't "get" about
Wand's Bruckner?
I'll give you a hint: that was Harper.
Gerard
> On Aug 18, 12:27 pm, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 18 août, 05:30, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You simply have no
> > > class, no standards, no respect. That's why you preach catholic
> > > morals while at the same time you have a slutty daughter whoreing
> > > around in London. But how could she have any class coming from a
> > > hypocritical background like yours? Of course she turned out a
> > > slut!
> >
> > I don't know what this is about, and I don't want to know. But you
> > can't tell someone he has no class and then say this. This is really
> > shameful.
>
> It is indeed! Not so much from my point of view,
Utterly disgusting.
>
> but it certainly is
> from Harper's, the self-appointed moral apostle and tireless defender
> of the Catholic Church - and then it turns out his "standards" don't
> even apply to his own family. I couldn't care less, of course,
Liar.
You don't stop writing about it.
>
> but it
> shows clearly just what a complete hypocrite he is. And what's funny
> on top of that is that he told us about that without even realizing
> how much that contradicts his religious ranting. But that's the nature
> of hypocrites. They preach to others, but for themselves, they pick
> and choose as they see fit.
>
> > It's bad enough that people are constantly doing pissing contests
> > about their jobs &c, but this is beyond.
> >
> > Remember this place is supposed to be about music?
>
> Indeed again, and who made by far the most contributions to this
> thread? Who discussed Mark's comments with him in detail and replied
> to every one of his points and questions?
> I'll give you a hint: that was me.
Of course, you're a Super Hypocrite. Using writing a little about music as an
excuse to spit on people - which is what you are here for.
>
> And who made only a very small contribution to the thread but suddenly
> started a completely uncalled-for ad hominem attack against me,
Attacks against you are *NEVER* uncalled-for.
Your simple presence is disgusting enough.
>
> bizarrely in response to my statement that I wanted to avoid putting
> down Mark even though the thread was about what he didn't "get" about
> Wand's Bruckner?
You avoiding putting down someone is a ridiculous thing to read.
M forever
Mark deserves that kind of respect. You, or Harper, don't. It's that
simple. Nobody here takes you seriously anyway.
Gerard
Nonsense. He's your doggy. That's all.
> You, or Harper, don't. It's that
> simple. Nobody here takes you seriously anyway.
Speak for yourself only, disgusting forever.
M forever
Mark and I often have strong disagreements. You, however, often attach
yourself to people like Deacon like a little dog because no one else
will support you. I pointed that out, and you are just backtalking
now. Very childish.
> > You, or Harper, don't. It's that
> > simple. Nobody here takes you seriously anyway.
>
> Speak for yourself only, disgusting forever.
It's pretty obvious that no one takes you seriously. Many people have
complained about your countless completely pointless contrarian posts
which have no purpose other than drawing some attention to yourself.
Like in this thread, you have "contributed" a dozen or so posts, most
or all of them just such pointless, uninvited comments.
M forever
wrote:
> It almost seems as if I might be in danger of being tempted to believe that I need at least one more Bruckner collection after all
>
> (even though I already own various recordings by each of Furtwangler, Knappertsbusch, Van Beinum, Schuricht, Klemperer, Jochum, and Haitink).
>
> Purely for my entertainment, I would be interested in knowing if Wand, as a Bruckner interpreter, was taken seriously > by Celibidache; I suspect not.
That would indeed be interesting to know. Or maybe not. I suspect the
same as you. Celibidache didn't take anyone seriously, except for
himself, and he took himself far too seriously. And he never stopped
telling people just how much of a genius he was and how Zen everything
he did was (which is kind of a contradiction in itself because Zen is
all about doing, not talking), and also just how bad everyone else
was. When he conducted the Schleswig-Holstein Musik Festival student
orchestra, he came in after the orchestra had worked with Bernstein
for 2 weeks and he began his rehearsal by telling everybody that it
would, unfortunately, take him a long time to undo all the wrong
things they had just learned. You may have heard about the interview
he once gave to Der Spiegel in which he roundly dismissed a great
number of living and dead conductors. Shortly afterwards, the magazine
received a telegram from Toscanini from heaven setting Celibidache
straight - the telegram was actually written by Carlos Kleiber (who
had not been under the offended ones). Pretty hilarious, and this and
many other incidents show that he was really a surprisingly small
character. We will never know what he thought about Wand, but you can
be sure that he was very unhappy with the fact that Wand was so highly
regarded.
It would be more interesting to know actually what Wand thought about
Celibidache...
Mark S
I very much like Celibache's Bruckner from Munich as seen/heard on
those Sony films. In fact, I was surprised by how much I liked them
because - to be honest about it - I came to them with quite a large
load of anti-Celi baggage that had been fueled by a number of the
things you mention above. I later picked up his DG sets of various rep
and a few EMI titles, which I also enjoyed. I haven't listened to them
for at least 5-6 years. I wonder what my impressions would be now.
BTW - what do you think of Celi as a Bruckner conductor, M?
M forever
That's a very complex question! Let me start by saying that I saw C
live fairly often from the mid-80s onwards. The MP came to Berlin more
or less every year to play several concerts. You know, Munich always
had a kind of a second city complex and they value culture very
highly, so they were very happy about the attention the orchestra got
when he came there, and they poured tons of money into the orchestra,
raising the salaries to about the same level as the BP, sending them
on tours everywhere as cultural ambassadors of Munich etc.
And it was absolutely fascinating to listen to. The sound he got from
the MP, the degree of polish and musical detail, the full, rich,
perfectly balanced and very smooth sound of the orchestra filled the
hall and was an event in itself.
Ironically, as I pointed out before, it actually sounded very similar
to Karajan's BP sound, except that C rarely allowed the brass to play
brassy, metallic, he worked with the fullness of the sound and the
perfect balancing to achieve volume - and it worked, the sound was
very big although not really that "loud". So it sounded pretty much
like Karajan with the of the dynamic range cut off. I am sure C would
have had a complete fit if somebody had dared to point that out to him
because for him, Karajan was the devil, and he often said so.
Anyway, those were fascinating concerts and because of the quality of
the sound and the detailedness of the playing, the long and coherent
phrasing, it was never boring to listen to despite the excessive
slowness.
However, I don't think the slowness actually was really necessary nor
did it really add another dimension to the interpretations. Some
conductors feel that you need more time to let the music unfold and
allow the musicians to shape and craft every note, but for that, it
doesn't need to be that slow. See Giulini. I don't think one needs to
be any slower than he was in the late Bruckner symphonies. Or Wand,
who achieved that same clarity with "proper" tempi. BTW, the
orchestras sounded fabulous under him, too, for the same reasons, the
careful balancing, the detailed phrasing etc.
That excessive slowness wasn't really something that C had developed
towards. As recordings show, it was more something he came up with in
the mid-70 or so. I think it wasn't musically or acoustically or
psychologically (or whatever else C blablaed) necessary. I think it
was something he did because he wanted to simply be very different
from everybody else. He wanted to be recognized as the great genius,
the guru, and he talked about how great he was incessantly, to make
sure everybody really got the message.
So, the bottom line is I think he was a great Bruckner conductor
despite some of this shortcomings, not because his performances were
such a revelation. Apparently they were for some who needed that
spelled out in slow motion, but like I said, that slowness didn't
really add anything. It was more superficial element really. C was
obviously enormously capable as a conductor but he was also pretty
fucked up. Half genius, half bullshitter, his own worst enemy. A
tragic figure really.
Mark S
Thanks. Very interesting & informative.
M forever
Another interesting parallel between C and HvK was that HvK was
actually also very interested in Zen. He just didn't talk about it all
the time. He wasn't a very verbal person anyway and often had
difficulty explaining his views in words. One could feel that it gave
him some discomfort to not be able to explain exactly what he meant in
words, so he often didn't even try. However, he did occasionally say
in interviews that he had been very interested in Zen since he found a
book about it as a young man in the 20s. And one can detect that
influence in many things he did. Like C, he wanted the music to unfold
naturally, organically, seemingly happening by itself.
Another thing that occurred to me that both said that their sound
ideal was very much influenced by Furtwängler and veterans who had
actually heard him told me that the sound quality was indeed rather
similar in its unforced quality, with round attacks, more felt than
executed "on the beat", and the emphasis on full tone production. I
find that very interesting and often think of that when I hear
Furtwängler recordings because a lot of that sound quality obviously
doesn't come across in the recordings.
Mark S
>
> Another thing that occurred to me that both said that their sound
> ideal was very much influenced by Furtwängler and veterans who had
> actually heard him told me that the sound quality was indeed rather
> similar in its unforced quality, with round attacks, more felt than
> executed "on the beat", and the emphasis on full tone production.
You just put your finger on an aspect of Karajan's music making that I
find so compelling in his Bruckner. Furtwangler had it, and so did
Celi. Which is maybe why I find their Bruckner compelling as well.
It's not something I picked up in the Wand WDR cycle. Do you hear it
in that cycle? Is it possible that this rounded attack style is
something that Furtwangler built into the BP, and that both K & Celi
picked up on it when they worked with the BP, making it part of their
musical approach as well? I'm not saying Wand's attacks are at all
forced, but I don't hear that sort of "throb" or rounded attack in his
WDR Bruckner that I hear in F, K & Cs Bruckner. Maazel has it, too. To
me, that rounded attack is very much a part of what I consider to be
part and parcel of an echt-Bruckner style.
Hmm?
Steve de Mena
> Also in this box set:
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002QEXC9Y
Have it... worth getting?
Steve
Gerard
HAHAHA. You have to write /explicitely/ that what you write is not meant to take
him down.
Which means: every other sentence is meant that way. Your natural way.
>
> You, however, often attach
> yourself to people like Deacon like a little dog because no one else
> will support you. I pointed that out, and you are just backtalking
> now. Very childish.
What a clichés again!
Being childish is your speciality. No one can beat you on that.
>
> > > You, or Harper, don't. It's that
> > > simple. Nobody here takes you seriously anyway.
> >
> > Speak for yourself only, disgusting forever.
>
> It's pretty obvious that no one takes you seriously.
Have a look at your own "writings". Most people don't read your stuff.
How could they? They cannot spend the time - several hours daily - you need to
write your piss and vinegar.
>
> Many people have
Really?
Ah, we knew already that you cannot count.
>
> complained about your countless completely pointless contrarian posts
> which have no purpose other than drawing some attention to yourself.
> Like in this thread, you have "contributed" a dozen or so posts, most
> or all of them just such pointless, uninvited comments.
The usual clichés.
And BS. Most comments are "uninvited". Like most of your "writings".
herman
>
> That excessive slowness wasn't really something that C had developed
> towards. As recordings show, it was more something he came up with in
> the mid-70 or so. I think it wasn't musically or acoustically or
> psychologically (or whatever else C blablaed) necessary. I think it
> was something he did because he wanted to simply be very different
> from everybody else.
Part of it may be that 'slow' was a fashionable thing in the
seventies, all across the culture. Christopher Eschenbach made a
recording of the Beethoven Hammerklavier with a duper slow slow
movement, which was a real hit, so much so that a ballet choreography
was made on this excruciatingly slow music. Reinbert de Leeuws
recording of the Satie Gymnopedies was part of this too. Most of
Satie's music is actually rather sprightly, but people listened to
these pieces as a sort of avant la lettre minimal music. I suspect
Celibidache was just part of this 'slow' fashion but, having based
part of his reputation on it, was unable to yank the tempo up once the
fashion was over. And he may have been right; there are still a lot of
fans who think it's extraordinarily deep.
Another part of it may be that Celibidache wanted to show off his
orchestra's discipline by going that slow.
Frank Berger
Is it possble that Celi simply liked the music that way and that these
speculations about his motives are baseless?
AcousticLevitation.org
> herman wrote:
> >[snip]
> Is it possble that Celi simply liked the music that way and that these
> speculations about his motives are baseless?
Hi Everyone,
I don't remember where I read this, but the reason C gave for his slow
tempos was that in the actual concert hall, each hall has a different
reverberation time, and he conducted in a manner as to account for the
resonances throughout the performing space. Listening at home to
recordings of these, it said, would give a different sense of time
than would be had at the actual performance.
Steve
M forever
Despite these few examples, I don't see a general "slow fashion"
documented for the 70s, certainly not in orchestral music. There may
be some individual examples, like Giulini who basically became slower
and broader in the 70s (but generally not *that* slow). But I don't
see a general trend. Can you give more examples?
M forever
Of course it is *possible*, but if you know a little more about C and
what he preached and the context (including that he went from
relatively "normal" tempi to ultra-slow fairly quickly at some point)
and the enormous show he made of what a great guru he was and how
terrible everyone else was, then you get a better sense of how the
genius and the BS were distributed in him.
M forever
wrote:
That's a good example for typical C blabla because it's based on some
easy to understand and basically true facts (each hall has a different
reverberation time and acoustics) but then it gets pretentious and
there is also something there about the complexity and non-linearity
of our perception, so it all sounds pretty impressive on the surface
but at the same time, it's not easy to really understand and
criticize. So the listener better shut up and accept that he is in the
presence of unfathomable genius.
But if you think about it, that's all pretty hollow commonplaces. Of
course every hall has a different acoustic and slight, subtle
adjustments to the tempi of a performance may sometimes be necessary,
e.g. in very reverberant halls it might be a good idea to slow down a
little when there is a lot going on so the music doesn't get too
blurred. Reverberation also "carries" slower tempi better, of course.
But we are talking about subtle adjustments, not the extremes of
slowness that C moved to. Pretty much regardless of the type and style
of music. That alone is a strong indicator that it was more a shtick
than something really developed from an unique understanding of
acoustics and "epiphenomena", as he liked to call them, the secondary
reflections and all that.
The Philharmonie am Gasteig, BTW, the home of the MP, actually has a
pretty dry acoustic, but that didn't influence C's tempi at all.
Gerard
In the 90s he became *that* slow.
Frank Berger
I'll take his explanation, however weird, over some of the things that have
been said here.
Mark S
Thanks for mentioning that, for while this fact is known to any
performing musician, the layman isn't always in on such matters.
> But we are talking about subtle adjustments, not the extremes of
> slowness that C moved to. Pretty much regardless of the type and style
> of music. That alone is a strong indicator that it was more a shtick
> than something really developed from an unique understanding of
> acoustics and "epiphenomena", as he liked to call them, the secondary
> reflections and all that.
And it isn't really possible for people to understand what you've
written if they don't first understand what you've mentioned above. I
attended a piano recital given by Jerome Rose a few years ago where he
played a couple of Schubert Sonatas. The tempi were really fast. I
went backstage afterward and asked hm about his choice of tempi, and
he said that he had to take such fast tempi due to the dryness of the
hall, which had little reverb and was eating up and destroying the
legato that was necessary for the pieces he played. In fact, he
worried that he may not be able to play the pieces at a tempo that
really sustained the legato. And he also worried that taking such
tempi might destroy the pieces outright. He felt he reached a
compromise, but he was a wreck afterward because the demands of the
hall had pulled him well out of his comfort zone as a player and
interpreter.
M forever
Makes sense. It is designed to impress exactly the kind of simple-
minded person you are. If you knew a little more about the context and
C's own history, then what I explained in great detail would make more
sense to you. But you don't. You are conditioned to believe
mythological explanations anyway.
Mark S
> I
> attended a piano recital given by Jerome Rose a few years ago where he
> played a couple of Schubert Sonatas. The tempi were really fast. I
> went backstage afterward and asked hm about his choice of tempi, and
> he said that he had to take such fast tempi due to the dryness of the
> hall, which had little reverb and was eating up and destroying the
> legato that was necessary for the pieces he played. In fact, he
> worried that he may not be able to play the pieces at a tempo that
> really sustained the legato. And he also worried that taking such
> tempi might destroy the pieces outright. He felt he reached a
> compromise, but he was a wreck afterward because the demands of the
> hall had pulled him well out of his comfort zone as a player and
> interpreter.
On edit: forgot to mention that the faster tempi were hardest to pull
off in the opening Allegros of the sonatas. Why, might you ask, were
the tempi so fast? Well, the legato that Rose worried about sustaining
occurred in the slow movements. But one can't just play the slow
movements faster and ignore the fast movements. One must respect the
tempo proportions that exist between movements. So, if one is going to
take a slow movement faster to sustain legato, one must in equal
proportion speed up the fast movements so that the tempo proportions
align with the intention of the composer.
I thought that would go without saying, but ya never know around here.
Gerard
Rigth. It's very good you wrote this to forever. Maybe he'll understand now.
Gerard
Right. Put him down! Don't say "sorry".
M forever
wrote:
Mark didn't disagree with me - he agreed with me and elaborated on
what I said, you idiot.
Gerard
See?
Your old dirty "discussion" trick.
Nobody wrote that M (not forever) disagreed with you.
Tou obviously cannot read.
Please continue playing the expert on world politics in another thread.
M forever
I think he could have saved himself the pain though. Legato doesn't
really have that much to do with room acoustics. It is, as you no
doubt know, a type of articulation. It has more to do with how notes
are connected and with attacks (or the lack thereof). On the piano, it
has mostly to do with how long the pedal sustains the note and how
smooth a pianist can attack the next note and blend them together (or
not...). Sure, some extremely reverberant acoustics (e.g. churches)
help a little bit because they blur everything and they "smear" the
attacks which occur while the reverb is still in the room, but a dryer
room doesn't really change much about how the notes are connected
before they are "sent" out into the room. Obviously, it changes the
perception of color and just how "nice" everything sounds. And there
is only so much the performers can do anyway. If a room is too dry or
too wet, there isn't much he can do really except for maybe slow down
a little bit in faster tempi to allow for a cleaner articulation to be
heard. But I don't think it really changes much about legati in slow
tempi. If the legato is good to begin with, it will also "work" in a
dryer acoustic. In fact, the dryer acoustic will make it easier to
hear the differences in articulation clearly.
This whole subject is one of the big pseudo-topics in music because
everyone talks about it and how they always finetune their tempi to
the acoustics and all that, but few people actually do it and it is
doubtful ho much it really changes. The acoustics are pretty much a
factor in themselves which the performers can only adapt to and "work
with" to a rather limited degree.
And in C's case, it doesn't make sense anyway because, as I said, the
Philharmonie am Gasteig is actually pretty dry. So he should have been
much faster. But his tempi were the same whether he conducted there,
or in the Philharmonie in Berlin which has more generous reverb, or in
the Schauspielhaus in Berlin where he appeared that one time in the
90s with the BP, with Bruckner 7. The acoustics of that hall are very
different from the Philharmonie. Yet the tempi and other parameters of
the performance were pretty much the same as when I heard him do the
same symphony in the Philharmonie with the BP just a year or two
earlier.
Besides, as you know yourself, the way things sound on stage and how
the performers hear themselves can be drastically different from what
it actually sounds in the hall. Plus the differences of empty vs.
seated halls. An experienced performer will be able to gauge that and
still make some fine adjustments, but they never really are that
drastic.
Which basically is what my point was: there is some basis for C's
claims, but he exaggerated it drastically both in words and in the
tempi he chose, and the reason for that is that he just wanted to be
different. He really wanted to hammer it into people what a rare
genius he was, on and off the podium.
M forever
Sure you did. Otherwise you wouldn't have said how good it was that he
"wrote that to me" so that I would "understand now". There is no
reason to make someone understand something if you already agree. This
discussion is obviously way beyond your grasp.
> Tou obviously cannot read.
> Please continue playing the expert on world politics in another thread.
I write about whatever whenever I want. You will just have to live
with that, you little idiot. Just like everyone else writes what they
want. And you obsessively comment on everything and anything everybody
says. While you have no content to contribute about any of that.
Gerard
Beyond your's. Not understanding is not the same as disagreeing.
To cite your other friend: Are you that stupid?
>
> > Tou obviously cannot read.
> > Please continue playing the expert on world politics in another
> > thread.
>
> I write about whatever whenever I want.
Really?
> You will just have to live
> with that, you little idiot. Just like everyone else writes what they
> want. And you obsessively comment on everything and anything everybody
> says.
I write about whatever I want, silly boy.
M forever
Well, it's not really something Furtwängler "built into" the BP, it's
something which was already "built into" the traditional German
orchestral style, and something he was particularly good at working
with. But it doesn't have to be that obvious or as much focused on
tone production as the extremes that C took it to. That feeling of
flexibility of timing and allowing the sound enough time and space to
develop was there in Wand's conducting as well, only that it was more
balanced with a sense of forward momentum and and flexible, but
overall steady pulse. That can be heard very well on many of his later
recordings and also seen in the way he conducted far ahead. No "on the
beat execution" there at all.
The Cologne recordings don't get that across so much as the playing is
often on the rough-hewn side - indeed more than I would expect from
that kind of orchestra from that period and while there are many very
nicely shaped and sounded details, it is a little uneven and
unreliable. I am a little puzzled as to why that is. I think the
orchestra was not in good shape back then. The difference to the not
so much later Mahler recordings with Bertini is pretty significant.
But it may also have to a little with the sound and quality of the
actual recordings.
However, that actually underlines Wand's mastership as a conductor
even more because he achieves plenty of magic with that somewhat
coarse material, and that explains why so many people immediately see
the qualities of the conductor at work here. When I listen to the
recordings, I also notice the rough edges, but there is so much great
musical detail and so much coherence there that I don't really mind
those. Although I do mostly listen to his later recordings as they are
in many cases even better musically, and generally better orchestrally.
Mark S
> He felt he reached a
> > compromise, but he was a wreck afterward because the demands of the
> > hall had pulled him well out of his comfort zone as a player and
> > interpreter.
>
> I think he could have saved himself the pain though. Legato doesn't
> really have that much to do with room acoustics. It is, as you no
> doubt know, a type of articulation. It has more to do with how notes
> are connected and with attacks (or the lack thereof). On the piano, it
> has mostly to do with how long the pedal sustains the note and how
> smooth a pianist can attack the next note and blend them together (or
> not...).
Now that you mention that, I recall Rose saying that he could have
taken what he called the easy way out and just over-pedaled the slow
movements, but he had an artistic issue with doing it that way.
Considering that the concert I heard was given at the UNLV campus in
Las Vegas, I think it says something positive for Rose as an artist
that he went through all that "pain" to play the music the way he felt
Schubert deserved. Another artist might have decided that it wasn't
worth it, what with Vegas being a cultural backwater. A few artists
may have even canceled their concert if the hall acoustic wasn't to
their liking.
Mark S
More good points. Thanks.
I definitely agree with you on the much higher quality of the Cologne
orchestra on Bertini's Mahler. Night and day, IMO. I approached this
Wand Bruckner set from the perspective that I was going to hear the
same band that played on the Bertini, and it didn't occur to me that
two cycles recorded only a few years apart from each other could have
such disparities in orchestral quality. I put it down to the
conductor. That may have been hasty.
I think I need to go back to this Wand cycle and rehear it while
keeping the rough-n-ready orchestra quality in mind. That may well be
what is causing my reaction to this set, and I might need to "listen
through" the orchestra quality to get nearer to what's happening in
Wand's interpretations.
3Bs
about here, the RCA material?) though I usually prefer my Bruckner a
bit more "worked over" than Wand's manner. So the rest are not as
important to me. But if you like that style, it is pretty consistent.
3Bs
> It may well just be me. Having imprinted my Bruckner on Karajan &
> Furtwangler, the lack of mystery coupled with the above-cited caveats
> that Gramophone mentions as aspects of Wand's WDR cycle may be what is
> putting me off.
I don't think there is anything you "have to hear" about this set. As
I said, I like the intensity, the touch of rawness that Wand brings to
9, especially the intensity of the I coda. But that is not something
he intentionally reaches for- he's not one to go for extremes, and
most of the time I find his performances too straight-faced for me. I
can think of other performances of a similar temperament that I will
still probably reach for before Wand, such as the Eichhorn and
Sieghart recordings in the Camerata set. I personally think Wand
excelled at earlier music that can benefit from a straight, dramatic
approach, so I value his Beethoven and Brahms, even Mozart, far more
than his Bruckner. He should have done more Haydn.
3Bs
> I don't remember the 6th particularly standing out negatively in that
> way, but it's also a long time since I last listened to it - in recent
> times, I have mostly listened to his NDR 6th which is fabulous. I am
> also getting another 6th on Profil, with the MP, soon.
I personaly don't think the sound of the Profil recordings can compete
with the more controlled production of the two NDR 6th, both of which
I like a lot. And maybe that is unfair and it is really just the
orchestra and hall, but the NDR 6ths are some of his better
recordings. (Very similar interpretations, slightly different
balances, I recall). I also like his BPO 5 while finding some of the
others just too straight for me, like the 8th. But I'm pretty burned
out on that. The recent Giulini 8 on Testament is the kind of more
heavily "interpreted" performance I find winning- he shapes every
phrase of that one in a special way.
Gerard
> I also think the Koln 9 is quite special (is that what we are talking
> about here, the RCA material?)
(Deutsche) harmonia mundi material (see also posts of Aug. 18 in this thread).
Also reissued by RCA (and Sony).
3Bs
> This isn't really a Karajan vs Wand thing though. It's more a "you
> simply don't get it" thing. I like both Wand and Karajan, and
> Furtwängler and many other Bruckner conductors, for the various
> approaches and qualities they all bring to the table.
> All I am saying is suggesting to you consider there might possibly
> things there that you (gasp!) don't get but that I and others get and
> appreciate a lot - and in the end, it might widen your Bruckner
> horizon, too.
I personally think that none of us are obligated to have wide
horizons, or obligated to enjoy anything. Wide horizons might help if
you are a professional critic, but as an individual listener, I can be
as picky as I want. If for me Giulini sometimes produces a 10
performance whole Wand often rates a boring 3, that's just me, and it
is fine.
I do not believe wand's devotion to Bruckner makes his art mandatory
for appreciation.
herman
of Bruckner 9 with the NDR on tour in Japan, and he seems to conduct
right on the music here.
It's interesting to see and hear how Wand's most conspicuous
'interventions' are in the joins between paragraphs, either quickly
moving on or elongating the brass chord before the reprise of the
first theme.
herman
>
> I personaly don't think the sound of the Profil recordings can compete
> with the more controlled production of the two NDR 6th, both of which
> I like a lot. And maybe that is unfair and it is really just the
> orchestra and hall, but the NDR 6ths are some of his better
> recordings.
That's funny: I think the Profil sound can be quite thrilling. I have
a Haitink Bruckner 6th with the Dresden on Profil, and while this is
not the ultimate Bruckner 6, the depth of the orchestral sonorities
are reproduced in an amazing way.
I have never been able to click with Wand's Bruckner 6 from 1995, in
Hamburg. Maybe I should give it another shot.
M forever
> I seem to recall Wand used to conduct far ahead; I watched this video
> of Bruckner 9 with the NDR on tour in Japan, and he seems to conduct
> right on the music here.
You are right, the beat is not that far ahead here, but he shows very
clearly and ahead of the music what is coming next. How big the lag
between beat and sound is varies depending on a number of factors, of
course.
> It's interesting to see and hear how Wand's most conspicuous
> 'interventions' are in the joins between paragraphs, either quickly
> moving on or elongating the brass chord before the reprise of the
> first theme.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_Jnkasgjxk
It's such detail shaping which is usually very to the point but which
doesn't draw attention to itself which marked Wand's style and which
made his conducting so compelling. It is also not very obvious and so
it eludes some people, which is why it is so tricky to explain what
made him such a highly regarded conductor to people who don't "get"
that.