Bruckner 9; the four movement version

[Guest]

I've listened to Rattle's performance on EMI on an number of occasions and remain undecided as to the quality of reconstructed last movement. Does anyone know of any other performances of this version? have other conductors "taken it up"? And are other posters equally ambivalent?

Comparing it to the Cooke/Mahler 10. the first performance of which I attended, I recall then that I was utterly convinced that this was a masterpiece, a view reinforced when I bought the Ormandy LPs shortly afterwards.

Perhaps the fact that I've known the Bruckner for fifty years while the Mahler 10 was new to me (although I knew a Szell performance of the opening movement) has made me less accommodating to the Bruckner completion. The thematic material of that final movement doesn't seem to me, at this stage, to be of the same, exalted standard of the others.

I'd be interested in reading other opinions.

[Bryn]

I've listened to Rattle's performance on EMI on an number of occasions and remain undecided as to the quality of reconstructed last movement. Does anyone know of any other performances of this version? have other conductors "taken it up"? And are other posters equally ambivalent?

Comparing it to the Cooke/Mahler 10. the first performance of which I attended, I recall then that I was utterly convinced that this was a masterpiece, a view reinforced when I bought the Ormandy LPs shortly afterwards.

Perhaps the fact that I've known the Bruckner for fifty years while the Mahler 10 was new to me (although I knew a Szell performance of the opening movement) has made me less accommodating to the Bruckner completion. The thematic material of that final movement doesn't seem to me, at this stage, to be of the same, exalted standard of the others.

I'd be interested in reading other opinions.

Rattle used the very latest 'final' revision by Samale/Mazzuca/Phillips and Cohrs (2011). Over the years there have been a number of recordings of earlier completions, starting with that of 1983 by William Carragan. Carragan fills out what Bruckner left more that do Samale/Mazzuca/Phillips andCohrs, and the latter team had access to more recently discovered material than Carragan did for his 2010 revision, which is the latest of his versions to be recorded (much lauded by Rob Cowan).

[Sir Velo]

I've listened to Rattle's performance on EMI on an number of occasions and remain undecided as to the quality of reconstructed last movement. Does anyone know of any other performances of this version? have other conductors "taken it up"? And are other posters equally ambivalent?

Comparing it to the Cooke/Mahler 10. the first performance of which I attended, I recall then that I was utterly convinced that this was a masterpiece, a view reinforced when I bought the Ormandy LPs shortly afterwards.

Perhaps the fact that I've known the Bruckner for fifty years while the Mahler 10 was new to me (although I knew a Szell performance of the opening movement) has made me less accommodating to the Bruckner completion. The thematic material of that final movement doesn't seem to me, at this stage, to be of the same, exalted standard of the others.

I'd be interested in reading other opinions.

I'm of a similar opinion to yourself. Interesting to hear; performed with conviction, but ultimately not as transcendental as one might have hoped of AB's last utterances.

[Roehre]

Rattle used the very latest 'final' revision by Samale/Mazzuca/Phillips and Cohrs (2011). Over the years there have been a number of recordings of earlier completions, starting with that of 1983 by William Carragan. Carragan fills out what Bruckner left more that do Samale/Mazzuca/Phillips andCohrs, and the latter team had access to more recently discovered material than Carragan did for his 2010 revision, which is the latest of his versions to be recorded (much lauded by Rob Cowan).

since the first two recordings (almost simultaneously, 1985) of the Carraghan (first) completion (the Chandos also including the full score in Bruckner's hand, THAT shows how far AB had prepared a score of the finale already) , I don't like the unfinished 3-mvt work. It is interesting however to see how Carraghen as well as Samale/etc have developed their views on completing the piece.

I don't like the blabla regarding the heavenly sound of the end of the adagio as being AB's farewell to earth and his acceptance of ascending to heaven either. It's simply an incorrect assumption. At the day of his death AB was still working on the finale. The work was conceived as a 4-mvt-structure, so let it be performed as such, either in a completion, or in the incomplete form as AB left it, stopping mid-air where that Parsifal trumpet melody starts. THAT would do justice to the work and the composer.

That it disappoints some people in their expectations: then the expectations were obviously too high I'm afraid.

[kea]

The work was conceived as a 4-mvt-structure, so let it be performed as such, either in a completion, or in the incomplete form as AB left it, stopping mid-air where that Parsifal trumpet melody starts. THAT would do justice to the work and the composer.

I think there is also the option of playing the Te Deum after the 3rd movement, which the composer is (was?) believed to have sanctioned in the case that he couldn't complete the finale before his death. Don't know how effective this is, if it's ever done.

That is disappoints some people in their expectations: then the expectations were obviously too high I'm afraid.

It is also about 100% certain that had Bruckner lived long enough to complete the symphony it would have turned out quite differently—composers tend to be much more cavalier with their own material than someone else's, and Bruckner revised his works inveterately and extensively. No matter how much of a "completion" or "performing version" is attempted, there's always that might-have-been element that must be left to the imagination.

I would be somewhat curious to see a score of this finale, and compare it to the sketches. I had always thought the problem was that Bruckner left no clue how the finale was supposed to end, and may not have even had an ending in mind at the time of his death; but he certainly would have intended there to be an ending (presumably one similar in character to that of the other symphonies) so breaking off at the last note he wrote would not quite do justice by him. But I know very little about Bruckner or this symphony so perhaps I'm wrong.

[Pabmusic]

...I would be somewhat curious to see a score of this finale, and compare it to the sketches. I had always thought the problem was that Bruckner left no clue how the finale was supposed to end, and may not have even had an ending in mind at the time of his death; but he certainly would have intended there to be an ending (presumably one similar in character to that of the other symphonies) so breaking off at the last note he wrote would not quite do justice by him. But I know very little about Bruckner or this symphony so perhaps I'm wrong.

The score is available from http://www.musikmph.de at 44 Euros. The preface (in German and English) is here:

http://www.musikmph.de/musical_scores/vorworte/444.html

Here's the first recording of it:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bruckner-Symphony-No-reconstructed-Finale/dp/B0000BX5KD/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1396521979&sr=8-3&keywords=bruckner+9

[richardfinegold]

It is also about 100% certain that had Bruckner lived long enough to complete the symphony it would have turned out quite differently—composers tend to be much more cavalier with their own material than someone else's, and Bruckner revised his works inveterately and extensively. No matter how much of a "completion" or "performing version" is attempted, there's always that might-have-been element that must be left to the imagination.

I would be somewhat curious to see a score of this finale, and compare it to the sketches. I had always thought the problem was that Bruckner left no clue how the finale was supposed to end, and may not have even had an ending in mind at the time of his death; but he certainly would have intended there to be an ending (presumably one similar in character to that of the other symphonies) so breaking off at the last note he wrote would not quite do justice by him. But I know very little about Bruckner or this symphony so perhaps I'm wrong.

I will be uncharitable and suggest that Bruckner left no clue how to end the finale because he in general was rather clueless about how to end the last movements of any of his symphonies. For me, and many others, the last movements of (most) of his symphonies tend to ramble aimlessly in a manner that does not seem to happen in the preceding movements.
I am one of the people that prefer the 3 movement torso, regardless of what the Composers intentions were.
On recordings we are fortunate to be able to pick and choose between recordings that offer a completion of IV or not, or stop listening to the recording when the completion begins if we so desire. A concert is a different matter. I think that if this work is programmed at a concert, the presence or absence of a 'completion' should be clearly stated in the promotional materials.

[PJPJ]

The score is available from http://www.musikmph.de at 44 Euros. The preface (in German and English) is here:

http://www.musikmph.de/musical_scores/vorworte/444.html

Here's the first recording of it:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bruckner-Sym...rds=bruckner+9

Isn't the first recording Kurt Eichhorn's?

Berky

[Roehre]

I think there is also the option of playing the Te Deum after the 3rd movement, which the composer is (was?) believed to have sanctioned in the case that he couldn't complete the finale before his death. Don't know how effective this is, if it's ever done.

Bruckner ending a work in d-minor to end in C-major??
Bruckner only jokingly said that -as the 9th is dedicated to the Dear God (dem lieben Gott)- if left unfinished, a Te Deum was a way to end it.

It is also about 100% certain that had Bruckner lived long enough to complete the symphony it would have turned out quite differently—composers tend to be much more cavalier with their own material than someone else's, and Bruckner revised his works inveterately and extensively. No matter how much of a "completion" or "performing version" is attempted, there's always that might-have-been element that must be left to the imagination.

I would be somewhat curious to see a score of this finale, and compare it to the sketches. I had always thought the problem was that Bruckner left no clue how the finale was supposed to end, and may not have even had an ending in mind at the time of his death; but he certainly would have intended there to be an ending (presumably one similar in character to that of the other symphonies) so breaking off at the last note he wrote would not quite do justice by him. But I know very little about Bruckner or this symphony so perhaps I'm wrong.

I'm afraid you haven't much knowledge of Bruckner's working methods.
It is very helpful for those who want to re construct the 9th's finale that Bruckner provides us with a full draft score.
Bruckner's draft scores -apart from dynamics, phrasings- are hardly different from the completed ones, submitted for publication, as can be seen from the draft scores of 7 and 8 (a big difference with Mahler, who even changed his mind after publication). The two pages or so that went astray are easily reconstructed from the full score itself as well as from a part of the continuity draft.
The skeches -including the quite recently newly emerged ones- show the themes of the quadruple fugue which was to end the piece. Sofar the only bars which have to be invented are the closing bars.

The main difference between Mahler 10/ii,iv and v and Bruckner 9/iv:
-the former is complete in its structure, all movements are available in continuity drafts (see the 1986 edition for a complete transcription beneath the Cooke-instrumentation),
-the latter exists in a complete draft score for 4/5th of the mvt, there are sketches for the missing coda bits, without any of the closing bars altogether. These bars however are not really important and easily to be constructed from the final bars of 7 or 8.

[Lento]

For me, and many others, the last movements of (most) of his symphonies tend to ramble aimlessly in a manner that does not seem to happen in the preceding movements.

Don't know whether you'd agree, but I find the finale of Bruckner 7 pretty convincing. (Am ordering the Wildner 9th, being unfamiliar with 4th mvt versions).

[Richard Barrett]

On recordings we are fortunate to be able to pick and choose between recordings that offer a completion of IV or not, or stop listening to the recording when the completion begins if we so desire.

Except that a conductor's performative approach to the third movement, and indeed to the preceding two, would be affected by whether or not a fourth movement is to follow. For me the most convincing thing about Rattle's recording is the way the first three movements aren't played as a three-movement piece.

Having said that I don't think the last word has been said about the final movement. I think it would take a real composer, with sufficient insight into Bruckner's music of course, to make it really convincing as music. Scholars tend to be too cautious and conservative. A case in point: Newbould's completion of Schubert's 10th symphony is all very well, but what Berio made of the same material in his Rendering (leaving aside for the sake of argument Berio's own interpolations) sounds not only more convincing but IMO more like Schubert, despite or because of the fact that Berio invented a considerable amount of accompanimental material which isn't in Schubert's sketch.

[ahinton]

Except that a conductor's performative approach to the third movement, and indeed to the preceding two, would be affected by whether or not a fourth movement is to follow. For me the most convincing thing about Rattle's recording is the way the first three movements aren't played as a three-movement piece.

Having said that I don't think the last word has been said about the final movement. I think it would take a real composer, with sufficient insight into Bruckner's music of course, to make it really convincing as music. Scholars tend to be too cautious and conservative. A case in point: Newbould's completion of Schubert's 10th symphony is all very well, but what Berio made of the same material in his Rendering (leaving aside for the sake of argument Berio's own interpolations) sounds not only more convincing but IMO more like Schubert, despite or because of the fact that Berio invented a considerable amount of accompanimental material which isn't in Schubert's sketch.

Agreed - although, from what I understand, I suspect that the "gang of four" who've edited what I believe still to be the latest version would probably frown on anyone else attempting to do this on the grounds that they would use some of the material that they have themselves put together. Of course it's still not entirely inconceivable that more pages of the original might turn up; the current edition is, after all, based on far more pages in Bruckner's own hand than were once thought still to exist. Perhaps a Bruckerian equivalent of Anothony Payne might have been ideal, but...

[ahinton]

Don't know whether you'd agree, but I find the finale of Bruckner 7 pretty convincing. (Am ordering the Wildner 9th, being unfamiliar with 4th mvt versions).

I don't share richardfinegold's disappointment in Bruckner's finales in general either. I agree with you about that of no. 7 - and that of no. 5 is, I think, the composer's most successful of all.

[antongould]

Horribly out of place as I am in this wonderful scholarly discussion .....I have to say I find the Rattle recording a joy and return to it regularly. Maybe this is because before this I didn't really know B9 having, stupidly I suppose, ignored it as unfinished. To me the final movement "works" very well and this grey afternoon, breaking most of the rules in the FOR3 rule book, I listened to it as a bleeding chunk on headphones as I pushed my granddaughter through the muddy puddles. IMHO quite wonderful - thanks to all, especially , Roehre for the magical posts.

[Once Was 4]

Horribly out of place as I am in this wonderful scholarly discussion .....I have to say I find the Rattle recording a joy and return to it regularly. Maybe this is because before this I didn't really know B9 having, stupidly I suppose, ignored it as unfinished. To me the final movement "works" very well and this grey afternoon, breaking most of the rules in the FOR3 rule book, I listened to it as a bleeding chunk on headphones as I pushed my granddaughter through the muddy puddles. IMHO quite wonderful - thanks to all, especially , Roehre for the magical posts.

This thread reminds me that, many moons ago when my hair and teeth were intact, I played 8th horn/2nd F Wagner tuba with what was then called the BBC Northern Symphony Orchestra in a recording of a Bruckner 9 finale reconstruction by Hans-Hubert Schuentzler (sorry if this is not the correct spelling) who I believe was actually Australian. This was then tacked on to a recording (made a couple of years previously) of the three-movement version of the 9th, with the same conductor, for broadcast. I was actually playing in that recording too but on 4th horn (as I recall, the horn sections for the two recordings were very different in personnel - three of the players on the earlier recording are now deceased).

Does anybody know more about this version - or about the conductor for that matter?