BaL 20.02.21 - Bruckner: Symphony no. 6

[jayne lee wilson]

This will be an interesting one as, to this day, only one recording of this work seems to receive all-round acclaim (that’s Klemperer way back in ‘64). Karajan’s sight-reading (that’s what it sounds like) is the black spot on his integrale.

I like Blomstedt’s San Francisco recording, but I’m almost certainly wrong to do so.

I think you'll find that isn't even true of this very thread....(see page 1...)...

[Petrushka]

I think you'll find that isn't even true of this very thread....(see page 1...)...

Ahem! It's humble pie time here. I've just finished playing the 1964 Klemperer recording and have to admit that I found it a thrilling listen, a complete reversal of my previous thoughts on this recording . In mitigation, I bought the original 1990 CD reissue which sounded rough, and I didn't know the symphony at all at that time. Since then, I've had several changes of equipment, bought 19 other versions of the 6th and listened to it tonight, for the first time, in the latest remastering in the Warner Klemperer box of his Bruckner recordings.

The upshot is that I will now add the Klemperer to my other two favourites, BRSO/Haitink and NDR SO/Wand.

Has anyone else had a Damascene conversion to a recording previously written off?

[BBMmk2]

B6 is my least favourite of the canon. I like all the others, only this one, doesn’t have that subtle Brucknerian magic.

[mikealdren]

Has anyone else had a Damascene conversion to a recording previously written off?

None that springs to mind but I have recordings that I used to like but no longer do. I've certainly got recordings that have been greatly improved by better transfers and some of the big labels have a lot to answer for, quite a few early EMI reissues were particularly bad.

[Goon525]

This will be an interesting one as, to this day, only one recording of this work seems to receive all-round acclaim (that’s Klemperer way back in ‘64). Karajan’s sight-reading (that’s what it sounds like) is the black spot on his integrale.

I like Blomstedt’s San Francisco recording, but I’m almost certainly wrong to do so.

I have Blomstedt’s 7th with the Dresden Staatskapelle - on Denon, very early CD but brilliantly recorded, giving the lie to the idea that early digital had to sound harsh. Oh, and a fine performance too.

[jayne lee wilson]

I thought I'd do a few reappraisals of the more recent, or less often heard Bruckner 6ths....

Revisiting the LSO/Rattle after some time, the first and last thing to say is that I find it very hard to fault.

Just listen to the endless singing melody of his adagio, so perfectly paced and contrapuntally balanced; so effortlessly natural. Rattle only needs 17’19 to make time, rather than the music, stand still. Lovely warmth from the LSO strings, surprising, depth, warmth and atmosphere from the Barbican off the SACD. There ’s an inviting softness and roundness to the sound balance.

Then the scherzo creeps in, a nice tongue-in-cheek jauntiness out of the shadows of the slow movement’s coda, at a classic 8’+ (which always seems a perfect pace for this piece). The trio is deftly witty in its self-references and pastoral evocations. Wind solos and combos are a joy throughout.

Subtlety is the key to Rattle’s 1st movement: taking great care to keep the tricky rhythms clear through the whole span, and gradually turning on the power, dynamics graded so only coda and conclusion truly blaze.
The finale sweeps along so smoothly, it would be easy to take such subtle, natural rubato for granted; one shouldn't, with a piece so many conductors find problematic, with various rushed, stiff, stop-go effortful attempts to make sense of music they haven’t quite grasped. Again, never a detail missed or overstated; marvellous subtlety in dynamics and phrase, all so affectionate and idiomatic. The signatory 2+3 figure that gradually insinuates into the finale is as convincingly natural, fluid and songful, woven so seamlessly in, as I’ve ever enjoyed.If one were to pick out just one element of this exceptional reading, it would be pacing; in 5 decades of listening to this symphony, I’ve never heard it better judged.

The Barbican can never be the ideal Bruckner soundspace, but the slightly dull or muted sound at lower levels and the lack of a vividly present acoustic is excitingly offset by that explosive dynamic response, and the sheer body of orchestral sound, as the levels rise; pianissimos are magically soft at the other extreme.

(And yes - very disappointed in RO’s carping review; puzzled by his comments on the sound balance, which I find perfectly consistent throughout, certainly not “thin and shallow” and never blaring; the end is especially thrilling here.
RO is a great Brucknerian from whom I’ve learnt a lot; but I wonder if his familiar touchstones colour his judgment more than they used..)

[Nick Armstrong]

Ahem! It's humble pie time here. I've just finished playing the 1964 Klemperer recording and have to admit that I found it a thrilling listen, a complete reversal of my previous thoughts on this recording
...
Has anyone else had a Damascene conversion to a recording previously written off?

Well I too found it impossible to warm to the Klemperer performance of this Symphony which I love. The piece just didn’t speak to me as it did, say, with Sawallisch’s Orfeo reading. To the extent that the Klemperer CD went in The Big CD Clearout of 2014...

Not sure I’ll get around to re-evaluating it. I can’t remember any instance of a Damascene conversion of the kind you mention I admire your open ears & mind!

[Goon525]

Like Jayne, I’ve long been a fan of RO. But I wouldn’t trust his views on sound quality.

[Petrushka]

Well I too found it impossible to warm to the Klemperer performance of this Symphony which I love. The piece just didn’t speak to me as it did, say, with Sawallisch’s Orfeo reading. To the extent that the Klemperer CD went in The Big CD Clearout of 2014...

Not sure I’ll get around to re-evaluating it. I can’t remember any instance of a Damascene conversion of the kind you mention I admire your open ears & mind!

If you bought the original 1990 CD issue of the Klemperer I'd strongly recommend listening to the Warner 2012 remaster included in the Klemperer Bruckner box. It's in a completely different league, soundwise. I'm not sure about the GROC remaster as I've not heard it.

I found the first movement of the Sawallisch too fast which is a shame as the rest of the performance is excellent.

[jayne lee wilson]

If you bought the original 1990 CD issue of the Klemperer I'd strongly recommend listening to the Warner 2012 remaster included in the Klemperer Bruckner box. It's in a completely different league, soundwise. I'm not sure about the GROC remaster as I've not heard it.

I found the first movement of the Sawallisch too fast which is a shame as the rest of the performance is excellent.

As I said above the GROC is excellent, smoother more spacious and more detailed than the already-pretty-good EMI Studio (I've compared both CDs directly on various playbacks)...
Some nice Gluck and Humperdinck overtures c/w too.

There have been several issues of the EMI 6th, including a Toshiba which I never heard; usually these advance the resolution a shade further than the GROCs.
Klemperer's 6th also features on a live Testament CD with the BBCSO, mono from 1961. Anyone know that one? "Raw-sounding, not very well played" (RO).

Berky lists three, including another live 1961 reading from Amsterdam. Both the BBC and Amsterdam ones are 2-3 minutes quicker than the EMI.

I may investigate these but I want to return to Dausgaard first...

[Nick Armstrong]

If you bought the original 1990 CD issue of the Klemperer I'd strongly recommend listening to the Warner 2012 remaster included in the Klemperer Bruckner box. It's in a completely different league, soundwise. I'm not sure about the GROC remaster as I've not heard it.

I found the first movement of the Sawallisch too fast which is a shame as the rest of the performance is excellent.

Yes, it was the original EMI issue I had.

The Warner box you mean is this one I suppose?



(Is it the same remastering as the GROC or yet another?)

[Petrushka]

Yes, it was the original EMI issue I had.

The Warner box you mean is this one I suppose?



(Is it the same remastering as the GROC or yet another?)

Yes, I played the 6th from that set. You get outstanding performances of 4, 7 & 9, a reasonable one of 5 but the least said about Klemperer's cuts in the 8th the better except you could weep at what 'might have been'. Forget all the nonsense about Klemperer's slow speeds, there's none of that here.

I'm not sure whether the mastering here is identical to the GROC disc.

[Nick Armstrong]

Yes, I played the 6th from that set. You get outstanding performances of 4, 7 & 9, a reasonable one of 5 but the least said about Klemperer's cuts in the 8th the better except you could weep at what 'might have been'. Forget all the nonsense about Klemperer's slow speeds, there's none of that here.

I'm not sure whether the mastering here is identical to the GROC disc.

Thanks

Cued up on Qobuz for a listen...

[jayne lee wilson]

Thanks

Cued up on Qobuz for a listen...

The remasters of the GROCS and the GAOCS were the same ART transfers, so AFAIK the later boxset bundles those together...

QOBUZ may not sound identical though, for various reasons.........

[kea]

I did some personal comparisons with this symphony a while back and ended up putting Sawallisch/Munich in first place, but not far ahead of Haitink/Amsterdam, Norrington/Stuttgart and Blomstedt/Leipzig. Also would highlight Eichhorn/Linz and Rozhdestvensky/Moscow as good interpretations with subpar orchestral playing, and Russell Davies/Linz as the heavily mannered choice for people who've been overexposed to the piece. That said I'm not really familiar with most of the recent recordings.