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

[BBMmk2]

Really like the Chailly

People speak highly of the Simone Young, but I haven’t heard her performance.

Yes, they do and well deserved but when you have heard the Y S-N, then the Chailly, the work under the two latter conductors, then you hear the Chailly, it's then you realise how good Chailly's version actually is. stand on it's own, most comfortably.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I only have the VPO/Bohm recording - generally well received, and in stunning sound.

[Beef Oven!]

I only have the VPO/Bohm recording - generally well received, and in stunning sound.

I seemed to have overlooked the excellent Decca Bohm, even though a copy lies on my shelf and has done so for many years!

I imagine that this will get some attention, Saturday morning. It is excellent.

As a host, would you mind adding the Marthe CD/download to the list of available recordings?

[teamsaint]

Ok, just to be clear, and FWIW, the accusation of trolling in an environment like this, should IMO be reserved for those who really are trolling, ( which happens very seldom since the P and CA thread closed in fact ) and not for those with whom we honestly, and perhaps forthrightly disagree.

It really should not be aimed at one of the few people who contribute regularly and on a wide range of music .

[ahinton]

Ok, just to be clear, and FWIW, the accusation of trolling in an environment like this, should IMO be reserved for those who really are trolling, ( which happens very seldom since the P and CA thread closed in fact ) and not for those with whom we honestly, and perhaps forthrightly disagree.

It really should not be aimed at one of the few people who contribute regularly and on a wide range of music .

I don't disagree - and, FWIW and for the record, I for one have no interest in accusing any contributor to this thread of trolling, regardless of what I might agree or disagree with in the contributions themselves.

[Beef Oven!]

I only have the VPO/Bohm recording - generally well received, and in stunning sound.

Alpensinfonie, could you please add the Peter Jan Marthe recording to the list of available recordings? I’m not sure why it isn’t listed and despite bringing it to your attention, it is being ignored. Seems strange to leave off an available recording that we know about. It’s available as a download and CD. Is there a reason why you won’t list it it that you won’t tell us about? How come you don’t respond - are you playing some kind of game? It seems quite strange. Any explanation?

[ahinton]

Alpensinfonie, could you please add the Peter Jan Marthe recording to the list of available recordings? I’m not sure why it isn’t listed and despite bringing it to your attention, it is being ignored. Seems strange to leave off an available recording that we know about. It’s available as a download and CD. Is there a reason why you won’t list it it that you won’t tell us about? How come you don’t respond - are you playing some kind of game? It seems quite strange. Any explanation?

Well, Gijs van der Meijden includes a piece about the Marthé "reloading" of the Ninth's finale in the part of his essay to which I referred earlier that deals with available recordings of the various versions thereof (although you say that it is unlikely that you'll get around to reading it), so one could say that there appears to be no obvious reason to exclude his "reloading" of the Third; however, I do believe that it will inevitably have to be regarded as something of a "case apart" (from the others) given its historical background, rather as Mr van der Meijden does with the "reloaded" Ninth's finale. The stock answer to the question as to why anyone would want to climb Everest seems to apply here...

To save you the trouble of looking it up, downloading it and finding the page concerned, here's the piece about the Marthé Ninth finale:


Peter Jan Marthé
Preiser records
PR70928
Recorded live in Stiftskirche St. Florian
Contains Bruckner's Ninth Symphony, movements 1-3 plus freely composed Finale by Peter Jan Marthé.

I would advise those who have, so far, enjoyed the pleasant tone of writing in this essay and would not wish this impression to be undermined, to skip the next bit, for in order to say what I feel needs be said about this I will need to use some pretty strong language.

Marthé, insofar as I can understand from his rather overheated booklet notes, seems to claim that he has not merely "completed" the Finale but rather written it as Bruckner had intended but could not; moreover, he has apparently done this not merely from a personal impulse but was pressed to do so by no less than Bruckner himself who, one is intended to believe, appeared to him in some sort of visions, coaxing him on to write the Finale.

In writing his Finale, Marthé simply abandoned the idea of utilising the score as left by Bruckner, preferring instead to take various ideas from it to produce a new score. After listening to the product I can only say that what Marthé produced is not so much a Finale to the Ninth but more a hotchpotch – a big, overloaded and loud hotchpotch – of a contraption, and the best that might be said about it is that it occasionally – but only occasionally! – manages to sound vaguely like Bruckner, sometimes even slightly of what actually exists of the Finale to the 9th. This contraption is stylistically all over the place, an amalgamation of disconnected bits and pieces that at best sound vaguely Bruckner-ish, Mahler-ish and various other –ishes, but mainly one hears Marthé. The impression that one derives after tortuously traversing this item is that of a huge amount of grandiloquence (something entirely alien to Bruckner!) and one that has little or nothing to do with what Bruckner left us of his Finale or, for that matter, with Bruckner in general. To add insult to injury, this whole shebang was performed and recorded in St. Florian itself, receptacle of Bruckner’s earthly remains.

No doubt this piece – which Marthé himself describes as an example of "Bruckner reloaded" (whatever that may mean – was Bruckner some kind of firearm?) has its supporters and admirers; however, with any respect for the legacy of Bruckner or, for that matter, with Bruckner in general, this "Finale" has very little, if anything, to do. To be avoided!


The very fact that the blurb describes this as "freely composed" by Marthé alone sets it aside from any of the actual versions created solely from available surviving sources in Bruckner's hand so, in that sense, including it alongside those other versions inevitably presumes a caveat all its own.

It would also be salutary, I think, to read Marthé's essays on the 3rd and 9th on the same website for the purpose of gleaning some idea as to where he seems to have been coming from in working on those two symphonies.

[BBMmk2]

With reference to Peter Marthe's edition, I think I could live without it, if Beefy's description lives up to his written words. Why would someone deviate from the score and make his own ideas from certain sources? It be better in keeping to try and make a performing edition that makes some sense to it?

[Beef Oven!]

With reference to Peter Marthe's edition, I think I could live without it, if Beefy's description lives up to his written words. Why would someone deviate from the score and make his own ideas from certain sources? It be better in keeping to try and make a performing edition that makes some sense to it?

What Marthe has done is to conflate the three different editions into one new edition, and reversed the order of the adagio and scherzo. It’s available on CD and download for anyone who fancies a new perspective on the symphony. If it’s not your cup of tea, you can ignore it. Personally speaking, I find it an extremely enjoyable listen, but it would not be my top choice. It will of course offend the purists, conservatives and the more lait-straced in our community.

What I find strange is why Alpensinfonie is refusing to list it as an available recording or respond to my polite request; and why some people are getting their knickers in such a twist about this recording - it’s hardly a big deal!

The sad thing is that all this has given this recording way more publicity than it deserves. Any publicity is good publicity on these matters!

[vinteuil]

.

... can we at least get it right - "strait laced", as in "strait jacket", as in "strait is the gate", as in "straits of Malacca", viz tight, constraining ; not "straight"...

[Beef Oven!]

.

... can we at least get it right - "strait laced", as in "strait jacket", as in "strait is the gate", as in "straits of Malacca", viz tight, constraining ; not "straight"...

I rarely get things like that right!

Ok, strait-laced it is (is it ok that I feel that straight-laced looks better?)

"As strait is now old-fashioned and unfamiliar, however, people often interpret it as the more usual word straight.” OED

Anyway, it’s the purist that has me chomping on the bit.

[ahinton]

What Marthe has done is to conflate the three different editions into one new edition, and reversed the order of the adagio and scherzo. It’s available on CD and download for anyone who fancies a new perspective on the symphony. If it’s not your cup of tea, you can ignore it. Personally speaking, I find it an extremely enjoyable listen, but it would not be my top choice. It will of course offend the purists, conservatives and the more straight-laced in our community.

What I find strange is why Alpensinfonie is refusing to list it as an available recording or respond to my polite request; and why some people are getting their knickers in such a twist about this recording - it’s hardly a big deal!

The sad thing is that all this has given this recording way more publicity than it deserves. Any publicity is good publicity on these matters!

Here's some of what PJM has to say about the Third Symphony and his work on it.


If only you put together the "Third's" all existing autographs (from 1873 to 1889!), you will be able to guess what was Bruckner's intention of a giant new form of "symphony". That time inconceivable for his contemporaries! Several times Bruckner tried desperately to record this unprecendented "symphonic idea" (a shattered work of 16 years) within a score for posterity. Unfortunately he failed. After more than 130 years it's time to solve this problem and to present the "Third" in a form, which will open this symphony to the world's public in a force never heard before.
OK, so PJM's aware of the various versions but is convinced - and wishes to convince his readers and listeners - that Bruckner failed with this work. AS for the "gigantic" aspect of the work, how much more so is it that Liszt's A Faust Symphony?

He then writes:

What's inside must out!
Bruckner versus Wagner?

It was the symphony he tried to buy Wagner's favour with - his "Third" - which the composer left as a scene of devastation on the time of his passing. The legacy was as follows: First version of 1873, second version of 1877, independent Adagio for the "Third" in 1876 and the third version followed in 1889 (for that version for the final movement no autograph of the composer is existing, just a very distorted finale by Franz Schalk).

Result of the music sciences:
"On checking the "Third's" completely located manuscripts it is impossible to establish a score corresponding to the composer's unambiguous intention.

For present and future performances the problem remains that there is to decide in favour of one of the many versions in every single case" (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Leopold Novak )

It's really time to approach Bruckner's problem child by a completely different way. After more than 130 years the "Third" will be revealed to all fans of Bruckner around the globe in its entire greatness and force.

"What's inside must out!", Bruckner once said - and the "Third" became gigantic. Soon Bruckner had to see that his new plans of composing will lead to the recreation of "symphony" by a radical overthrow of all valid classic symphonic principles established by Beethoven. No longer symphony should be the arena for thematic-musical first-class-performances of vigorous composers. It should be THE medium revealing mankind's archaic-magical inner worlds by music!
OK, so not only did Bruckner fail with this symphony but PJM appears to see himself by implication as our only reliable guide in rescuing it from that failure, for he alone has access to Bruckner's "unabiguous intention"! - not to mention the "roll over, Beethoven" bit...

Later, he notes:
Devoted he offered Wagner the dedication of a symphony almost bursting of Wagner quotations. But with the same breath this was his unmistakable declaration of war on the absolute claim of self-satisfied Wagner: That symphony is bankrupt since Beethoven's "Ninth" and has found its only legitimate succession in the music drama (that means of course in Wagner's music drama). We know that Wagner would have tried to get Beethoven's blessing in the same way as Bruckner did it with Wagner. After Wagner accepted Bruckner's dedication Bruckner deleted most of the Wagner quotations from the symphony! In fact incredible: Siegfried's sword (Bruckner's "Third") should destroy Wotan's spear (Wagner's absolute claim on supremacy over musical drama). P.S.: The well-deserved and posthumous victory of Bruckner over Wagner's claim could be possibly found now in the irritation of all fans of Wagner: To reveal the provoking "Third" in its originally thought form and giantic[sic] greatness. So to promote the old argument of who will get the trophy - the symphony or the music drama.

But, that time Bruckner played poker too high and paid it with the disaster of 1877. Moreover almost whole of his remaining life he will not rest to remodel the "Third" in always new and despairing attempts to give it its final form. In vain, as we know today. It remained unfinished (as the "Ninth" did too), but in a way that we don't know how it's final form was thought in the end.
We're now on a ride in a fantasy-land that conveniently ignores the fact that Wagner was contemplating writing a symphony after completing Parsifal...

And so it continues, in a manner that almost suggests a kind of unsavoury blend of Davids Icke and Irving, its mix of the arrogant and the fantastical surely being unique in the field of Bruckner scholarship and performance? But please don't take my word for it; read PJM's essays on 3 & 9 for yourselves!

[Beef Oven!]

Here's some of what PJM has to say about the Third Symphony and his work on it.

David Icke and David Irving? Jayne talks about Brexit (twice) and talks about 'post-truth’. This is a must-hear recording of Bruckner 3!!!!

(I’ve read the notes on this recording, there’s no need to keep rushing stuff up and posting it)

[ahinton]

David Icke and David Irving? Jayne talks about Brexit (twice) and talks about 'post-truth’. This is a must-hear recording of Bruckner 3!!!!

No - it's a hear if you must recording of the work of the someone who is almost certainly the only musician ever to identify and find a cure for Bruckner's failures through having direct access to the composer as a means to establish in his mind what his true intentions actually were; I don't know about "post-truth" but I do seriously suspect "fake news" here...

"Bruckner reoladed"? Bruckner backfired, more like!

[Beef Oven!]

No - it's a hear if you must recording of the work of the someone who is almost certainly the only musician ever to identify and find a cure for Bruckner's failures through having direct access to the composer as a means to establish in his mind what his true intentions actually were; I don't know about "post-truth" but I do seriously suspect "fake news" here...

Like I said, he’s idiosyncratic. You shouldn’t take him too seriously. After all its the music that matters. It’s a really great recording. Not the best, but definitely worthwhile.