Bruckner 8 Rattle and LSO - Barbican Thursday and Radio Three

[P. G. Tipps]

Only listened to snippets of it and on first impressions sounds great... The LSO have confirmed they've recorded it and it was also televised on Mezzo (if anyone is able to get this channel). As for the arrangement of the orchestra sounds very much like how Simon Rattle had it for his Bruckner 9 a years ago with the LSO at the Barbican (which was also prefaced with a Messian work)....

Yes, I noticed the cameras but knew it wouldn't be those of the BBC!

The concert itself was a rare treat. What a refreshing change not to have a Mozart concerto as an appetiser before the Bruckner, and some Messiaen is even rarer. As men and artists the two composers were like chalk and cheese, only linked by a strong Catholic faith, but the juxtaposition of the two certainly worked for me.

After the interval Rattle's account of the Eighth was very much as I anticipated ... passionate and committed and conducted without a score. For once I didn't nearly nod-off during the nicely-paced Scherzo, the Adagio sounded utterly sublime as it should, and the conclusion was ecstatically triumphant without being in any way bombastic. More, please!

There are exciting times ahead for London music-lovers, I confidently predict.

[LeMartinPecheur]

I recollect a R3 'report from rehearsals', probably on In Tune on the day of the concert, that said Rattle was spending a lot of time listening from the public seats and generally telling players to play quieter. Seemed he was really making a big effort to get the very best (or least bad?) out of the Barbican acoustics. Maybe that is the reason for some of the favourable responses above.

Maybe less really is more, at the Barbican anyway?

[Bryn]

So far I have only been able to listen to the Messiaen and the first movement plus a little of he scherzo of the Haas conjectural re-composition of music written by Bruckner (plus linking passages by Haas) for his (Bruckner's) 8th Symphony. The rest will have to wait since the playback 'hung' during the scherzo for some unknown reason. From what I have heard so far, Rattle and the LSO make a pretty good fist of what Haas constructed mainly from material by Bruckner. However, Rattle's plumping for the Haas work led me to wondering how those who would rather listen to the 9th without the completion of Bruckner's near complete material for its finale feel about listening to the Haas speculative recombination of material Bruckner wrote for his 8th?

A reboot resolved the 'hanging' problem. I would still prefer to have heard either of the Nowak editions, but Rattle certainly did his very best to make the case for what Haas constructed.

[waldo]

However, Rattle's plumping for the Haas work led me to wondering how those who would rather listen to the 9th without the completion of Bruckner's near complete material for its finale feel about listening to the Haas speculative recombination of material Bruckner wrote for his 8th?

I had resolved to forget all about the "Bruckner problem" and just listen to whatever was out there..........but you are right to raise questions about the Haas version. Despite having read about this several times before, I had completely forgotten just how bogus this Haas edition is. It does not correspond to or follow ANY manuscript completed by Bruckner. It is simply a free-wheeling mash-up of two seperate versions: the 1887 and the 1890. Broadly following the 1890 manuscript, Haas selectively added chunks from the 1887, cut bits he didn't like from the 1890, altered the structure of two whole movements, tinkered with the orchestration in many places and even composed a short passage himself, using harmonies from one version and a pencil sketch in the margin of another. In the words of Benjamin Korstvedt, "This creative editing surely exceeds reasonable limits of scholarly responsibility; moreover, his edition does not include any scholarly apparatus nor does the introduction adequately explain this editorial intervention."

It is strange, indeed, that Rattle etc still perform this version above either of the Nowaks...........

[Beef Oven!]

Bryn/Waldo

Prompted by Bryn's question to those of us who prefer listening to the uncompleted ninth.

As far as I'm concerned, I think questions about the editions of Bruckner's symphonies are essentially intellectual or academic matters. When I first came to classical music, Bruckner came into my ken pretty quickly, but I paid almost no attention to the questions of editions, and I still don't today. What matters to me is the end result, what I'm hearing. Listening to Karajan's VPO recording, or Pierre Boulez's VPO recording, the idea of the music being a ''free-wheeling mash-up of two separate versions..." is entirely extraneous. The same goes for the live concerts of the eighth that I've attended.

I would say that we shouldn't be surprised, however mildly, when musicians like Thielemann and Rattle bring-off wondrous performances of this symphony using the Haas, or any other version. What we are hearing is the music; the intellectual questions, as we football fans say, are left in the dressing room.

[waldo]

What we are hearing is the music; the intellectual questions, as we football fans say, are left in the dressing room.

I know what you mean.........but I still find it hard to be completely unconcerned with questions regarding authenticity and accuracy etc. I think most of us are, but for some reason we shrug our shoulders when it comes to Bruckner. There are so many versions, so many competing editions, it is just easier to put it all to one side and listen to the music. Spare me this tangled mess, for heaven's sake. Let the scholars deal with it in another room. I do that, too. When I put on an 8th, I am not always clear whose edition it is and I am not even sure, while listening to it, just what the differences are between this or that version.
At the same time, when an edition has been discredited as comprehensively as Haas' 8th, I do find it odd that major conductors still perform it. Rattle would never dare to perform an edition of Beethoven or Haydn that had been Haas-ified like this. He wouldn't want to. It isn't even a particularly problematic area of Bruckner. There is a complete, final score in his own hand - and it has been faithfully edited by Nowak.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

There is a complete, final score in his own hand - and it has been faithfully edited by Nowak.

Two of them, in fact - both marvellous.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Mmm... The fact that I was following the Rattle performance on Radio 3 with the 1892 first published edition score probably explains why I got bogged down in the detail ...largely through constantly trying to find my place. If memory serves Segerstam used this 1892 edition last year . Or to put it accurately I had no problem following his performance with the score I had. I wonder if some enterprising promoter might schedule 1892/ Segerstam in part one and Haas / Rattle in part two.Definitely a night to bring Thermos and rug.

On reflection perhaps better on consecutive nights....

[waldo]

Two of them, in fact - both marvellous.

Quite. By "final" I meant "last".........but you can certainly make a good case for playing the earlier version. It is still 100% Bruckner.

[P. G. Tipps]

I had completely forgotten just how bogus this Haas edition is. It does not correspond to or follow ANY manuscript completed by Bruckner. It is simply a free-wheeling mash-up of two seperate versions: the 1887 and the 1890 ..........

In that case it is a complete miracle that it sounds anything like the Nowak edition? To an amateur ear like my own the differences are almost negligible, and those that do exist are of little importance to the overall listening experience.

The differences between Bruckner's own first versions and later revisions are much more stark than those between the Haas and Nowak editions.

As far as I'm concerned, I think questions about the editions of Bruckner's symphonies are essentially intellectual or academic matters.

Yes, I agree completely.

[Beef Oven!]

I know what you mean.........but I still find it hard to be completely unconcerned with questions regarding authenticity and accuracy etc. I think most of us are, but for some reason we shrug our shoulders when it comes to Bruckner. There are so many versions, so many competing editions, it is just easier to put it all to one side and listen to the music. Spare me this tangled mess, for heaven's sake. Let the scholars deal with it in another room.

As I've said, I don't think of it in the first place, so I don't have to go through all that (ignorance can be blissful!).

At the same time, when an edition has been discredited as comprehensively as Haas' 8th, I do find it odd that major conductors still perform it. Rattle would never dare to perform an edition of Beethoven or Haydn that had been Haas-ified like this.

Academically discredited I assume, but the recordings and performances of the music still sound great and are highly creditable.

He wouldn't want to.

How do you know that? You have some inside information?

It isn't even a particularly problematic area of Bruckner. There is a complete, final score in his own hand - and it has been faithfully edited by Nowak.

In terms of the experience of hearing the music, it's certainly not a problematic area, anyway.

[waldo]

To an amateur ear like my own the differences are almost negligible, and those that do exist are of little importance to the overall listening experience.

In the context of a such a colossal symphony it is certainly easy to consider such differences as negligible. It still looks and smells like Bruckner..........I suppose we are back to the question of authorial intention etc. Would you happily listen to a Haas-ified Beethoven 5th? Imagine finding out that Haas had cut a dozen bars, inserted bars from a previous sketch, adjusted the instrumentation at many points, tinkered with the structure of the second movement and then, to top it all, composed his own bars here and there? You could turn around and say, "Honest, guv. I'm just an honest man. I don't know nothing about these here scholastic disputes. I knows what I likes and likes what I knows" etc But I think most of us would be appalled and would feel obliged to listen to an edition that was somewhat closer to the original manuscript.

[waldo]

As I've said, I don't think of it in the first place, so I don't have to go through all that (ignorance can be blissful!).

Well, now you aren't ignorant any longer! Does it make any difference?

[Beef Oven!]

Well, now you aren't ignorant any longer! Does it make any difference?

Too late, no going back now - I enjoy my Bruckner performances straight, no chaser!

If it were to make a difference, it would have done so quite some time back.

[Sir Velo]

At the same time, when an edition has been discredited as comprehensively as Haas' 8th, I do find it odd that major conductors still perform it. Rattle would never dare to perform an edition of Beethoven or Haydn that had been Haas-ified like this. He wouldn't want to. It isn't even a particularly problematic area of Bruckner. There is a complete, final score in his own hand - and it has been faithfully edited by Nowak.

Didn't Deryck Cooke refer to the 1890 revision as Bruckner-Schalk? Problem is many of Bruckner's later revisions were urged upon him against his earlier/better judgement. Haas' edition tries to restore as much of Bruckner's original conception as possible. Let's not forget that noted Brucknerians like Karajan, Haitink, Wand and Tintner continued to perform Haas, even after Nowak published his "more faithful" editions.

The so-called Haas insertions are essentially restoring certain passages that Bruckner had crossed out.