Bruckner: Symphony no. 3 in D minor BaL 31/12/16

[Beef Oven!]

Bruckner Symphony No.3 (1889 ed. Nowak) Berner SymphonieOrchester/Mario Venzago. CPO CD 2013 (c/w No.6)


What a revelation to hear Venzago directing a performance of the shortest Bruckner 3rd (the 1889 “Now That's What I Call Bruckner" edition) as if it could really be Schubert’s 11th or Mendelssohn’s 6th. Such is the natural transparency of texture, the springy levity of rhythm and swiftly flowing streams of melody, the middle movements especially will make anyone truly “listen again”, and the finale’s coda is uniquely buoyant, clear and classically-voiced: excitement and energy the keynotes, rather than the ubiquitous heavy overlay of conductor-deifying Romantic grandeur. Who needs heroes anymore?

The first movement seems surprisingly moderato, but this allows a lovely rubato-rich, vibrato-lean lyricism to flower across the alpine meadows; a misterioso of the natural world. Venzago, with a Knappertsbusch-like feel for tension and release, those subtle stresses in phrase or paragraph, accelerates away from the main climax even more than Nézet-Séguin, but here sounds closer to the developmental crises in Schubert’s Unfinished than anything Wagnerian. (I was reminded, in the finale too, of that Schubertian, rhythmical rushing-to-despair mode heard in the quartets such as d.810 or d.887.)
The lovely, velvety Berne SO, set fairly close, sounds rather like an auxiliary-reinforced COE. (I do wish they would record Bruckner with someone, the way they did Sibelius with Berglund…). It is a slightly "soft" orchestral character which may need a higher-than-usual volume to allow detail to emerge clearly.

The adagio and trio really sing and dance here, spiritual and sonic sisters to Schubert in andante con moto mode (cf. 4th and 6th Symphonies' 2nd movements), and the principal horn has an Orphic purity. Yet Venzago will dare theshold-of-audibility tremolandos at the adagio’s close. You’ll want to put it straight on repeat.

There’s no getting around the disjointedness of the 1889 edition, but played this way, it almost makes sense of this abridged and patchworked text, because the symphony is, stylistically, returned to its chronological place in Bruckner’s development and that of the classical symphony: after Schubert. The more remarkable for the performers to bring that out so vividly, when it was another remake-and-remodel, with at least some degree of pressured reluctance, from near the end of the composer’s life.

I’m keen on that recording too, ultimately much in the same way as you describe. The smaller string section, minuscule vibrato and subtle tempo variations give considerable clarity, revealing the combination of harmony, rhythm (especially) and melody - that’s to say the musical texture of this symphony. I would stop short of describing it as a revelation as there are other performances that convey much of this, albeit in a different way (I would cite Barenboim and Wand as examples).

The orchestra can kick when Venzago requires and the performance is definitely not short on drama. I would pick out the woodwind section as primus inter pares (that will change, next time ‘round!).

Regarding the version, 1889 ed. Nowak [1959], it doesn’t trouble me. I enjoy all versions of this symphony; for me it’s the execution that is prime. I’ve heard ‘clunky’ renditions of the 1873 which cannot compete with this smooth, svelte Bern SO performance. Remy Ballot’s recording is fabulous in my book, so too is Celibidache (although he’s on best behaviour in #3 for some reason!). And forced at gunpoint to choose just one version, at this moment in time I’d choose the 1877 because I’m loved-up on that coda to the scherzo!

IIRC, Richard Barrett was listening to the Venzago cycle early last year and commented on how revealing the performances of the early symphonies are.

[Alison]

And forced at gunpoint to choose just one version, at this moment in time I’d choose the 1877 because I’m loved-up on that coda to the scherzo!e

!!

[ostuni]

I've just listened to the Venzago on Qobuz: lovely lean, clean string sound (but what a pity he doesn't split his violins!), eloquent woodwind, and brass very present but not overpowering. Light, springy rhythms, and a fabulous coda in iv.

For some reason, I've never bought a score of 1873, but last week's discussion, and the persuasive arguments of both JLW and TS gave me the push to order one from Presto. When it arrives, I'll have a proper listen to the Querstand Blomstedt, which I bought (at a sensible price) a couple of years ago after reading JLW's posts here, but haven't yet given the attention it deserves.

[Barbirollians]

I see that Skrowacewski's recent live recording announces it is an unpublished edition by Maestro Skrowacewski himself . Anyone know what it is based on and how it differs from the published version ? I assume it is not another Marthe conflation .

[Beef Oven!]

I see that Skrowacewski's recent live recording announces it is an unpublished edition by Maestro Skrowacewski himself . Anyone know what it is based on and how it differs from the published version ? I assume it is not another Marthe conflation .

Yes, it’s the 1889 Nowak [1959]. I personally can tell no difference whatsoever. I suspect one would need to be a near-musicologist to know what he’s done here.

And your assumption is right, it’s not like the 2006 'Neufassung' reconstructed from the 1873-1876-1877-1889 editions. Ed. Peter Jan Marthe. Here Marthe has articulated all three of the main editions, 1873, 1877 & 1889, added some minor connecting passages and reversed the order of the scherzo and adagio to produce an amazing cosmic journey through Bruckner 3! PJM thinks it best represents B’s ideas on the matter, which of course is pure fantasy!

By comparison, we can describe Skrowaczewski’s edition as light-touch

[ahinton]

PJM thinks it best represents B’s ideas on the matter, which of course is pure fantasy!

It's fantasy all right but as to its purity I reserve judgement...

[Beef Oven!]

It's fantasy all right but as to its purity I reserve judgement...

Well all the music is pure Bruckner, the impurity is in your mind, perhaps.

[vinteuil]

Well all the music is pure Bruckner ...

... all the right notes—but not necessarily in the right order.

[Beef Oven!]

... all the right notes—but not necessarily in the right order.

[ahinton]

Well all the music is pure Bruckner, the impurity is in your mind, perhaps.

I'm not so sure of the former but at the same time have little doubt as to the latter!

As to PJM's finale to the Ninth (which I realise is not the topic here), the amount of music therein that could be described as "pure Bruckner" is very much open to debate and his work on both 3 & 9 are similarly described as "Bruckner reloaded"...

[ahinton]

... all the right notes—but not necessarily in the right order.

Ah, yes; we need to have it conducted by Andrew Preview...

[Beef Oven!]

I'm not so sure of the former but at the same time have little doubt as to the latter!

As to PJM's finale to the Ninth (which I realise is not the topic here), the amount of music therein that could be described as "pure Bruckner" is very much open to debate and his work on both 3 & 9 are similarly described as "Bruckner reloaded"...

May I suggest you start a thread on these matters? I fear this one is getting a bit disrupted again. Recently, the debate has been quite good.

[jayne lee wilson]

Well all the music is pure Bruckner, the impurity is in your mind, perhaps.

No it isn't, as you said yourself in #290 above, that Marthe "added some minor connecting passages" (he goes much further too, changing dynamics and orchestration all over the place, v. the drumroll at the start of the scherzo, and he doesn't even use the most interesting rhythmical version there either etc etc) and in any case, spatchcocking sections of three versions together and changing movement order is of course re-composition of the most undeniably subjective kind. Marthe even claims elsewhere to have been dictated to by Bruckner himself, and his prose is very much a reflection of his conducting style in - loud vague and bombastic. His performance of Bruckner is all one-note, visionary, mystical, heavenstorming etc etc....

Bruckner is placed at Marthe's service I'm afraid; he does Bruckner's actual music no service at all, even if he's inspired by the love of it.

Anyway if you want something worth reading, I'll be posting a review of Yannick Nézet-Séguin's Staatskapelle recording of 3/1873 later. So there's something to look forward to.

[Beef Oven!]

No it isn't, as you said yourself in #290 above, that Marthe "added some minor connecting passages" (he goes much further too, changing dynamics and orchestration all over the place, v. the drumroll at the start of the scherzo, and he doesn't even use the most interesting rhythmical version there either etc etc) and in any case, spatchcocking sections of three versions together and changing movement order is of course re-composition of the most undeniably subjective kind. Marthe even claims elsewhere to have been dictated to by Bruckner himself, and his prose is very much a reflection of his conducting style in - loud vague and bombastic. His performance of Bruckner is all one-note, visionary, mystical, heavenstorming etc etc....

Bruckner is placed at Marthe's service I'm afraid; he does Bruckner's actual music no service at all, even if he's inspired by the love of it.

Anyway if you want something worth reading, I'll be posting a review of Yannick Nézet-Séguin's Staatskapelle recording of 3/1873 later. So there's something to look forward to.

Don’t let those little passages get in the way of the pure Bruckner, lest you won’t enjoy Marthe’s amazing Bruckner-cosmos-thang.

I very much look forward to your Yannick Nézet-Séguin/Dresden review - may I take a little liberty and ask you to include a brief comparison with his Orchestre Métropolitain recording? I’d be interested in your views on that, as well.

[P. G. Tipps]

Bruckner is placed at Marthe's service I'm afraid; he does Bruckner's actual music no service at all, even if he's inspired by the love of it.:

Little change there, then ...

As to the Skrow's own little 'amendments' I thought I had once attended a Halle concert in Manchester where at least one of those was mentioned in the official programme ... somewhere near the end of either the 3rd or 4th symphony (not sure which). I remember thinking ...'what on earth is the point of that?' as the amendment seemed so minor and trivial to my uneducated ear ... and clearly quite forgettable!

I attended all Skrow's Bruckner concerts at the Halle from 1983-2002 and have just checked the programmes and there is no mention of any amendments. . My memory could be playing tricks and I may have heard it on a radio broadcast or simply, of course, mislaid and lost the relevant programme.

Still, constant amending of the scores does seem to be an established part of the Bruckner tradition even sometimes emanating from what some previously might have thought to be one of the unlikeliest of sources?