Bruckner 8 Rattle and LSO - Barbican Thursday and Radio Three

[Bryn]

Don't be naughty Bryn, you know Herbie never got that far!

He joined the Nazi Party in 1933.

Here's a reproduction of this membership 'card':

[waldo]

Waldo, we weren't discussing Haas. We were discussing the different editions of B8 and which ones, if any, made any sense to the resultant music. I thought you meant that the Haas had been discredited musicologically, rather than because we don't like the political views he held (the latter is very easy). And I don't see how the methods (not entirely sure what you mean) can be shaped by his politics (I can see that one's approach could be).

Maybe I should just get right on and spin that Tintner disc!

I'm wondering whether there is any musical reason not to use the Haas version.

Haas has been discredited musicologically. Liking or not liking his views has nothing to do with the issue. I hoped I had made that clear. As I said, these views made their way into the musicology. Roughly: Bruckner sent the 1887 version to Hermann Levi (Jewish). Levi wrote back saying he couldn't make sense of it and encouraged Bruckner to revise it with Shalk et al. This Bruckner did, resulting in the 1890 version. Haas believed that Bruckner had been coerced by Levi etc into making changes he did not really agree with, so Haas saw it as his mission to restore the "original" Bruckner vision purged of "alien" i.e. Jewish elements. This meant, in effect, restoring a number of cuts which Bruckner made in the 1890 version. Exactly what the precise interplay was between Nazi belief and musicological decisions - I don't know. But there was a relationship. Above all, Haas was guided by an attempt to "purge" the symphonies of alien or Jewish elements. When the symphonies were finally cleansed, they would then be presented as examples of pure German art and could be used to celebrate the victories of the Third Reich.

Haas, incidentally, reported his progress on these symphonies to Goebbels in person. He complained that his progress was "arousing the strongest Jewish objections."

As for "musical reasons" for not playing the Haas version - who knows? But if that is your attitude, why not cut and paste Mozart and Bach? Mash up some different versions, cut bars, add your own if that is how you feel about it.

[Beef Oven!]

He joined the Nazi Party in 1933.

Here's a reproduction of this membership 'card':

Not quite as simple as that, as you well know:

Quoting Richard Osborne (Wiki, I'm not searching through my book!), it's obvious that it's about the opportunism that Waldo refers to.


Karajan joined the Nazi Party in Salzburg on 8 April 1933; his membership number was 1,607,525. In June 1933, the Nazi Party was outlawed by the Austrian government. However, Karajan's membership was valid until 1939. In that year the former Austrian members were verified by the general office of the Nazi Party. Karajan's membership was declared invalid but his accession to the party was retroactively determined to have been on 1 May 1933 in Ulm, with membership number: 3,430,914.[22][23][24] - This is Wikipedia, not Osborne.

British musicologist and critic Richard Osborne states:

What are the facts? First, though Karajan was nominated for membership in the as yet unbanned Party in Salzburg in April 1933, he did not collect his card, sign it, or pay his dues, though the registration itself (no. 1607525) got on to the files and crops up in many memoranda and enquiries thereafter. Secondly, he did not join the Party on 1 May 1933 despite prima-facie evidence to the contrary. In the first place, the membership number 3430914 is too high to belong to that date. The highest number issued before the freeze on membership, which lasted from May 1933 to March 1937, was 3262698. However, during the freeze, various functionaries, diplomats, and others were issued cards bearing an NG, or Nachgereichte, designation. These cards were, by convention, backdated to the start of the freeze: 1 May 1933. Karajan's Aachen membership was an NG card, and its number accords with batches issued in 1935, the year Karajan had always identified as the one in which he was asked to join the Party.[25]

[Beef Oven!]

Let's summarise to see if I've understood. Haas was a pro-Nazi anti-Semite whose views influenced his approach to the way he edited B's works (I presume he was also interested in music and had some competence in this regard). Karajan applied or was coopted to join the Nazi party, didn't pay his dues, didn't collect his membership card or do anything else at all in relation to his membership or the party in general.

The Haas version has been academically discredited and is highly questionable morally. Karajan is one of many conductors who use(d) the Haas version. Rather than resist an evil regime, Karajan tried to personally benefit from it and failed, hiding in Trieste at the end of the war and then going through a de-Nazification process.

Some of the most sublime performances use Haas. Boulez used the Haas version. It works as music, but not academically or politically.

It's going to be a late night if I get round to that Tintner recording!

[waldo]

Let's summarise to see if I've understood. Haas was a pro-Nazi anti-Semite whose views influenced his approach to the way he edited B's works (I presume he was also interested in music and had some competence in this regard). Karajan applied or was coopted to join the Nazi party, didn't pay his dues, didn't collect his membership card or do anything else at all in relation to his membership or the party in general.

The Haas version has been academically discredited and is highly questionable morally. Karajan is one of many conductors who use(d) the Haas version. Rather than resist an evil regime, Karajan tried to personally benefit from it and failed, hiding in Trieste at the end of the war and then going through a de-Nazification process.

Some of the most sublime performances use Haas. Boulez used the Haas version. It works as music, but not academically or politically

That sounds like a good summary. One thing I would add: Haas used his Nazi influence to silence views he did not agree with. Open debate on the Bruckner problem was more or less forbidden. Opponents were disenfranchised, manuscripts were seized. That partly explains the prominence of Haas's editions - even after the Nazi's were defeated. His editions took root as the central performing editions; they bedded in, so to speak. To many, Haas still is Bruckner.

As for Karajan - as I said, I bow to your obviously superior expertise and interest. I thought the whole Karajan-Nazi thing was cut and dried. I'd read it so often in different books and articles, I had always assumed it was true. But it is obviously more complex than that, so thankyou for the correction.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Some of the most sublime performances use Haas. Boulez used the Haas version.

This is the rub - so many recordings show that Haas works in its own terms, and can be as powerful and moving an experience as either of the genuine Bruckner manuscripts. I shall continue to listen to recordings I have of it, and my attitude to the origins of the edition will not be a feature of my listening as I listen.

But it is a compromise version; from a time when people couldn't cope with the idea that "a" Symphony could have two different versions of itself. Haas, Simpson, Cooke and many others didn't believe that Bruckner played dice with the universe. Today, it's much easier to accept a "Symphony Number 8a" and a "Symphony Number 8b", and revel in the opportunities to hear both - Bruckner didn't write so much Music that we're cluttering the schedules with this dual symphony.

(Apologies if this isn't quite coherent: the bottle of Penderyn I've just finished off had a little more in than I'd expected!)

It's going to be a late night if I get round to that Tintner recording!

[Ein Heldenleben]

When I started this thread I thought we might get into a discussion of competing versions of the symphony . I little thought we would have H Von K's nazi membership card reproduced. I have Osborne's biography open in front of me . Page 742 - the appendix B on karajan's Nazi membership .

To quote from Richard Osborne's book
" The true situation , as we can now be said definitively to know it, is this. Karajan , 27 , joined the Nazi Party [NSDAP] in Aachen in April 1935 in response to a formal request from the head of Aachen's NS -controlled municipal authority under whose aegis the musical life of the city was organised ." Osborne has more fascinating detail on this and also in the following post war appendix .

To get back to the music I heard the Karajan with the Berlin Phil do Bruckner 5 at the RFH . I will never get over the astonishing quality of the brass playing . I see from the ticket stub I paid £15.00 to sit in row F of the
terrace.

[Bryn]

That sounds like a good summary. One thing I would add: Haas used his Nazi influence to silence views he did not agree with. Open debate on the Bruckner problem was more or less forbidden. Opponents were disenfranchised, manuscripts were seized. That partly explains the prominence of Haas's editions - even after the Nazi's were defeated. His editions took root as the central performing editions; they bedded in, so to speak. To many, Haas still is Bruckner.

As for Karajan - as I said, I bow to your obviously superior expertise and interest. I thought the whole Karajan-Nazi thing was cut and dried. I'd read it so often in different books and articles, I had always assumed it was true. But it is obviously more complex than that, so thankyou for the correction.

Don't be too quick. Even Osborne, advised by Gisela Tamsen's research, seems to have conceded that Karajan was a party member from 1935, though failure to follow through with his earlier attempts to join led to their eventual annulment. Let's not confuse Karajan with Furtwangler. The latter is said to have "refused to give the Nazi salute, to conduct the Horst-Wessel-Lied, or to sign his letters with 'Heil Hitler', even those he wrote to Hitler". The former was rather more compliant. However, it's Haas who's work is the real problem here, not the preening Herbie.

[Bryn]

I only know the Tintner ...........

The Simone Young is particularly worth hearing, I think, especially if you have SACD playing facilities. The artwork does, however, have some pretty horrendous proof-reading errors, such as 1878 for 1887!

[Beef Oven!]

The Simone Young is particularly worth hearing, I think, especially if you have SACD playing facilities. The artwork does, however, have some pretty horrendous proof-reading errors, such as 1878 for 1887!

I never got going on SACD players, I don't remember why. If you've got a spare one in that wardrobe, next to the Apple Mackintosh that you don't use.........

[Beef Oven!]

But it is a compromise version; from a time when people couldn't cope with the idea that "a" Symphony could have two different versions of itself. Haas, Simpson, Cooke and many others didn't believe that Bruckner played dice with the universe. Today, it's much easier to accept a "Symphony Number 8a" and a "Symphony Number 8b", and revel in the opportunities to hear both - Bruckner didn't write so much Music that we're cluttering the schedules with this dual symphony.:

Very well put, I hadn't thought of it like that.

[P. G. Tipps]

This is the rub - so many recordings show that Haas works in its own terms, and can be as powerful and moving an experience as either of the genuine Bruckner manuscripts. I shall continue to listen to recordings I have of it, and my attitude to the origins of the edition will not be a feature of my listening as I listen.

But it is a compromise version; from a time when people couldn't cope with the idea that "a" Symphony could have two different versions of itself. Haas, Simpson, Cooke and many others didn't believe that Bruckner played dice with the universe. Today, it's much easier to accept a "Symphony Number 8a" and a "Symphony Number 8b", and revel in the opportunities to hear both - Bruckner didn't write so much Music that we're cluttering the schedules with this dual symphony.

(Apologies if this isn't quite coherent: the bottle of Penderyn I've just finished off had a little more in than I'd expected!)

I agree with you ... that Penderyn stuff must be magic.

Bruckner himself kept changing his mind so often with his symphonies, often on the advice of others, that the idea of an 'authentic' version has long appeared hopelessly fanciful to me. The various editions attempt to make sensible order out of complete chaos and for all the talk of the differences between Haas and Nowak, I still fail to hear very much difference. As for the Eighth, I have slightly tended towards the Haas as there is a little bit more "Bruckner" in the Adagio during the ascent to the climactic summit which seems to me to be "typical" Bruckner, a sense of patient often meandering build-up which has the effect of making the long-awaited explosive release all the more effective, but I'm just as content with the rather more concise Nowak.

On the matter of Haas and his anti-Semitism Bruckner had many Jewish friends and colleagues who must have influenced the music in some way and not even a Nazi could get rid of all that! I think most of us (all?) are now glad to have generally seen the back of the rightly discredited Schalk attempts, whether the well-meaning brothers had happened to be Jewish or Catholic

Finally, I very much concur with the last words in Stephen Johnson's programme note at the Barbican concert on Thursday: ... 'Disconcerting simplicity and profound complexity co-exist in the man (Bruckner) as in his music. It's one of the things that makes him so fascinating and, in his music, unique.'

Hear, hear!

[waldo]

I agree with you ... that Penderyn stuff must be magic.

I think most of us (all?) are now glad to have generally seen the back of the rightly discredited Schalk attempts, whether the well-meaning brothers had happened to be Jewish or Catholic

This is the legacy of Haas speaking through you!

Actually, the "Shalk" attempts are making something of a comeback! (New editions now coming out.........including a Bruckner 4 from Vanska/Minnesota) The picture is far more complex than originally supposed. It is no longer supposed, for example, the Bruckner was easily led or easily influenced. That appears to have been a lie, much magnified by Haas. Bruckner was actually very stubborn and in total control of his work. If so, the "Shalk" contributions may have more value than previously supposed, since they may be considered to be the work of an assistant carrying out the instructions of his master.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Actually, the "Shalk" attempts are making something of a comeback! (New editions now coming out.........including a Bruckner 4 from Vanska/Minnesota) The picture is far more complex than originally supposed. It is no longer supposed, for example, the Bruckner was easily led or easily influenced. That appears to have been a lie, much magnified by Haas. Bruckner was actually very stubborn and in total control of his work. If so, the "Shalk" contributions may have more value than previously supposed, since they may be considered to be the work of an assistant carrying out the instructions of his master.

The cuts are intolerable - but certainly the indications of tempo changes that Bruckner added to these versions are useful in indicating the fluidity of Tempo with which the composer expected his Music to be performed.

And quite right to mention the myth of the "easily led" Bruckner

[P. G. Tipps]

This is the legacy of Haas speaking through you! .

Oh no, I take things as I find them and have no particular bias either way (if we restrict the editions to Haas and Nowak for convenience). I thought that was made pretty clear in my previous post though I admitted to a marginal preference for Haas in the 8th simply on the grounds of it containing a little more music and extending further the pre-climactic tension!

Actually, the "Shalk" attempts are making something of a comeback! (New editions now coming out.........including a Bruckner 4 from Vanska/Minnesota) The picture is far more complex than originally supposed. It is no longer supposed, for example, the Bruckner was easily led or easily influenced. That appears to have been a lie, much magnified by Haas. Bruckner was actually very stubborn and in total control of his work. If so, the "Shalk" contributions may have more value than previously supposed, since they may be considered to be the work of an assistant carrying out the instructions of his master.

Yes, there are Schalk recordings around but surely these are now considered by most to be more of a curiosity rather than a serious rival to the more generally-accepted and now long-established versions? I agree the situation is VERY complex ... as my Johnson quote indicated ... but the Schalk versions are so inferior to the others and, frankly, do not sound very much like the Bruckner I know and love. The conclusion to Schalk's version of the Fifth, with all those ruinous and bombastic cymbal-crashes, was never part of the composer's style. Some conductors, like Wand for instance, even eschew(ed) the inclusion of extra percussion in the 7th, and its inclusion is still controversial, though in this instance it can be said to enhance the listening experience rather than ruin it.

Still, I do not complain that there are so many versions of Bruckner symphonies around as it all adds to the great mystery surrounding this incomparable composer and his music!