Bernard Haitink - the last remaining 'grand master’?

[Petrushka]

I remember a particularly mighty cymbal clash in the Haitink/Chicago SO performance of 7 at the RFH on 24/9/2009 - memorable not least because it came from the CSO's unfeasibly tiny percussionist - Cynthia Yeh? I think Pet, and possibly Alison, were at this performance, my top 7th, looking back over quite a few.

Yes, I was at that performance. Haitink built up that climax to perfection and I've heard him in so many Bruckner 7's I've lost count of them.

Incidentally, not only does Günter Wand omit the cymbal clash, he omits the timpani as well, surely a bridge too far, in my view.

[ardcarp]

I mourned the passing of 'grand masters' Antal Dorati and Pierre Monteux (historical links with Kodaly, Bartok, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky and all that). Will I feel the same about Haitink? Did I feel the same about HvK? Will I feel the same about Rattle...but hang on; he's younger than me!

[cloughie]

I mourned the passing of 'grand masters' Antal Dorati and Pierre Monteux (historical links with Kodaly, Bartok, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky and all that). Will I feel the same about Haitink? Did I feel the same about HvK? Will I feel the same about Rattle...but hang on; he's younger than me!

Haitink certainly matches the masters in Mahler but mention of Monteux - his Daphnis is still top of the pile and all three recordings I have by Uncle Bernie sound dull in comparison (BSO,CSO and LPO).

[gurnemanz]

The first CD I owned was Haitink's Mahler 4 with Elly Ameling.

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, I was at that performance. Haitink built up that climax to perfection and I've heard him in so many Bruckner 7's I've lost count of them.

Incidentally, not only does Günter Wand omit the cymbal clash, he omits the timpani as well, surely a bridge too far, in my view.

He's simply following the Haas edition - as he usually does with any of the symphonies. There are several Wand Recordings available, all listed as Haas and I haven't heard them all, but it would indeed be out of character for Gunter Wand to pick and choose his various details from whatever various editions...

Marques' Summary -

"Symphony no. 7 in E Major
Original version composed from September 23, 1881 to August 10, 1883. First performance in Leipzig (by Arthur Nikisch) on December 30, 1884. The later revision was made once more over the original text, so that an exact edition of the original 1883 version cannot possibly be made, although the Haas edition (1944) restored some parts of it.
1885 version - Some changes were introduced by Bruckner under the influence of Schalk, Loewe, and Nikisch (among others the inclusion of cymbals, triangle, and timpani in the Adagio). These changes were made shortly after the first performance, and are incorporated in the First Edition of the work, published by Gutmann (1885). Some of the changes in tempo and dynamic, although not in Bruckner's hand, were sanctioned by Nowak in his edition (1956) and put between parentheses. If they are skipped, little difference remains between Haas and Nowak. The percussion is likewise maintained by Nowak in the Adagio, while Haas omits it. A famous passage is the cymbal clash (with triangle) at the climax of the Adagio, which some conductors play, others don't."

[Beef Oven!]

Here’s a link to a downloadable podcast of the Radio3 Record review BaL episode of 13th December 2014, on Bruckner 7.

Bernard Haitink’s performance with the Royal Concertgebouw was the winner (IIRC, the November 1966 on Philips, rather than the October 1978 on Philips).

On this BaL podcast, there’s some interesting discussion concerning editions and the cymbal crash.

[P. G. Tipps]

Yes, I was at that performance. Haitink built up that climax to perfection and I've heard him in so many Bruckner 7's I've lost count of them.

Incidentally, not only does Günter Wand omit the cymbal clash, he omits the timpani as well, surely a bridge too far, in my view.

I've never really understood the controversy over the use of percussion in Bruckner 7. Whether it was Bruckner's original idea or not is completely beside the point for me as the clincher surely is the fact that Bruckner then goes on to use a couple of cymbal clashes at the climax of the slow movement of his very next symphony so he clearly had no great antipathy to the idea?

Whereas the Schalk versions of the symphonies are sometimes ruined with bombastic-sounding cymbal clashes the use of percussion in the Seventh greatly enhances the effect of the climax and even adds a bit of 'theatre' to the moment.

In any case there is no such thing as 'pure' Bruckner. The composer was notoriously forever altering his scores to 'improve' them and therefore the symphonies were a constant 'work in progress' for him.

Let's just be thankful he left us so many different versions of his symphonies he ultimately left the final decision on preference to ourselves!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I've never really understood the controversy over the use of percussion in Bruckner 7. Whether it was Bruckner's original idea or not is completely beside the point for me as the clincher surely is the fact that Bruckner then goes on to use a couple of cymbal clashes at the climax of the slow movement of his very next symphony so he clearly had no great antipathy to the idea?

Well - he also used a trio of harps in that "very next Symphony", so if a conductor decided to add those to a performance of the Seventh - to "greatly enhance the effect of the climax and add a bit of 'theatre'", for example - would that also be "completely beside the point" for you?

In any case there is no such thing as 'pure' Bruckner. The composer was notoriously forever altering his scores to 'improve' them and therefore the symphonies were a constant 'work in progress' for him.

"Forever" and "constant" overstate the facts - and there is a vast difference for me between the composer's alterations (which are "pure Bruckner") and those added by other Musicians. There is certainly such a thing as "impure Bruckner".

Let's ... be thankful he left us so many different versions of his symphonies he ultimately left the final decision on preference to ourselves!

Modified - I would pluralise the "final decision": just as Bruckner could hear the different logics of his different perspectives in his amendments, so we, too, can revel in those different perspectives. Each performance should make each edition sound "the right one".

[Beef Oven!]

In any case there is no such thing as 'pure' Bruckner. The composer was notoriously forever altering his scores to 'improve' them and therefore the symphonies were a constant 'work in progress' for him.

Let's just be thankful he left us so many different versions of his symphonies he ultimately left the final decision on preference to ourselves!

[P. G. Tipps]

Well - he also used a trio of harps in that "very next Symphony", so if a conductor decided to add those to a performance of the Seventh - to "greatly enhance the effect of the climax and add a bit of 'theatre'", for example - would that also be "completely beside the point" for you?

Well, obviously not, so that is also 'completely beside the point'!

We are (or at least I am!) talking about the 'controversy' whether Bruckner introduced the percussion in No 7 on the advice of someone else or whether it was his own idea. That, of course, is not particularly important in itself if we believe that the composer definitely agreed that it should be included?

A thorough oddball Bruckner may well have been, but it would take even "oddballery" to utter extremes to be so against the idea of a cymbal clash in the Adagio Climax of No 7 and then apparently think it a really spiffing idea to introduce two in the Adagio Climax of No 8 ?. That was/is my point!

Therefore, with this in mind, there never has been much of a 'controversy' on the issue for me and I do think the percussion does add a sense of increased awe and 'theatre' to those great moments however much those moment can certainly survive without the 'theatre' ?.

"Forever" and "constant" overstate the facts - and there is a vast difference for me between the composer's alterations (which are "pure Bruckner") and those added by other Musicians. There is certainly such a thing as "impure Bruckner".

My language may indeed have been imperfect on this occasion. However, I thought I'd made it clear I had excluded the known "other-party versions" like those of the Schalk Bros? Apologies if not!

Modified - I would pluralise the "final decision": just as Bruckner could hear the different logics of his different perspectives in his amendments, so we, too, can revel in those different perspectives. Each performance should make each edition sound "the right one".

Completely agree!

[BBMmk2]

Generally speaking, I think it be rather impertinent for any editor, including the composer, to add a cymbal and a triangle in the Adagio, of the 7th. Basically, as we all know Bruckner only had timpani and no other percussion instruments in his works at all. as far as symphonic ones go.

[Beef Oven!]

I’m confused. I thought that Haas removed the cymbal clash because he saw the words 'not valid' (or something like that) written over that part in the score, and wrongly believed it to be in Bruckner’s own hand.

[Petrushka]

We are (or at least I am!) talking about the 'controversy' whether Bruckner introduced the percussion in No 7 on the advice of someone else or whether it was his own idea. That, of course, is not particularly important in itself if we believe that the composer definitely agreed that it should be included?

A thorough oddball Bruckner may well have been, but it would take even "oddballery" to utter extremes to be so against the idea of a cymbal clash in the Adagio Climax of No 7 and then apparently think it a really spiffing idea to introduce two in the Adagio Climax of No 8 ?. That was/is my point!

Agree absolutely with this. So, it would seem, do nearly all conductors apart from Wand.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

We are (or at least I am!) talking about the 'controversy' whether Bruckner introduced the percussion in No 7 on the advice of someone else or whether it was his own idea. That, of course, is not particularly important in itself if we believe that the composer definitely agreed that it should be included?

That is a big "if" - I apologize if I misunderstood you, but when you said Whether it was Bruckner's original idea or not is completely beside the point for me as the clincher surely is the fact that Bruckner then goes on to use a couple of cymbal clashes at the climax of the slow movement of his very next symphony so he clearly had no great antipathy to the idea? I thought you meant Whether it was Bruckner's original idea or not is completely beside the point for me as the clincher surely is the fact that Bruckner then goes on to use a couple of cymbal clashes at the climax of the slow movement of his very next symphony so he clearly had no great antipathy to the idea?, rather than taking it for granted that he agreed with the cymbal crash being added. This isn't as clear-cut as I think you suggest it is - the six question marks, and the "not valid" don't allow a straightforward conclusion.

A thorough oddball Bruckner may well have been, but it would take even "oddballery" to utter extremes to be so against the idea of a cymbal clash in the Adagio Climax of No 7 and then apparently think it a really spiffing idea to introduce two in the Adagio Climax of No 8 ?. That was/is my point!

But your point rests on Bruckner agreeing to the addition of the cymbal crash in the Seventh - the six question marks suggest that he was "so against the idea of a cymbal crash" in his Seventh Symphony. He wasn't against them in the Eighth, but didn't think that they were such a spiffing idea that he put them in at the climax of the Ninth. He didn't want them in the Ninth - he (possibly) didn't want them in the Seventh - he did want them in the Eighth. Nothing in the slightest "oddball" about this.

Therefore, with this in mind, there never has been much of a 'controversy' on the issue for me

Because I think that you think that Bruckner approved their use. The "controversy" arises for others because it isn't at all clear that he did.

and I do think the percussion does add a sense of increased awe and 'theatre' to those great moments however much those moment can certainly survive without the 'theatre' ?.

Good for you - and there's loads of recordings that demonstrate the effectiveness of the "theatre" - including many of my own favourites.

My language may indeed have been imperfect on this occasion. However, I thought I'd made it clear I had excluded the known "other-party versions" like those of the Schalk Bros? Apologies if not!

But the cymbal crash originates with the Schalks! The uncertainty is whether Bruckner agreed with their decision - are the six question marks in his handwriting (as if the composer is saying "Where did this rubbish come from?!" and do the crossings out refer to the six question marks (as if the composer is saying "Silly me! Of course they work! Ignore my question marks, they're not valid") or to the bar into which the cymbal crash is written (as if the composer is saying "This was a stupid idea") - and whether or not the question marks and/or the crossings out are Bruckner's at all. As I said, I can't find an online photo of the relevant page, so I cannot comment with any further accuracy.

Completely agree!

- I think I've misunderstood your post about the irrelevancy of the controversy: normally we tend to agree on most things to do with Bruckner.

[BBMmk2]

I am aghast that there are cymbals and a triangle used in a Bruckner symphony!!