Ah! Many thanks Beef Oven. I will have to have a listen before deciding whether to go ahead or not.
-
-
-
Thanks Beef for the links, but that was a VAST thread, review appeared on page 31(!!). http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...1-12-16/page31... so here it is again.....(without my cherished italics, but never mind...)Originally posted by robk View Post
Bruckner Symphony No. 3 (1873 ed Nowak). Dresden Staatskapelle/Yannick Nézet-Séguin. Profil Hanssler CD 2016 live rec. 2008.
This Bruckner 3 isn’t quite what it might seem as it was recorded in 2008, several years before YNS’ Metropolitain reading in 2014. Which has significant musical consequences, as the later performance is quicker by almost 7 minutes…
But here I was for the third time with the Semperoper before me, drawn back by sheer beauty of sound to the Staatskapelle, whose undoubtedly glorious tone cannot disguise some uncertainty in the reading itself.
The orchestra sometimes seems the key player here. That burnished tone, the discipline instinctive - ingrained. But I couldn’t wholly shake the feeling in the 26’+ 1st movement, of a beautifully-played conductorless performance, such was the strange absence of flow or momentum, the first-group climaxes almost ponderous, their cadences lingered over and too drawn out; the lyrical phrases within them almost static. The third pause after the initial climax, (before the restatement) was oddly overstretched, whereas the central development’s climax, initially monumentalised, was then accelerated. The figures running through the development felt repetitious, rather than cumulative. I wondered how often conductor or orchestra had played this work before, at least together; on a learning curve at a deeper interpretative level?
And yet, how well it was actually played, how wonderful it sounded in this acoustic. I so wanted to love it, and was relieved by the sharper focus into the recap. YNS was more of a shaping spirit here, just perceptibly urging the music on when it was most needed..
(Six years later with the Montreal Metropolitain, this all goes much better: despite being less than a minute shorter, there’s a finer, far-seeing grasp of the structure, tempi better related, an effortless fluency to the climaxes, transitions and lyrical interludes, never allowing a beautiful melodic vista to delay symphonic progress. A reading of great purity and cumulative power which serves the striking continuity of the original score wonderfully well. The Metropolitan have a fresher more open sound than the Dresdeners, but it is still a wonderful Brucknerian instrument. And the 24/96 sound doesn’t hurt, so transparent to those echt-Brucknerian string counterpoints.)
The 1873 Adagio, one of the most glorious of all Bruckner slow movements in its perfect 5-section arch-form, has never sounded more beautiful than here, a deep, dark, glowing introspection. Yet YNS still takes almost 3 minutes off it in his later Montreal recording, which really sings - endless melody indeed, again revealing the flow and continuity of the lovely original, and the Metro violins have a sublime sweetness of their own. He may have perceived a need for greater flow or momentum, yet one can forgive a degree of hedonistic dwelling upon the gorgeous Dresden sonorities, a temptation for any conductor (or listener) to linger over.
The Dresden scherzo is fine. Edgy displaced accents made much of, an extra swing to those trumpet triplets, brasses revelling in their elongated chords across the jagged rhythms. Shame the trio didn’t swing more. But, a surprise: that finer-grained sound reveals the Montreal scherzo as crunchier in the attack….
In the finale, Yannick is in his element, plainly understanding and believing in the larger very original structure and making the most of its extended coda which is virtually a second development (most of this, not to mention the sonata-rondo-type feel of the development itself, lost to the later revisions, which is why they make no sense, except perhaps as misdirected apology).
He really nails this one each time, the Staatskapelle gaining a little in live-performance tension on the Metropolitain’s swifter appreciation of its form. That abrupt final cadence as authoritative as any other.
(The Metro performance is described as live, but often gives this listener the impression of a careful-prepared, beautifully-balanced studio recording.)
It is unusual for a conductor to have two of the same Bruckner Symphonies on disc so early, most especially this 1873 3rd. Whilst I think I see what YNS was getting at in 2008, in his slower, exploratory, feeling-our-way-through-it 1st movement, the closing in on the finale’s cyclical returns, if he can find a still more cogent approach with whatever orchestra in the future, I’ll be first in the queue. His Montreal Metropolitan recording certainly shows an interpretation-in-progress, eagle-eyed yet emphasising the lyrical and melodic…and is already one of the best 1873 3rds.
But the Staatskapelle - recommended? For any devoted Brucknerian - yes of course. It is despite some reservations one of the most beautifully played and recorded of the original score and if you like your Bruckner slower and grander than I usually do you may well respond more unequivocally.
“How happy could I be with either, were t’other dear charmer away…?”
Not quite. I’ll be revisiting Montreal first…Last edited by jayne lee wilson; 17-03-17, 18:25.Comment
-
Yes indeed, wildness (and I like both those works very much), it's just there's a quality in some music that seems to me to contain sth more out of control, a dangerous instability that can seem to both energise and threaten the music at the same time. This is all very subjective, if you hear this in Nielsen for example then it's as real as anything else. I mean one could argue music is not an emotional phenomenon, it's just our reaction to it that is (or not, depending on you). I'm simply describing what I hear when I listen, not necessarily what might or might not be there for anybody else.Originally posted by richardfinegold View Post
If you ever get the inclination, I'd be an interested observer at the very least. I've had a few forays into Schnittke with more misses than hits, which surprises me a bit, as in some ways I feel he could be my cup of tea. It'd be interesting reading of others experiences.Originally posted by teamsaint View Post
That's *quite* a thing to have on the back burner!Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
Comment
-
I think it's probably doomed to stay there, because the amount of time it would take to do what I'd like to do (if it's even possible) is unlikely to open up... I'm sure I've posted about it here before, the idea is not to make a scholarly "performing version of the sketches" (Cooke) or a hypothetical completion the way Mahler "might have done it" (all the others) but something entirely different, which doesn't attempt to ignore the century that's passed since its incompletion and which reinterprets the material in a way that's as radical in the 21st century as Mahler's might have been in the early 20th.Originally posted by Daniel View Post
Would such an approach be practicable in the case of Bruckner 9? It's not something I've given much thought to, but the problem would probably be that the relative weight, duration and stylistic unequivocality of the parts which actually are completed would overpower it, so anyone working on the material is stuck with continuing Bruckner's train of thought, when Bruckner himself seems to have been unable to take it to a conclusion. The more I hear of four-movement Bruckner 9s the more I prefer the three-movement version; the more I hear of five-movement Mahler 10s the more I think a new approach might have something to offer.Comment
-
Richard Barrett: It would be very interesting to see a completed edition of your thoughts on Mahler 10th.Don’t cry for me
I go where music was born
J S Bach 1685-1750Comment
-
Thank you Bbm - I did propose it a few years ago to a certain Controller as a possible Proms event for the 2011 Mahler centenary, but didn't even receive a reply.Originally posted by Brassbandmaestro View PostComment
-
How very rude (of the Controller, that is!)...Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostComment
-
No not very polite, even though he should've replied! It would still be good to see your performing edition!Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostDon’t cry for me
I go where music was born
J S Bach 1685-1750Comment
-
Not wanting to get too far away from Bruckner, I've noticed in recent years how frequently it happens that proposals sent to promoters, festival directors etc. are not even acknowledged, let alone given some kind of response, considered or otherwise. The coincides with the rise of a whole layer of salaried arts-management people who used not to be there in such numbers and who in many cases conduct themselves as if they were infinitely more important than the artists and audiences who they're supposedly paid to be bringing together. Not that Controller Wright fell into that category of course, but the lack of response came as something of a surprise given how supportive he'd been over the years. I could rant on about things like this all day but I'd prefer to return to Bruckner...Originally posted by Beef Oven!
... to say I'm glad to have heard so many interesting opinions here about recordings of no.3, which I really need to get to know better than I do. However, I'm inclined to stick with Venzago for all the early ones, and possibly the others too, although I couldn't let go of the glorious sound of the VPO or the inner luminosity of Celibidache (a combination of those two would be something to hear!).Comment
-
My comment was for ahinton!Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
I am surprised that there isn’t even an acknowledgement with such things.
Back to Bruckner. I think I over-dosed on #3 in recent times. But yes, the Venzago is really interesting. Sinopoli does it for me too. Wonderful Dresden brass.Comment
-
Although you use the expression 'stylistic unequivocality' to refer to the extent to which the written parts already have Bruckner's stamp on them (I think), I'd say more generally equivocality/ambiguity is not a characteristic I'd associate with Bruckner's music, it seems to have a certain constancy of intention, through whichever emotional mood it strays. This relative absence of ambiguity is something very distinctive about his music (and a great strength) I think. It can feel very reassuring as a result. (Odd perhaps, as much music I feel closely connected to seems rife with ambiguity).Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
Well I wish you productive musings whether or not they come to anything, it sounds very interesting!Comment
-
Exactly. Which is why a hypothetical "completion" which would take the music in directions Bruckner wouldn't have imagined would probably seem pointless and ill-conceived. But the "weight" and "duration" I also mentioned are just as crucial. With Mahler you have four out of five movements to work on, even assuming no intervention in the first movement, which itself has a certain unfinished quality about it in the final few minutes, in my opinion; whereas with Bruckner you only have one, the others being as finished as Bruckner's music ever was.Originally posted by Daniel View PostComment
-
[QUOTE=Daniel;612164]Although you use the expression 'stylistic unequivocality' to refer to the extent to which the written parts already have Bruckner's stamp on them (I think), I'd say more generally equivocality/ambiguity is not a characteristic I'd associate with Bruckner's music, it seems to have a certain constancy of intention, through whichever emotional mood it strays. This relative absence of ambiguity is something very distinctive about his music (and a great strength) I think. It can feel very reassuring as a result. (Odd perhaps, as much music I feel closely connected to seems rife with ambiguity).
But Daniel, what did you think of my comments (from #108) here? How do you react to those earlier symphonies....? I always feel Bruckner's "ambiguities" are still less often perceived...
"Yes, the 9th is very different isn't it? Those visitations of doubt, fear and death that rear up in the second half of the 8th's 1st movement become explicit, threatening and very intense.
Some earlier finales get pretty wild though: the 1st, with its eerily apprehensive violin figurations, conjures up a dizzying whirlwind of fierce rhythmical energy that is only just contained, steam-hammered into the final cadences. The 6th's finale has an uneasy, jump-cutting structural instability about it, as if always changing the point of view of the same fantastical landscape. And think of the pent-up anger in the rhythmic figure that dominates the finale of the 2nd, a largely pastoral, peaceful work until then; and the desperate efforts through its development to transform it into positive energy.
These all seem to me to be musically and emotionally very "de-stabilising" influences. So I think those darker demonic forces were always somewhere there, before their more overt expressions in the 8th and 9th Symphonies.
(And it does set the 5th apart even more clearly, as the truest, grandest statement of an Apollonian confidence.)"
...I feel that those angry outbursts in the 2nd Symphony especially, have never been given their due as to musical or emotional meaning.....Comment
-
Jayne, I don't know the first two symphonies well enough to comment without listening to them first, I'll get back to you. I broadly agree with your eloquent description of the finale of 6, I'd probably describe it as uncertainty, rather than ambiguity (and not seeming to be about to plunge down any emotional cliff side), but it's late and I'd prefer to think about it a bit fresher, and will do so and offer any ensuing thoughts.
Comment
Comment