Best/Favorite Bruckner Cycle?
Ferris92
of the 4th and 8th Symphonies, both of which I have grown to like
quite a bit) and am looking to get more. But I think it'd be worth
it, instead of slowly picking up every symphony and then slowly
collecting multiple versions to get a copy of everything in one fell
swoop and then work on multiples. Is there an optimal cycle to start
with?
>From what I've read around here Jochum is well thought of, as well as
Haitink. Does Wand have a full cycle? And as a rule I like to stay
as far away from von Karajan as possible (though honestly I haven't
heard his Bruckner).
By the way, the two recordings I have (and like) are Karl Bohm and the
Wiener Philharmonic doing the 4th and Pierre Boulez with the same
orchestra doing the 8th.
Any advice would be appreciated...
arrau...@yahoo.com
favorite for complete cycle is Solti with the Chicago Symphony.
Although for individual symphonies he isn't my favorite, as a set,
it's an exciting traversal of all of the symphonies, even if it lacks
the layered-on mysticism that many enjoy as an essential part of the
Bruckner experience. Tempi tend to towards the quick side, but it's
an interesting experience to hear these works shorn of slow tempi and
exaggerated profundity. That being said, for individual symphonies, I
like Knappertsbusch, Furtwangler and Walter, the former two tending
towards the slow and mystical, while Walter is a little more lively.
Best Bruckner symphony I've ever heard live was 8th in a performance
by the Rochester Philharmonic a few years ago conducted by an
Englishman by the name of Christopher Seaman. It was on the fast
side, but his Adagio convinced me, and the finale was absolutely hair-
raising.
RJM
boombox
Ferris92 wrote:
Is there an optimal cycle to start
> with?
>From what I've read around here Jochum is well thought of, as well as
> Haitink. Does Wand have a full cycle? And as a rule I like to stay
> as far away from von Karajan as possible (though honestly I haven't
> heard his Bruckner).
I don't love any of the integrals, but Karajan's would probably be the
best for my money. I like Jochum but find him a little too uneven,
both on DG and EMI. Haitink is his usual competent but self-effacing
self. No cycle from Wand, but a zillion versions of 4-9.
For complete sets there's also Skrowaczewski, Tintner, and a set with
the Linz Bruckner Orchestra under various conductors.
Gustav Bruckner
wrote:
> Although this won't be the popular choice for most, my personal
> favorite for complete cycle is Solti with the Chicago Symphony.
> Although for individual symphonies he isn't my favorite, as a set,
> it's an exciting traversal of all of the symphonies, even if it lacks
> the layered-on mysticism that many enjoy as an essential part of the
> Bruckner experience. Tempi tend to towards the quick side, but it's
> an interesting experience to hear these works shorn of slow tempi and
> exaggerated profundity.
I'm always partial to Solti/Chicago and I also think their Heavy
Metal, Swiss-watch precision is a valid approach to this music.
There's more then one way to skin a Bruckner Symphony. As far as the
more mystical approach goes, I'll go with Celibidache.
boombox
Gustav Bruckner wrote:
As far as the
> more mystical approach goes, I'll go with Celibidache.
Too epiphenomenological for me. I do like the 4th and 6th from the
EMI batch, but some of the others are so slow the only mystery
remaining was how much more could stand.
Alex Brown
@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> Is there an optimal [Bruckner] cycle to start
> with?
Probably not, and the opinion you'll get here is that it's better to
assemble a set from individual recordings, and the complete sets are
compromises in one way or another. But, if you're getting the Bruckner
bug you'll probably end up with multiple recordings of each work anyway
:-)
Some suggestions, taking the view that a complete set should aim to be a
good all-rounder that can later be supplemented:
-- Barenboim / Berlin Philharmonic (Warner Classics). Well-recorded,
well played and some of the performances (odd-numbered ones, generally)
are among the most desirable. Also cheap.
-- Jochum (on DG with Berlin orchestras, or the later EMI set with
Dresden forces). Two well-reputed sets, well played and recorded.
Jochum's flexible way with with the music works better - to my ears -
with the earlier symphonies than with 7,8,9 which might be seen as an
Achilles heel if these were the only recordings of the symphonies one
had. Both sets are available at competitive prices.
-- Tintner (Naxos, with various orchestras). Thoughtful musical
performances that radiate authority, even if the orchestral sounds lack
the lustre produced by the orchestras in the sets mentioned above.
Tintner uses 'original' editions of the scores which for some symphonies
is unorthodox. If I was _forced_ to own just one set by a single
conductor, this might be it, though again I'd sorely missing being able
to complement the 7,8,9 with alternative recordings. Reasonable Naxos
pricing.
Other sets like those conducted by Karajan (DG), Asahina (various
Japanese labels) or Celibidache (incomplete sets on DG and EMI) contain
performances which are more controversial, and so it might be wise to
sample before purchase. However, ultimately some of the individual
symphony recordings in these sets take the palm. Note also these sets
are also more expensive.
--
Alex.
Dave Cook
>>From what I've read around here Jochum is well thought of, as well as
> Haitink. Does Wand have a full cycle? And as a rule I like to stay
> as far away from von Karajan as possible (though honestly I haven't
> heard his Bruckner).
In addition to the two Jochum sets, you might also consider
Skrowaczewski on Oehms. But from that set I've only heard 00, 0, 6-8,
all of them excellent for interpretation, playing, and sound.
http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/hnum/3679360
(High shipping cost, but you don't pay VAT.)
Skrowaczewski is more straightforward than Jochum, who has a tendency
to manipulate tempos that annoys some listeners.
As for choosing between the Jochum sets, I'd give a slight nod to the
first cycle, which has more natural sound.
http://www.mymusic.com/product_classical.asp?curr=0&muzenbr=480134 (1st cycle)
http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/hnum/7698424 (2nd cycle)
For an introduction to Karajan's Bruckner, I suggest the 4th on EMI
Encore (same remastering date as the Karajan Collection release.)
Dave Cook
TareeDawg
news:Xns98FA53CB0C...@216.196.109.144...
> "Ferris92" <andre...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1174448455.373807.301880
> @e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Is there an optimal [Bruckner] cycle to start
>> with?
>
> Probably not, and the opinion you'll get here is that it's better to
> assemble a set from individual recordings, and the complete sets are
> compromises in one way or another. But, if you're getting the Bruckner
> bug you'll probably end up with multiple recordings of each work anyway
> :-)
>
> Some suggestions, taking the view that a complete set should aim to be a
> good all-rounder that can later be supplemented:
>
> -- Barenboim / Berlin Philharmonic (Warner Classics). Well-recorded,
> well played and some of the performances (odd-numbered ones, generally)
> are among the most desirable. Also cheap.
Must investigate Barenboim's bruckner at some stage.
> -- Jochum (on DG with Berlin orchestras, or the later EMI set with
> Dresden forces). Two well-reputed sets, well played and recorded.
> Jochum's flexible way with with the music works better - to my ears -
> with the earlier symphonies than with 7,8,9 which might be seen as an
> Achilles heel if these were the only recordings of the symphonies one
> had. Both sets are available at competitive prices.
Jochum does fiddle with the tempi considerably, and which can be irritating,
but I like the later EMI Dresden set a lot.
> -- Tintner (Naxos, with various orchestras). Thoughtful musical
> performances that radiate authority, even if the orchestral sounds lack
> the lustre produced by the orchestras in the sets mentioned above.
> Tintner uses 'original' editions of the scores which for some symphonies
> is unorthodox. If I was _forced_ to own just one set by a single
> conductor, this might be it, though again I'd sorely missing being able
> to complement the 7,8,9 with alternative recordings. Reasonable Naxos
> pricing.
My first choice of a complete integral, despite, as has been said, played by
orchestras that are very good, but not quite as stellar as some others.
Absolute authority by Tintner, and a legacy which does Georg Tintner proud.
> Other sets like those conducted by Karajan (DG), Asahina (various
> Japanese labels) or Celibidache (incomplete sets on DG and EMI) contain
> performances which are more controversial, and so it might be wise to
> sample before purchase. However, ultimately some of the individual
> symphony recordings in these sets take the palm. Note also these sets
> are also more expensive.
Of the above conductors I have been far more taken with Celi's approach (not
having yet heard Asahina). Of more specific individual accounts, then
Rosbaud, Boehm, HvK, Walter, Goodall, even Szell, and several others, have
all weighed in with indispensable recordings.
Ray H
Taree, NSW
M.W. Kluge
Just a small correction - Wand did record a cycle of 1-9 with the
Cologne Radio Symphony in the late 1970s and early 80s. This set is
long out of print though. Generally his later performances with NDR
and BPO are better played, though also broader and more austere.
I would probably go with one of the Jochum sets both for economy and
because they uses more or less standard editions. Then you can
supplement with some of the earlier versions as you come to know the
music better.
ukr...@yahoo.com
EMI). Unfortunately, it will be another month before I get to listen
to it. :(
It was the cheapest cycle I could find and one of the regularly
recommended cylces out there. So even if it is safe, I think it
provides a good entry (and resonably priced). Berkshire had it for
just under $30, but amazon had is for something quite close in their
blowout sale ($32-33?). The others I have seen (Haitink, Karajan,
etc.) will probably cost about double (or more). And as someone said,
you can supplement individual symphonies with other versions as you go
along.
Incidentally, your public library might have something for a 'trial
run' - many will typically have a cycle in some form or another.
TareeDawg
news:1174473161....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I recently purchased the cycle with Jochum/Brilliant (formerly on
> EMI). Unfortunately, it will be another month before I get to listen
> to it. :(
>
> It was the cheapest cycle I could find and one of the regularly
> recommended cylces out there. So even if it is safe, I think it
> provides a good entry (and resonably priced). Berkshire had it for
> just under $30, but amazon had is for something quite close in their
> blowout sale ($32-33?). The others I have seen (Haitink, Karajan,
> etc.) will probably cost about double (or more). And as someone said,
> you can supplement individual symphonies with other versions as you go
> along.
You won't be disappointed with the EMI Jochum. Happy listening.
But there may well be a need to supplement if a keen Brucknerian.
Ray H
Taree, NSW
ukr...@yahoo.com
> <ukrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Well, I do have #7 already with Karajan (DG). I liked the music, hence
why I decided to get more.
MIFrost
news:1174448455.3...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> I'm just beginning to listen to Bruckner's work now (I have editions
> of the 4th and 8th Symphonies, both of which I have grown to like
> quite a bit) and am looking to get more. But I think it'd be worth
> it, instead of slowly picking up every symphony and then slowly
> collecting multiple versions to get a copy of everything in one fell
> swoop and then work on multiples. Is there an optimal cycle to start
> with?
Try these:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3448
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=2340
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=6546
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=4808
MIFrost
Paul Ilechko
I wouldn't get a cycle, keep cherry picking. I don't like Jochum other
than the late symphonies (8 & 9). What I've heard of Skrow and Tintner
has been good, but I don't feel the urge to rush out and get the boxes.
I love Celi, but don't think that he did them all, only 3-9 ?
Karajan's Bruckner is surprisingly good. I have his EMI 4th and live 8
and 9 on Andante sets.
Paul Ilechko
> "Ferris92" <andre...@gmail.com> - 20 Mar 2007 20:40:55 -0700 in
> rec.music.classical.recordings:
>
>> Is there an optimal cycle to start with?
>
> budget cycles Jochum/Brilliant Classics (EMI) and Tintner/Naxos.
... and a lot better ;-)
jrs...@aol.com
> EM wrote:
> > "Ferris92" <andrewf...@gmail.com> - 20 Mar 2007 20:40:55 -0700 in
As a cycle I don't think one can do much better than Jochum's EMI/
Brilliant cycle. Tintner is a different story. He uses some unusual
editions for his cycle, which I think should rule him out as a first
cycle--the music is quite different in some instances. I also don't
think the playing on it is as magnificent as in the other cycles
available. Magnificence is something you get with either Jochum cycle
regardless of what you think about his tempo fluctuations (which do
not bother me).
--Jeff
--Jeff
Richard Schultz
: As a cycle I don't think one can do much better than Jochum's EMI/
: Brilliant cycle. Tintner is a different story. He uses some unusual
: editions for his cycle, which I think should rule him out as a first
: cycle--the music is quite different in some instances.
I only have a couple of Tintner discs, so I could very well be misremembering
here, but I thought that the original plan (before his untimely passing) was
to record every version of every symphony.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"We cannot see how any of his music can long survive him."
-- From the New York Daily Tribune obituary of Gustav Mahler
jrs...@aol.com
> I'm just beginning to listen to Bruckner's work now (I have editions
> of the 4th and 8th Symphonies, both of which I have grown to like
> quite a bit) and am looking to get more. But I think it'd be worth
> it, instead of slowly picking up every symphony and then slowly
> collecting multiple versions to get a copy of everything in one fell
> swoop and then work on multiples. Is there an optimal cycle to start
> with?
I think it is worth taking your time, actually. Each symphony has so
much to offer and is worth savoring. What's the hurry to learn them
all at once?
>
> >From what I've read around here Jochum is well thought of, as well as
>
> Haitink. Does Wand have a full cycle? And as a rule I like to stay
> as far away from von Karajan as possible (though honestly I haven't
> heard his Bruckner).
That's too bad. Karajan's cycle is really great...on the other hand,
it's nice to be able to rule something out.
>
> By the way, the two recordings I have (and like) are Karl Bohm and the
> Wiener Philharmonic doing the 4th and Pierre Boulez with the same
> orchestra doing the 8th.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated...
The safest advice is Jochum on Brilliant Classics because he's cheap,
he has very good performances with an orchestra equal to the one
you're listening to, and the sound is good (but not really as solid
and detailed as the Bohm and Boulez recordings).
You may not find any cycle that tops individual performances like the
two you have. But you won't waste your time or money with Jochum. Or
Skrowaczewski, or Barenboim or...
--Jeff
boombox
jrsn...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I think it is worth taking your time, actually. Each symphony has so
> much to offer and is worth savoring. What's the hurry to learn them
> all at once?
Absolutely. Discover one symphony at a time, get to really know it,
compare a few performances. You'll find conductor preferences that
will help guide you as you go along. How many of the symphonies do
you know so far? What's your favorite so far? I think you can start
anywhere. And if you ask for recommendations on individual symphonies
you'll get lots of (maybe too many) responses.
Curtis Croulet
> misremembering
> here, but I thought that the original plan (before his untimely passing)
> was
> to record every version of every symphony.
Naxos gave up on that idea long before Tintner died. I have mixed feelings
about the Tintner recordings. I admire his dedication, but the results are
often less than scinitillating. The third-tier orchestras don't help.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W
boombox
Curtis Croulet wrote:
I have mixed feelings
> about the Tintner recordings. I admire his dedication, but the results are
> often less than scinitillating. The third-tier orchestras don't help.
Love the 3rd (1873) with the Royal Scottish, though. Daringly slow
but it works!
jrs...@aol.com
I started with Barenboim's 6 (I'm speaking of his DG recordings here)
and after loving that obsessively for a year I bought Solti's 4 and
5th played these incessantly and then after another year I
investigated 7 (with some deliberate comparisons to make that choice
between Karajan and Barenboim). By then I'd heard radio broadcasts by
Maazel of the 5th and Tennstedt of the 8th (which fortunately I
taped). Solti's 5th was a mild mistake (not one of his better efforts
and an engineering fiasco, and I had a hard time with that symphony
until I got Bohm/Dresden and then Horenstein and Furtwangler about six
years later). I didn't really learn the 8th (Barenboim) or 9th (first
Karajan and then Solti and Horenstein) until about 4 years after my
first Bruckner recording. I learned 3 by taping a Leinsdorf broadcast
sometime during this period, and bought Barenboim's 0 toward the end
of this early Bruckner phase and was very surprised at how mature that
piece is, but I didn't hear or buy 00, 1 or 2 until somewhat later.
I'm glad I took a lot of time with the symphonies one by one. They're
so similar to one another that jumping in all at once would
undoubtedly have confused me, even though I doubt the end result would
have been any different. There are many ways to learn the music and
many different recordings that serve the purpose. It is nice but not
essential to hear more than one conductor.
Atterberg's symphonies, by contrast, I bought as a set and I wish I
had time to dwell on these one by one. As a result, they're all a blur
so far. Then again I don't have the same kind of time that I had when
I learned Bruckner. Bruckner's good for people with lots of time. ;-)
--Jeff
boombox
I started with a Haitink 9 and more or less worked my way back in
time. Along the way the conductors I've returned to most are Karajan
(7,8,9), Furtwangler (5,7,8,9) and Wand (4,7,8), along with some hits
from Van Beinum (9), Bohm (4), Jochum (4), Klemperer (6), Giulini (8),
Celibidache (4,6), Sinopoli (5,7,8), Chailly (7), Dohnanyi (5,6),
Tintner (3) and Welser-Most (5,7). Though I've never loved his
commercial recordings, I saw a great Tennstedt/NYPO 8th and heard a
7th with Boston on the radio that still stays in my mind after almost
30 years.
phlmae...@yahoo.com
> >
> I think it is worth taking your time, actually. Each symphony has so
> much to offer and is worth savoring. What's the hurry to learn them
> all at once?
>
it was a fairly slow process after multiple unsuccessful attempts
(Klemperer's 6th was the recording that finally turned me, although I
now have a strong preference for Celi's 6th). I've picked up many
Bruckner recordings over the past 8-10 years, but still have never
purchased a complete set of the symphonies.
But based on what I've heard of both cycles (a majority, but not all),
I actually prefer Jochum's DG set to the one with Dresden.
I'd say Jochum and Karajan have produced more Bruckner recordings that
are among my favorites than any other conductors, but there are plenty
of recordings I absolutely love by other conductors, like Giulini,
Celibidache, Matacic and others.
Barry
makropulos
> On Mar 21, 11:05 am, jrsn...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I think it is worth taking your time, actually. Each symphony has so
> > much to offer and is worth savoring. What's the hurry to learn them
> > all at once?
>
about Bruckner was the van Beinum 7th (when it was on a Decca Eclipse
LP), then the 1955 Jochum 9th (on a Heliodor LP), after which the Böhm
Vienna PO 4th and so on. I've tended to collect Bruckner that way ever
since - one symphony at a time rather than in bulk. The discovery of
Matacic's Czech PO 7th was another big Bruckner "moment" for me (and I
now have a lot of his performances). Apart from Jochum, none of the
conductors I've just mentioned recorded complete cycles and though I
have about a yard of Bruckner on CD, only a small part of those inches
are complete sets (Jochum DG and EMI among them) or the Celi DG
Bruckner box with several symphonies in it.
Lionel Tacchini
> I'm just beginning to listen to Bruckner's work now (I have editions
> of the 4th and 8th Symphonies, both of which I have grown to like
> quite a bit) and am looking to get more. But I think it'd be worth
> it, instead of slowly picking up every symphony and then slowly
> collecting multiple versions to get a copy of everything in one fell
> swoop and then work on multiples. Is there an optimal cycle to start
> with?
All in all, after hearing them all and thinking about it hard, I want
to say Horenstein ;-)
Or Gielen, if only he'd recorded them all.
Then Eugen Jochum, although I don't agree with all of it.
Jochum will get the music to speak most clearly after Furtwängler,
with the advantage of clean stereo sound.
His 4th, either on DG or EMI will be an open book in comparison to
Böhm's.
Lionel Tacchini
Bob Harper
I think that's right. I very much like his 'original' 2 and 3, but I
deeply regret he did not live to give us a Haas (his preferred) 8th. The
original 8th, while not nearly as flawed as the original Sibelius 5th,
is a lesser work than either the Haas or Nowak editions of his final
thoughts. (I am aware that some here consider the Haas a perversion. I
don't, and you'll have to argue with the shade of Maestro Tintner, who
said in his liner notes that it 'is the best of the three versions'.)
Bob Harper
rkhalona
wrote:
>
> Jochum will get the music to speak most clearly after Furtwängler,
> with the advantage of clean stereo sound.
Your choice of words is interesting. "Clarity" is not what I think of
when I listen to Furtwängler's Bruckner. Had you said "passion," I
would be in complete agreement.
Jochum's stereo 9th with the BPO is a close 2nd to Furtwaengler's in
intensity, in much better stereo sound, as you say, but somehow
lacking that last ounce of hellish fire that Furtwängler conjures.
> His 4th, either on DG or EMI will be an open book in comparison to
> Böhm's.
Why do you feel that Bruckner should go only one way? Most of his
symphonies, if not all, are quite resilient to a variety of
approaches. I prefer Jochum's mono 4th to any of his stereo efforts
and I think Böhm´s recording, although quite different from Jochum´s,
is splendid.
RK
Paul Ilechko
By "a lot better" I meant by *not* going the cycle route, although if I
was going to buy a cycle it would be Skrow or Tintner, not Jochum. I had
the EMI set and sold it. I don't like his tempo choices in many of the
symphonies - not the fluctuations, he's just too fast. I like my
Bruckner to be like a mighty river - broad and slow ;-)
TareeDawg
news:1174496925.7...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 21, 9:16 am, "boombox" <boom...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> jrsn...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > I think it is worth taking your time, actually. Each symphony has so
>> > much to offer and is worth savoring. What's the hurry to learn them
>> > all at once?
>>
>> Absolutely. Discover one symphony at a time, get to really know it,
>> compare a few performances. You'll find conductor preferences that
>> will help guide you as you go along. How many of the symphonies do
>> you know so far? What's your favorite so far? I think you can start
>> anywhere. And if you ask for recommendations on individual symphonies
>> you'll get lots of (maybe too many) responses.
>
>
> I started with Barenboim's 6 (I'm speaking of his DG recordings here)
> and after loving that obsessively for a year I bought Solti's 4 and
> 5th played these incessantly and then after another year I
> investigated 7 (with some deliberate comparisons to make that choice
Just for the record, it was listening to the radio (BBC) many hundreds of
moons ago, and which I remember taping on the then standard Grundig tape
'thingy', that I started with Bruckner. And it was the Adagio of the 8th
that started me off, and I never needed to look back. And it was Goodall
conducting with the house orchestra. I am certain I then 'progressed' to the
4th symphony, then the 9th (enticed by the pounding scherzo which was 'in
vogue' at the time, and probably still is), and have never looked back.
Walter in the 4th and the 9th for me.
I never really felt the need to 'learn' the symphonies, although I could
probably tell anyone from a 2 minute fragment which symphony it is. Under
the right leadership, with a great orchestra, and with time on one's side,
there is no greater racket to be heard.
Ray H
Taree, NSW
jrs...@aol.com
> On Mar 21, 8:16 pm, phlmaestr...@yahoo.com wrote:> On Mar 21, 11:05 am, jrsn...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > I think it is worth taking your time, actually. Each symphony has so
> > > much to offer and is worth savoring. What's the hurry to learn them
> > > all at once?
>
> I'd very much agree with that. The performance that frst excited me
> about Bruckner was the van Beinum 7th (when it was on a Decca Eclipse
> LP), then the 1955 Jochum 9th (on a Heliodor LP), after which the Böhm
> Vienna PO 4th and so on. I've tended to collect Bruckner that way ever
> since - one symphony at a time rather than in bulk.
With Bruckner, one symphony at a time _is_ "in bulk."
The discovery of
> Matacic's Czech PO 7th was another big Bruckner "moment" for me..
Same here. I got it on LP on a lark and immediately knew I'd found a
special conductor.
--Jeff
phlmae...@yahoo.com
is the only seventh that isn't in the slower, cathedral style of
Bruckner performance among my favorite recordings of the work. And I
also like his NHK eighth a lot; again, more than most, if not all
other recordings of the eighth that fit on a single disc.
jrs...@aol.com
Is Kna considered cathedral-style in 7? I think of him as modestly
quick. I also liked F W-M's recent broadcast, which was somewhat
quick, and the Abbado/Lucerne broadcast of this past year I think.
Maybe I like quick Bruckner?
--Jeff
Michael Schaffer
phlmae...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 21, 11:05 am, jrsn...@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > I think it is worth taking your time, actually. Each symphony has so
> > much to offer and is worth savoring. What's the hurry to learn them
> > all at once?
> >
> I agree. Bruckner gradually became one of my favorite composers, but
> it was a fairly slow process after multiple unsuccessful attempts
> (Klemperer's 6th was the recording that finally turned me, although I
> now have a strong preference for Celi's 6th). I've picked up many
> Bruckner recordings over the past 8-10 years, but still have never
> purchased a complete set of the symphonies.
>
> But based on what I've heard of both cycles (a majority, but not all),
> I actually prefer Jochum's DG set to the one with Dresden.
Boooo! Booooo!!
Just kidding - actually, I quite understand why some people like the
earlier set better, but I personally totally prefer the later one -
because of the orchestra and that almost unique mix of earthiness in
some places, monumentality in others, rough cragginess but at the same
time very refined and "idiomatic" phrasing delivered by the orchestra.
> I'd say Jochum and Karajan have produced more Bruckner recordings that
> are among my favorites than any other conductors, but there are plenty
> of recordings I absolutely love by other conductors, like Giulini,
> Celibidache, Matacic and others.
Indeed.
> Barry
Michael Schaffer
Same here. I have it on CD. Great recording.
Michael Schaffer
Ferris92 wrote:
> I'm just beginning to listen to Bruckner's work now (I have editions
> of the 4th and 8th Symphonies, both of which I have grown to like
> quite a bit) and am looking to get more. But I think it'd be worth
> it, instead of slowly picking up every symphony and then slowly
> collecting multiple versions to get a copy of everything in one fell
> with?
>
> >From what I've read around here Jochum is well thought of, as well as
> Haitink. Does Wand have a full cycle? And as a rule I like to stay
> as far away from von Karajan as possible
Why?
> (though honestly I haven't
> heard his Bruckner).
>
phlmae...@yahoo.com
> >
> Is Kna considered cathedral-style in 7? I think of him as modestly
> quick. I also liked F W-M's recent broadcast, which was somewhat
> quick, and the Abbado/Lucerne broadcast of this past year I think.
> Maybe I like quick Bruckner?
>
> --Jeff
>
I should listen to more of Abbado's Bruckner. I have none of his
recordings of the symphonies. My only experience was a live 9th he
conducted with the BPO in NYC in the late 90s, and I didn't like it at
all (and it came one night after one of the great Mahler 9ths I've
ever heard by the same forces).
I used to like that Kna '49 VPO 7th if I remember correctly, but my
taste in Bruckner performance style has evolved a lot since then.
Also, while I have an abundance of historical recordings of the
Beethoven and Brahms symphonies, sound is a bit more important to me
for Bruckner (in addition to the fact that not many conductors from
back in those days led Bruckner in the style that I like and which has
only gained in popularity over the past few decades).
phlmae...@yahoo.com
> phlmaestr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > But based on what I've heard of both cycles (a majority, but not all),
> > I actually prefer Jochum's DG set to the one with Dresden.
>
> Boooo! Booooo!!
> Just kidding - actually, I quite understand why some people like the
> earlier set better, but I personally totally prefer the later one -
> because of the orchestra and that almost unique mix of earthiness in
> some places, monumentality in others, rough cragginess but at the same
> time very refined and "idiomatic" phrasing delivered by the orchestra.
>
I think I'd say everything I've heard from both cycles, and I've heard
a bit more of the Dresden one, is good. But the two performances that
standout the most for me from both cycles are 4 and 9 with the BPO.
Those are the only two that are competitive with my favorites for the
various symphonies (discounting the first three, which I've not heard
so many recordings of). And that BPO 4th is my top pic for the piece.
I usually don't go for that super-aggressive style for Bruckner, but
that recording is a major exception.
jrs...@aol.com
> On Mar 21, 9:11 pm, jrsn...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is Kna considered cathedral-style in 7? I think of him as modestly
> > quick. I also liked F W-M's recent broadcast, which was somewhat
> > quick, and the Abbado/Lucerne broadcast of this past year I think.
> > Maybe I like quick Bruckner?
>
> > --Jeff
>
> I should listen to more of Abbado's Bruckner. I have none of his
> recordings of the symphonies. My only experience was a live 9th he
> conducted with the BPO in NYC in the late 90s, and I didn't like it at
> all (and it came one night after one of the great Mahler 9ths I've
> ever heard by the same forces).
I heard him do the 4th live with VPO and I didn't like it, but this
Lucerne Fest performance leads me to believe his recent work is warmer
and more relaxed in the right way--taut but relaxed. Hmmm.
--Jeff
Richard Loeb
"rkhalona" <rkha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174516236.7...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
RK
Is that the Bohm on Decca legends???? Richard
rkhalona
> "rkhalona" <rkhal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > His 4th, either on DG or EMI will be an open book in comparison to
> > Böhm's.
>
> Why do you feel that Bruckner should go only one way? Most of his
> symphonies, if not all, are quite resilient to a variety of
> approaches. I prefer Jochum's mono 4th to any of his stereo efforts
> and I think Böhm´s recording, although quite different from Jochum´s,
> is splendid.
>
> RK
> Is that the Bohm on Decca legends???? Richard
Yes, the one with the Vienna Philharmonic.
RK
Bob Harper
(snip)
>
> I should listen to more of Abbado's Bruckner. I have none of his
> recordings of the symphonies. My only experience was a live 9th he
> conducted with the BPO in NYC in the late 90s, and I didn't like it at
> all (and it came one night after one of the great Mahler 9ths I've
You should certainly hear Abbado's VPO Bruckner 4th. I just got it at a
friend's urging, and it is outstanding. The playing beggars description;
this is music this orchestra was born to play. And it's one of the best
things I've ever heard from Abbado, not normally one of my favorite
conductors.
Bob Harper
phlmae...@yahoo.com
>
Is the Lucerne 7th that you're referring to the one that's available
on DVD coupled with Brendel performing one of the Beethoven concertos?
I've been intending to get that for a while and just haven't gotten
around to it.
Barry
phlmae...@yahoo.com
Thanks Bob. I'll keep an eye out for that.
Michael Schaffer
You really should. At last, one thing that Mr Harper and I can agree
on. An oustanding performance, and one that is really worth getting
because it's not quite like any other I know. Abbado bases his
Bruckner sound on a warm, rich string sound, it's not dominated by the
brass, but in the right moments, and only in the "right" moments, he
lets the full orchestra lose and builds up gigantic climaxes. Plus the
whole reading is musically very detailed. His 5th is equally good, the
7th maybe not quite on that level but still rather good - I am talking
about the WP recording on DG here -, the 1st good, but not
overwhelming (and DG did some starnage things here with shifting
perspectives and a less natural, more mixer-driven sound than on the
other dics), the 9th strangely disappointing - one of the least
interesting recordings I have heard from both conductor and orchestra,
strangely incoherent and uneasy.
Michael Schaffer
phlmae...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:17 pm, "Michael Schaffer" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > phlmaestr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > But based on what I've heard of both cycles (a majority, but not all),
> > > I actually prefer Jochum's DG set to the one with Dresden.
> >
> > Boooo! Booooo!!
> > Just kidding - actually, I quite understand why some people like the
> > earlier set better, but I personally totally prefer the later one -
> > because of the orchestra and that almost unique mix of earthiness in
> > some places, monumentality in others, rough cragginess but at the same
> > time very refined and "idiomatic" phrasing delivered by the orchestra.
> >
>
> I think I'd say everything I've heard from both cycles, and I've heard
> a bit more of the Dresden one, is good. But the two performances that
> standout the most for me from both cycles are 4 and 9 with the BPO.
> Those are the only two that are competitive with my favorites for the
> various symphonies
Which are those? In case you listed them before, please just point me
to the post (I haven't read the whole thread).
phlmae...@yahoo.com
>
> the 9th strangely disappointing - one of the least
> interesting recordings I have heard from both conductor and orchestra,
>
That's basically the same reaction I had to the live BPO 9th I
attended.
phlmae...@yahoo.com
> phlmaestr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > I think I'd say everything I've heard from both cycles, and I've heard
> > a bit more of the Dresden one, is good. But the two performances that
> > standout the most for me from both cycles are 4 and 9 with the BPO.
> > Those are the only two that are competitive with my favorites for the
> > various symphonies
>
> Which are those? In case you listed them before, please just point me
> to the post (I haven't read the whole thread).
>
Michael Schaffer
Oui.
phlmae...@yahoo.com
4: Jochum/BPO, Karajan/BPO/EMI
5: Jochum/Concertgebouw the 1986 performance on Tahra, Karajan/BPO,
Sawallisch/Philadephia, Sinopoli/Dresden
6: Celibidache/EMI
7: Karajan both EMI and VPO/DG, Sanderling on Hannsler, Celibidache's
BPO-return performance and that Matacic.....oh, and I also thought the
2005 performance by Rattle and the BPO at the Proms was up there among
the best I've heard.
8: This is an odd one. It's my favorite Bruckner symphony, but no
single commercial recording really stands out for me. I'll listen to
Karajan/VPO, Giulini/VPO, Matacic/NHK and a few others, but none
really floor me from start to finish, which I can't say for any of the
others from four through nine. But there are non-commercial releases
I've heard that are much more impressive than any of the commercial
ones I've heard.
9: Giulini/VPO, Jochum/BPO
Love to see your list too.
jrs...@aol.com
I don't know. It might be. I'll bet it's as good. I heard it on the
radio so I can't be sure unless I go dig around for the info on the
performance date.
--Jeff
mpe...@comcast.net
I wish I could agree on this - I found Matacic's 7th somewhat
undercharacterized,
though I enjoyed hearing the music played by the CPO.
Marc Perman
mpe...@comcast.net
>
> I should listen to more of Abbado's Bruckner. I have none of his
> recordings of the symphonies. My only experience was a live 9th he
> conducted with the BPO in NYC in the late 90s, and I didn't like it at
> all (and it came one night after one of the great Mahler 9ths I've
> ever heard by the same forces).
I heard that Bruckner 9th as well, and I left very disappointed -
Abbado rushed
every climax, and led a generally badly paced performance. Gramophone
raves in
the current issue about Abbado's recording of the 4th.
Marc Perman
makropulos
Each to their own :)
However, for highly characterized playing, I'd urge you to try
Matacic's live Bruckner 3 with the Philharmonia on BBC Legends.
Osborne hated it in the Gramophone as I recall, but it's one of my all-
time favourite Bruckner performances (inevitably, though, that's an
opinion coloured by the fact that I was at the concert too, and was
completely blown away by it).
Michael Schaffer
mpe...@comcast.net wrote:
> I wish I could agree on this - I found Matacic's 7th somewhat
> undercharacterized,
> though I enjoyed hearing the music played by the CPO.
>
> Marc Perman
What do you mean by that?
Michael Schaffer
I don't have one! Honestly, there are so many good Bruckner recordings
out there, I couldn't dra up a list of favorites. Maybe if I chose 6
or so for each symphony, but no clear favorites, except when it comes
to #8 for which Giulini/WP is my clear favorite - for me, the Holy
Grail of Bruckner recordings. The same applies to the 9th with the
same forces, but I would "rank" Kubelik/SOBR equally highly. But even
for those pieces, I could easily think of a number of other recordings
which I also enjoy a lot.
These are some of my favorites, but not the "absolute" ones, and that
doesn't even take into account that some of these are for different
versions and editions.
1 WDR/Wand, Sawallisch/BStO, Jochum/SD
2 Giulini/WS, Chailly/KCA, Wand/WDR
3 Karajan/BP, Sinopoli/SD, Jochum/SD
4 Abbado/WP, Böhm/WP, Jochum/SD, Sinopoli/SD, Salonen/LAP, Karajan/BP
(EMI), Wand/NDR, Blomstedt/SFS
5 Karajan/BP, Harnoncourt/WP, Abbado/WP, Jochum/SD, Sinopoli/SD,
Chailly/CA, Wand/BP, Wand/NDR
6 Jochum/SD, Dohnányi/ClO, Wand/NDR
7 Karajan/BP (EMI), Sinopoli/SD, Blomstedt/SD, Böhm/WP, Dohnányi/ClO,
Giulini/WP, Maazel/BP
8 Giulini/WP, Sinopoli/SD, Karajan/WP, Wand/BP, Wand/NDR, Boulez/WP,
Böhm/WP, Jochum/SD
9 Giulini/WP, Kubelik/SOBR, Dohnányi/ClO, Wand/BP, Wand/NDR, Wand/
WDR, Mehta/WP, Jochum/SD
- but not necessarily in the order given!
Michael Schaffer
> However, for highly characterized playing, I'd urge you to try
> Matacic's live Bruckner 3 with the Philharmonia on BBC Legends.
> Osborne hated it in the Gramophone as I recall, but it's one of my all-
> time favourite Bruckner performances (inevitably, though, that's an
> opinion coloured by the fact that I was at the concert too, and was
> completely blown away by it).
I just read the review, it's not that negative, I would rather call it
"reserved", but what you say does sound interesting. It is still
available on amazon, so I put it on my wishlist to think about it a
little. I also discovered there is a recording of the 9th with him and
the SB, and I ordered that. There is a 5th with ONF which I hear is in
some crazy edition he prepared himself. But since I am something of an
ONF fan, I may have to get that at some point...
Bob Harper
(snip)
> I heard that Bruckner 9th as well, and I left very disappointed -
> Abbado rushed
> every climax, and led a generally badly paced performance. Gramophone
> raves in
> the current issue about Abbado's recording of the 4th.
>
> Marc Perman
In this instance rightly so. As I stated earlier, it's a fabulous
performance.
Bob Harper
Lionel Tacchini
>
> These are some of my favorites, but not the "absolute" ones, and that
> doesn't even take into account that some of these are for different
> versions and editions.
>
> 1 WDR/Wand, Sawallisch/BStO, Jochum/SD
> 2 Giulini/WS, Chailly/KCA, Wand/WDR
> 3 Karajan/BP, Sinopoli/SD, Jochum/SD
> 4 Abbado/WP, Böhm/WP, Jochum/SD, Sinopoli/SD, Salonen/LAP, Karajan/BP
What Salonen did with the 4th sounds like utter nonsense to me.
The opposite to this will be Harnoncourt, who seems to take all the
right tempi throughout.
Lionel Tacchini
Lionel Tacchini
> On Mar 21, 2:31 pm, "Lionel Tacchini" <lionel.tacch...@arcor.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jochum will get the music to speak most clearly after Furtwängler,
> > with the advantage of clean stereo sound.
>
> Your choice of words is interesting. "Clarity" is not what I think of
> when I listen to Furtwängler's Bruckner. Had you said "passion," I
> would be in complete agreement.
I mean clarity of discourse, to which passion usually contributes.
> Jochum's stereo 9th with the BPO is a close 2nd to Furtwaengler's in
> intensity, in much better stereo sound, as you say, but somehow
> lacking that last ounce of hellish fire that Furtwängler conjures.
I wonder how much of that fire is inherent to the tape distorsion but
it is right that Furtwängler's conducting is yet one more level higher
in intensity than Jochum's.
> > His 4th, either on DG or EMI will be an open book in comparison to
> > Böhm's.
>
> Why do you feel that Bruckner should go only one way?
I don't think I am implying any of this.
Jochum's 4th is more immediately intelligible than Böhm's, which is
why I compare it to an open book.
It is the performance which gave me the feeling to have "got it" at
last, after having spent much time listening to Wand/Köln.
This is why I would always recommend Jochum to newcomers. His approach
is better at showing the way.
Lionel Tacchini
Andrej Kluge
Lionel Tacchini wrote:
> Jochum's 4th is more immediately intelligible than Böhm's, which is
> why I compare it to an open book.
> It is the performance which gave me the feeling to have "got it" at
> last, after having spent much time listening to Wand/Köln.
> This is why I would always recommend Jochum to newcomers. His approach
> is better at showing the way.
But didn't you say elsewhere that only Harnoncourt takes all the right tempi
throughout? What tempi takes Jochum then?
Ciao
A.
Lionel Tacchini
I think they are close, with Jochum being slightly slower in places.
It would be interesting to compare how both handle the tempo
relationships within movements, which very much determines how well
this music works.
Lionel Tacchini
phlmae...@yahoo.com
wrote:
extremely impressive performance of it here in Philly with the VPO a
few years ago.
I ordered that Abbado/VPO fourth last night, so I'll probably get
around to hearing that next week.
Barry
rkhalona
wrote:
>
> > Jochum's stereo 9th with the BPO is a close 2nd to Furtwaengler's in
> > intensity, in much better stereo sound, as you say, but somehow
> > lacking that last ounce of hellish fire that Furtwängler conjures.
>
> I wonder how much of that fire is inherent to the tape distorsion but
> it is right that Furtwängler's conducting is yet one more level higher
> in intensity than Jochum's.
>
I have no doubt that tape distortion contributes somewhat to the
psychological impact the Furtwängler recording makes, but there is no
denying the sense of urgency and the feeling that he and the musicians
are playing for their lives, as it were.
> > > His 4th, either on DG or EMI will be an open book in comparison to
> > > Böhm's.
>
> > Why do you feel that Bruckner should go only one way?
>
> I don't think I am implying any of this.
> Jochum's 4th is more immediately intelligible than Böhm's, which is
> why I compare it to an open book.
It is more "intelligible" to you perhaps, but you have to allow for
the possibility that it might not be to some people. I also love
Jochum's Bruckner, but I can understand why some listeners are put off
by Jochum's less-than-steady tempo choices. In that sense, Böhm's 4th
is far preferable. You might call it boring, but my perception of it
is far from it. I am happy that I don't have to choose between
them :-)
> It is the performance which gave me the feeling to have "got it" at
> last, after having spent much time listening to Wand/Köln.
> This is why I would always recommend Jochum to newcomers. His approach
> is better at showing the way.
I can easily see why the opposite would work from some newcomers to
Bruckner. A common complaint from people is that Bruckner's music is
too much "stop-and-go" and that an unsteady tempo would only emphasize
this quality. Your satisfying experience at arriving to Jochum from
Wand just happened to work the other way around. Incidentally, there
are times when, depending on my mood, only a fast B4 will do. I keep
Klemperer's COA B4 (1947) handy for such occasions. :-)
RK
Lionel Tacchini
> On Mar 23, 5:05 am, "Lionel Tacchini" <lionel.tacch...@arcor.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Jochum's stereo 9th with the BPO is a close 2nd to Furtwaengler's in
> > > intensity, in much better stereo sound, as you say, but somehow
> > > lacking that last ounce of hellish fire that Furtwängler conjures.
>
> > I wonder how much of that fire is inherent to the tape distorsion but
> > it is right that Furtwängler's conducting is yet one more level higher
> > in intensity than Jochum's.
>
> I have no doubt that tape distortion contributes somewhat to the
> psychological impact the Furtwängler recording makes, but there is no
> denying the sense of urgency and the feeling that he and the musicians
> are playing for their lives, as it were.
>
> > > > His 4th, either on DG or EMI will be an open book in comparison to
> > > > Böhm's.
>
> > > Why do you feel that Bruckner should go only one way?
>
> > I don't think I am implying any of this.
> > Jochum's 4th is more immediately intelligible than Böhm's, which is
> > why I compare it to an open book.
>
> It is more "intelligible" to you perhaps, but you have to allow for
> the possibility that it might not be to some people.
No, no, if I have trouble understanding something, then it's explained
badly. No one understands what I don't ;-)
> I also love
> Jochum's Bruckner, but I can understand why some listeners are put off
> by Jochum's less-than-steady tempo choices.
I believe this is more a matter of taste, the steady pulse brings
something perceived as aristocratic.
> In that sense, Böhm's 4th
> is far preferable. You might call it boring, but my perception of it
> is far from it.
Well, the music isn't boring in the first place so I guess it can't be
completely erased ...
> > It is the performance which gave me the feeling to have "got it" at
> > last, after having spent much time listening to Wand/Köln.
> > This is why I would always recommend Jochum to newcomers. His approach
> > is better at showing the way.
>
> I can easily see why the opposite would work from some newcomers to
> Bruckner. A common complaint from people is that Bruckner's music is
> too much "stop-and-go" and that an unsteady tempo would only emphasize
> this quality. Your satisfying experience at arriving to Jochum from
> Wand just happened to work the other way around. Incidentally, there
> are times when, depending on my mood, only a fast B4 will do. I keep
> Klemperer's COA B4 (1947) handy for such occasions. :-)
Oh yes, no doubt about this, but we both know this music well enough
to take it in any form.
Try Melkus and the Orchester der Deutschen Kinderärzte (no joke) for
an equally fast and successful reading in modern sound.
Small orchestra, 55 mn, no cuts.
As to intelligibility, I keep comparing this to punctuation and
intonation in speech. It can be enlightening, neutral or bewildering
and this is exactly where I put Jochum, Böhm and Salonen respectively.
Lionel Tacchini - and Maazel is "caricatural"
TareeDawg
news:1174679090....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On 23 Mrz., 19:21, "rkhalona" <rkhal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I also love
>> Jochum's Bruckner, but I can understand why some listeners are put off
>> by Jochum's less-than-steady tempo choices.
>I believe this is more a matter of taste, the steady pulse brings
>something perceived as aristocratic.
To these ears, Boehm's steady pulse, brings a certain level of intensity,
that raises it above Jochum. This steadiness doesn't equate to me as being
anything like "aristocratic". And the VPO do play magnificently. A wonderful
CD, superbly recorded.
Ray H
Taree, NSW
John_H...@msn.com
> Ferris92 wrote:
> > I'm just beginning to listen to Bruckner's work now (I have editions
> > of the 4th and 8th Symphonies, both of which I have grown to like
> > quite a bit) and am looking to get more. But I think it'd be worth
> > it, instead of slowly picking up every symphony and then slowly
> > collecting multiple versions to get a copy of everything in one fell
> > swoop and then work on multiples. Is there an optimal cycle to start
> > with?
>
> > >From what I've read around here Jochum is well thought of, as well as
> > Haitink. Does Wand have a full cycle? And as a rule I like to stay
> > as far away from von Karajan as possible
>
> Why?
>
>
>
> > (though honestly I haven't
> > heard his Bruckner).
>
> > By the way, the two recordings I have (and like) are Karl Bohm and the
> > Wiener Philharmonic doing the 4th and Pierre Boulez with the same
> > orchestra doing the 8th.
>
> > Any advice would be appreciated...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again, for all the conservative nostalgic lusting Bruckner fans the
best commercial recordings of the Bruckner 4th, 7th and 9th are with
Bruno Walter and the Columbial Symphony Orchestra. I do enjoy the
relatively recent 8th with Boulez on DG (although unfortunately
distantly recorded by the usual German engineers who have lost their
touch over time with sound, music and noise - probably heavily
influenced by the over reverbed distantly recorded abominations of von
K in the past!). Try Josef Keilberth for the 6 and Furtwaengler
whenever available (especially the 5th). If you are forced for a
complete set go for Jochum's first traversal (I recently passed it up
at Academy in Williamsberg on lp - complete cycle $20 on lp). I have
a few of them already and was in a cheap mood. Avoid Haitink at all
costs (then again, buy Haitink and when you mature you can play them
as bad examples of interpretation). Hauser
Michael Schaffer
John_H...@msn.com wrote:
> On Mar 21, 8:19 pm, "Michael Schaffer" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ferris92 wrote:
> > > I'm just beginning to listen to Bruckner's work now (I have editions
> > > of the 4th and 8th Symphonies, both of which I have grown to like
> > > quite a bit) and am looking to get more. But I think it'd be worth
> > > it, instead of slowly picking up every symphony and then slowly
> > > collecting multiple versions to get a copy of everything in one fell
> > > swoop and then work on multiples. Is there an optimal cycle to start
> > > with?
> >
> > > >From what I've read around here Jochum is well thought of, as well as
> > > Haitink. Does Wand have a full cycle? And as a rule I like to stay
> > > as far away from von Karajan as possible
> >
> > Why?
> >
> >
> >
> > > (though honestly I haven't
> > > heard his Bruckner).
> >
> > > By the way, the two recordings I have (and like) are Karl Bohm and the
> > > Wiener Philharmonic doing the 4th and Pierre Boulez with the same
> > > orchestra doing the 8th.
> >
> > > Any advice would be appreciated...- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Again, for all the conservative nostalgic lusting Bruckner fans the
> best commercial recordings of the Bruckner 4th, 7th and 9th are with
> Bruno Walter and the Columbial Symphony Orchestra.
Nah, those are nicely conducted, but the playing is extremely bland
and unstylish and completely lacks any kind of idiomatic Bruckner
sound and feeling. They executre the notes well that Walter wants them
to play, nice recordings, and Walter provides many insights into the
inner structure of the music, but one can do much better than these,
no matter what interpretive style one wants.
> I do enjoy the
> relatively recent 8th with Boulez on DG (although unfortunately
> distantly recorded by the usual German engineers who have lost their
> touch over time with sound, music and noise - probably heavily
> influenced by the over reverbed distantly recorded abominations of von
> K in the past!).
Bull. Many of even DG's recordings sound completely different from
their Karajan recordings. Including this one. This has basically
nothing to do with the Karajan sound. It's not even particularly
distantly recorded. The reason it has so much reverb is that *it was
recorded in a gigantic church* with a very high ceiling and tons of
highly reflective surfaces all over the place. I wish they had
recorded it in the Musikverein where DG does very well - at least
osmetimes. But still, I can "live" with it the way it is. There is
much worse. At least the sonorities are fairly "natural".
> Try Josef Keilberth for the 6 and Furtwaengler
> whenever available (especially the 5th). If you are forced for a
> complete set go for Jochum's first traversal (I recently passed it up
> at Academy in Williamsberg on lp - complete cycle $20 on lp). I have
> a few of them already and was in a cheap mood. Avoid Haitink at all
> costs (then again, buy Haitink and when you mature you can play them
> as bad examples of interpretation).
Funny you speak of "mature" here, your strange biases against
accomplished artists like Haitink and Karajan are nothing remotely
like mature at all, and they have nothing to do with an informed
opinion. I understand that a lot of people need to have these biases
to make up for lack of musical knowledge. I am pretty sure you
wouldn't be able to tell any of these differences between them and
other people you celebrate in one of my blind tests.
> Hauser
John_H...@msn.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The real "bull" are your blind tests; come over to my neck of the
woods and I will give you a blind test that will make your head spin
more than Linda Blairs. I listened to your stuff over the computer
and the poorly thin sound that you achieved over the web (and think a
little bit what the web metaphor means) gives no one any idea of the
actual sound on the recording. As to "mature", the blind test is
something I and the few classical music peers I had at the time (at 16
years of age), is hardly a mature situation: more an elitist type of
musical one-upmanship of a most infantile mind. Now, you operate by
such immature double standards: in the past you complain about the
Toscanini hype (and you are most ignorant of conductors of the golden
age "it ain't even funny bub" but listening to enough of the hype that
von K and Haitink achieved in the 70s surpassed anything they
recorded. Heard them live too - Haitink several times with the NY
Phil - now that is bland conducting. But lastly I take refuge in the
axiom that we all are entitled to our tastes however "strange" (in my
case) or ignorant and close-minded (in your case) that they are. The
details in the Walter performances - the clearly outlined contrapuntal
endings he achieved in the 4th and 7th are clearly beyond your
listening abilities. Oh and yes I saw the picture of the church and
am able to read liner notes in the Boulez/Bruckner and golly it was
recorded in a church. What condescention. You are very lucky you
came from a class structure in Germany and can flit around the U.S.
and can make sneering remarks about the superficiality of U.S.
culture. You are so entitled! What is most infuriating is that I
(with my German heritage) have to see you as a product of present day
Germany (Do you wear a monocle?). How sad. Pardon the ad hominem
remarks but that's where you usually go anyhow with your snide remarks
and I'm sure you are comfortable with that (by the way, I know where
Bamberg is and listened to Garaguly many moons ago - Nielsen 2 with
Tivoli Orchestra - Do you know where Copenhagen is?). Hauser
phlmae...@yahoo.com
> > On Mar 21, 11:04 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > You should certainly hear Abbado's VPO Bruckner 4th. I just got it at a
> > > friend's urging, and it is outstanding. The playing beggars description;
> > > this is music this orchestra was born to play. And it's one of the best
> > > things I've ever heard from Abbado, not normally one of my favorite
> > > conductors.
>
> > > Bob Harper
>
> on. An oustanding performance, and one that is really worth getting
> because it's not quite like any other I know. Abbado bases his
> Bruckner sound on a warm, rich string sound, it's not dominated by the
> brass, but in the right moments, and only in the "right" moments, he
>>
Thanks to both of you. I received the Abbado Bruckner 4 today and like
it every bit as much as you thought I might.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
(snip)
Klemperer's EMI recordings
> are wildly uneven, ranging from the compelling to the curiously
> disengaged.
(snip)
Speaking of Klemperer's Bruckner, when, oh when, is his recording of the
5th going to get reissued with the best possible mastering? EMI's recent
remasterings have generally been substantially better than those done in
1987, when the EMI Studio version came out. The performance deserves it.
Bob Harper