Bruckner - Symphony No. 8

[P. G. Tipps]

'Version: 1887/90 Mixed Versions. Ed. Robert Haas [1939]'



That's all very well but Is this the First Mixed Version, the Original Mixed Version or one of the 16 Revised Mixed Versions, I wonder, Beefy ?

I think we should be told ...

[Beef Oven!]

'Version: 1887/90 Mixed Versions. Ed. Robert Haas [1939]'



That's all very well but Is this the First Mixed Version, the Original Mixed Version or one of the 16 Revised Mixed Versions, I wonder, Beefy ?

I think we should be told ...

That's quite a coincidence, I've just been trying to get to the bottom of that and was about to post my thoughts (which amount to little) and I saw your post.

After I listened to this performance last night, I turned in. I woke up this morning thinking about what I'd heard last night (sad I know, but I'm not hurting anyone).

Anyway, I thought the performance was very good indeed and I had to double check the recording date because it sounded too good for December 1963. CS's performance is quite brisk tempo-wise and the whole performance seemed to pass by quite quickly. It has a wonderful flow, yet CS definitely varies the tempo often throughout. I particularly enjoyed the Scherzo, which whilst being brisk, does not sound hectic as Barbirolli's scherzo does, sometimes, to my ears. I will be returning to this recording soon.

abruckner.com lists the version as 1887/90 Mixed Versions. Ed. Robert Haas [1939]. The EMI booklet that comes with the set says '1894 original version, ed. Novak. Confusing, eh? Well it is for me because I haven't even begun to get my head around all this versions-malarkey. Wasn't even bothered until Waldo placed it under my skin, last week!

I went on Amazon and the reviewers on there are banging on about the Novak edition being played.

Anyway, with Celibidache's MPO on my DAP and my best walking boots are being put on, so I will say I am just going outside and may be some time.

[HighlandDougie]

I went on Amazon and the reviewers on there are banging on about the Novak edition being played.

The notes which come with the (excellent) EMI SACD twofer of Schuricht's 8th and 9th have an essay by John Williamson, from which I quote:

"In the course of his life, Schuricht knew the first editions of the symphonies, often prepared by the composer's friends and pupils, and the various attempts to provide an authorised text of Bruckner's intentions. It is hardly surprising that his recordings, live and studio, betray some uncertainty as to what the 'best' available version might be ..... In the case of the present recording of the Eighth, he followed the edition of the 1890 version by Leopold Nowak, admittedly with reservations, which rather put him at odds with a growing consensus in favour of the edition of Robert Haas. This consensus overlooked the various musicological doubts that have rightly been expressed about Haas in favour of a sense that he (i.e. Haas) had somehow instinctively got it right in combining the basic text of the 1890 version with some passages excised from the original score of 1887. But Schuricht was no stickler for musicological correctness. His reading of the Eight shows awareness of the first published score of 1892 which added quite a lot of markings to Bruckner's manuscript of 1890. He was not averse to snipping a couple of sustained bars from the finale, or restoring the occasional orchestral moment that featured in Haas, rather than Nowak. Although Schuricht was modest in comparison with some lions of the podium of his own time, he never forgot that the conductor was ultimately in charge of a performance".

In short, 1890 ed. Nowak (but with a sprinkling of Haas- and a few post-1892 Schuricht tweaks). Not a performance for those who like their Bruckner slow 'n stodgy.

[Beef Oven!]

The notes which come with the (excellent) EMI SACD twofer of Schuricht's 8th and 9th have an essay by John Williamson, from which I quote:

"In the course of his life, Schuricht knew the first editions of the symphonies, often prepared by the composer's friends and pupils, and the various attempts to provide an authorised text of Bruckner's intentions. It is hardly surprising that his recordings, live and studio, betray some uncertainty as to what the 'best' available version might be ..... In the case of the present recording of the Eighth, he followed the edition of the 1890 version by Leopold Nowak, admittedly with reservations, which rather put him at odds with a growing consensus in favour of the edition of Robert Haas. This consensus overlooked the various musicological doubts that have rightly been expressed about Haas in favour of a sense that he (i.e. Haas) had somehow instinctively got it right in combining the basic text of the 1890 version with some passages excised from the original score of 1887. But Schuricht was no stickler for musicological correctness. His reading of the Eight shows awareness of the first published score of 1892 which added quite a lot of markings to Bruckner's manuscript of 1890. He was not averse to snipping a couple of sustained bars from the finale, or restoring the occasional orchestral moment that featured in Haas, rather than Nowak. Although Schuricht was modest in comparison with some lions of the podium of his own time, he never forgot that the conductor was ultimately in charge of a performance".

In short, 1890 ed. Nowak (but with a sprinkling of Haas- and a few post-1892 Schuricht tweaks). Not a performance for those who like their Bruckner slow 'n stodgy.

Yes HD, I read that somewhere this morning (maybe in the booklet of my EMI complete (Schuricht) recordings box that came out about 2 years ago?). But abruckner.com says '1887/90 Mixed Versions. Ed. Robert Haas [1939]' - I don't know why.

(as a Naim die-hard, I don't have a SACD player. Is it worth getting one? An awful lot of my CDs are actually SACDs)

[P. G. Tipps]

Yes HD, I read that somewhere this morning (maybe in the booklet of my EMI complete (Schuricht) recordings box that came out about 2 years ago?). But abruckner.com says '1887/90 Mixed Versions. Ed. Robert Haas [1939]' - I don't know why.

(as a Naim die-hard, I don't have a SACD player. Is it worth getting one? An awful lot of my CDs are actually SACDs)

Actually, I used to have the original LP copy of this recording as it was my father's but I threw it out with all my own LPs some time ago.

Idiot. (Me, certainly not my dad.)

For those who are interested in hearing this "version of versions" in decent HD audio look no further than ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWB3r6NK6LM

[HighlandDougie]

Actually, I used to have the original LP copy of this recording as it was my father's but I threw it out with all my own LPs some time ago.

Idiot. (Me, certainly not my dad.)

Schuricht's Bruckner 8th has achieved mythic status among LP collectors - or, rather, it fetches crazy prices (£2k +). I still have the 3rd and used to have the 9th but not, alas, the 8th.

As to Beefy's question about SACD, my answer would be, "yes". If you're not sure and don't mind buying used on e-Bay "Buy it Now", there are some good vintage SACD players around (Sony/Marantz) for not a lot of money. The Schuricht Bruckner, lovingly restored at Abbey Road (mainly, I suspect, for the Japanese market, where, if the size of the Schuricht section in Tower Records is any guide, he is revered as an International Treasure), sounds better in almost every way to my ears played via an Arcam SACD player than through the non-SACD Naim which I also use.

[P. G. Tipps]

Schuricht's Bruckner 8th has achieved mythic status among LP collectors - or, rather, it fetches crazy prices (£2k +). I still have the 3rd and used to have the 9th but not, alas, the 8th..

Yes, I have some regrets in life and one is disposing of all my LPs to make room for other things.

In hindsight, unbelievably silly.

[Bryn]

I don't really see why anyone would want to perform or listen to the 1887 version except for comparative purposes - it seems to me that the 1890 version (in either of its variants) is an improvement in every regard. Am I wrong to think this? [my emphasis]

Well Kent Nagano might well think so. For him, the 1887 original reveals Bruckner the modernist in a way vitiated in the revisions (as he does re. the 4th, etc.). By the way, what do yo mean by "the 1890 version (in either of its variants)". You do not intend to include the Haas pick and mix job, I hope. Have you heard the Carragan edition of the 1888 variant? I found that quite fascinating.

[P. G. Tipps]

Well Kent Nagano might well think so. For him, the 1887 original reveals Bruckner the modernist in a way vitiated in the revisions (as he does re. the 4th, etc. By the way, what do yo mean by "the 1890 version (in either of its variants)". You do not intend to include the Haas pick and mix job, I hope. Have you heard the Carragan edition of the 1888 variant? I found that quite fascinating.

The 1887 original is quite different from all the later revisions and it is the one 'original' which clearly suffers by comparison, imv. The differences in the Haas and Nowak editions of the revisions are of no huge relevance in that context.

'Bruckner the Modernist' really emerged with the first version of the Third and which so baffled others at the time. The composer very largely got it right at his first attempt and that has slowly become more apparent in recent times. The later revisions are simply not in the same monumental class for all their alternative attractions. As for the Carragan 8th I'm not familiar with that one ,,, his early and wholly unconvincing 'World Premiere Recording' of the 'completed' Ninth was enough to put me off him for good, but maybe I should now bury any lingering prejudice and attempt to explore his editions.

As for the 8th, I think it is the other way around regarding original and revisions. The composer didn't get it wholly right the first time but arguably then went on to finally create his 'greatest' symphony (I say 'arguably' as there are three or four other real contenders?).

But, of course, 'you pays yer money and .... '

[Bryn]

Re. the edition used by Nagano, perhaps it is not mentioned since Nagano omits some of the cymbal clashes. I tend to concur with Tintner, whether one likes 'em or not, Bruckner put them in the original score, so they should all be performed if one is to claim one's performance as being of the original 1887 version.

[Beef Oven!]

Just put on Furtwangler VPO 1944.

I was always very pleased with the sound quality on this disc, but having listened to quite a few very well recorded discs lately, I can hear that this is dated.

[Petrushka]

Just put on Furtwangler VPO 1944.

I was always very pleased with the sound quality on this disc, but having listened to quite a few very well recorded discs lately, I can hear that this is dated.

I have this both on Music & Arts and DG and it was, in fact, in its Unicorn LP incarnation the first Bruckner recording I ever bought.

Yes, the slightly acid radio recording isn't what we'd expect nowadays but this is music making of the utmost historic importance. In many ways the sound actually seems to give a helping hand to Furtwangler's conception as in the terrifying climax of the first movement with the trumpets baying across the abyss. No other version I've heard comes anywhere near to what WF does here. It is as if the fear and terror of the Second World War is laid bare before us and we can feel it too.

Incidentally and contrary to what the cover states this isn't strictly a concert performance. My understanding is that it was recorded in the Musikverein as a recording for broadcast by the Austrian Radio without an audience present. Perhaps anyone with more knowledge can enlarge on this.

Whatever, it is one of the great Bruckner 8s and an indispensable historic document of the first magnitude.

[P. G. Tipps]

It is as if the fear and terror of the Second World War is laid bare before us and we can feel it too.

Incidentally and contrary to what the cover states this isn't strictly a concert performance. My understanding is that it was recorded in the Musikverein as a recording for broadcast by the Austrian Radio without an audience present. Perhaps anyone with more knowledge can enlarge on this.

Whatever, it is one of the great Bruckner 8s and an indispensable historic document of the first magnitude.

Was this not the recording where some claim that they can hear the faint noise of Allied bombs and German anti-aircraft guns in the background? So the terror might have been very real indeed. There is certainly occasional background noise but that could be due to so many other less unusual factors. I agree, it's a truly great and typically unique account of No 8 as is the great conductor's equally-celebrated 1942 Bruckner 5.

No Brucknerian should be without his/her Furtwangler!

[Bryn]

Was this not the recording where some claim that they can hear the faint noise of Allied bombs and German anti-aircraft guns in the background? So the terror might have been very real indeed. There is certainly occasional background noise but that could be due to so many other less unusual factors. I agree, it's a truly great and typically unique account of No 8 ...

Not sure whether the 'background sounds' you refer to can also be heard in this Bruckner 8, but the recording I best recall for such accompaniment is that of the 1945 Stereo Beethoven 'Emperor' (Gieseking/Rother).

[Cockney Sparrow]

Beef Oven - I'm not sure if you are among the Skrowaczewski admirers on the forum? Just wondered if you would consider adding his version to your comparisons (tis a noble exercise you are engaged in here....but I realise it may be an imposition!)

(The Oehms / Saarbrucken recording is avaiable on Naxos Music Library (Cat no OC217) (just updated my Naxos ML post).