Prom 56: Mozart & Bruckner – 24.08.18

[Bryn]

After writing "nullified" on the front page of the score, Bruckner's further 1895 comment on No.0 was "gilt nicht"..(not valid)... which seems a confident assessment .. and - good enough for me...

The fits the "confident assessment" very well. Confidence is not something I readily associate with Bruckner when faced with criticism from a conductor. I find Tintner's attribution of the "gilt nicht" and 'die nullte' to Dessoff's criticism of the work lacking a discernable main theme quite feasable. The work is not fully mature Bruckner, but neither are the other two early numbered symphonies which preceeded and followed it, in their earliest drafts. 'Die Nullte' deserves to be heard as a link in the chain of Bruckner's development as a symphonist.

[jayne lee wilson]

The fits the "confident assessment" very well. Confidence is not something I readily associate with Bruckner when faced with criticism from a conductor. I find Tintner's attribution of the "gilt nicht" and 'die nullte' to Dessoff's criticism of the work lacking a discernable main theme quite feasable. The work is not fully mature Bruckner, but neither are the other two early numbered symphonies which preceeded and followed it, in their earliest drafts. 'Die Nullte' deserves to be heard as a link in the chain of Bruckner's development as a symphonist.

That latter sentence I'd agree with, yes.... but I'd never recommend it as "a way in".... and I'm increasingly suspicious of the idea that Bruckner's revisions and reassessments etc were entirely due to his own blanching in the face of contemporary criticism; the authorised revisions to 2, 4 and 8 are very assured, even if they don't completely sideline the originals...

The late "Vienna" revision of No.1 does seem ill-advised, yes - but personally I do find 1 and 2 fully convincing in their own right ("fully mature" is a different concept) in any authorised (1866, 1872 or 1877) version.

As for No.3...it sets out on a new path as I said, and the revisions to this so-innovative work didn't improve it much. It needs a chapter to itself. But "00" and "0" I always find hard to get to the end of.
Still, I'll give Venzago's Zeroth another spin soon....

[jonfan]

Indeed so. Recorded February 1958; my introduction to the work, in the boxed set of LPs of Bruckner Symphonies under Jochum. I struggled over whether to get the Jochum or Haitink sets. The use, principally, of Nowak editions is what won me to the Jochum set. Of course, these days I also have the Philips Haitink set on CD, but still, of the two, marginally prefer the Jochum.

As a PS to this discussion I've noticed three recordings from 1958 in my collection which can stand comparison with today's performances, both artistically and, in particular, sonically. 1958 was the year stereo really took wing. Besides the DG above I have Ein Heldenleben with Beecham and the RPO and the famous Das Rheingold from the Solti Ring with the VPO. All three from different labels.

[BBMmk2]

That latter sentence I'd agree with, yes.... but I'd never recommend it as "a way in".... and I'm increasingly suspicious of the idea that Bruckner's revisions and reassessments etc were entirely due to his own blanching in the face of contemporary criticism; the authorised revisions to 2, 4 and 8 are very assured, even if they don't completely sideline the originals...

The late "Vienna" revision of No.1 does seem ill-advised, yes - but personally I do find 1 and 2 fully convincing in their own right ("fully mature" is a different concept) in any authorised (1866, 1872 or 1877) version.

As for No.3...it sets out on a new path as I said, and the revisions to this so-innovative work didn't improve it much. It needs a chapter to itself. But "00" and "0" I always find hard to get to the end of.
Still, I'll give Venzago's Zeroth another spin soon....

Would you say to ignore the revisions in the face of Bruckner having to alter because of unjust criticism?

[jayne lee wilson]

Would you say to ignore the revisions in the face of Bruckner having to alter because of unjust criticism?

It is tempting, regarding No.3!

But the revisions have been recorded so often and so well, it's impossible to ignore them if you love the composer, really. The main thing to grasp is that 1877/8 and 1889/90 are very similar, and sound to anyone who knows the original as catchy abridgements; whereas the very different, uncut, original 1873 3rd itself is remarkably innovative, adventurous and yes, challenging (no wonder it baffled its first performers and listeners) - which in the last few years has been recognised by many more conductors, with several excellent recordings.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I heard the repeat of this concert today. It was rather good. Bruckner 5 is the only symphony by that composer that I find interesting enough to sit through th whole work. (I even bought the score a few years ago.)

And the Mozart concerto ...

[BBMmk2]

I heard the repeat of this concert today. It was rather good. Bruckner 5 is the only symphony by that composer that I find interesting enough to sit through th whole work. (I even bought the score a few years ago.)

And the Mozart concerto ...

I'm very surprised to hear you say that Alpie, re the Bruckner!

[Maclintick]

- It took me several years to "get" Bruckner: my own "breakthrough" piece was the (unfinished) Ninth in the Karajan recording from the '60s; then the Seventh and Sixth (Klemperer both), then the Eighth (Jochum/BPO)- after that, it was plain sailing, and he's one of my favourite composers.

That incandescent '69 BPO/Karajan Ninth ignited an undimmed passion for AB in me, as well, FHG, from which ausblickspunkt I traversed these revolutionary but often misunderstood symphonies in reverse gear, numerically, as it were. JLW may be right in proposing no 1 ("Linz" rather than "Vienna" q.v.) as an apposite initiation for the as-yet-unconverted -- it's well-structured, attractively energetic & purposeful at the outset, with a passionately lyrical slow movt & barnstorming finale -- not citadel-storming as in no. 5, but entirely in proportion to AB's conception. The scherzo's trio is a perfect gem, delicately shifting & pastel-hued, à la Dvorák or Tchaikovsky. A terrific Sym 1, not out of place in the company of LVB, JB, GM, JS, EE & DSCH, or the aforementioned PT (any takers for Nielsen, Walton ? These are pretty impressive first efforts too)

If one is tempted to helicopter oneself onto the summit & start with AB 9, there are plenty of competitive runners, with the Italians leading the field IMHO -- VPO/Giulini (1988) Lucerne/Abbado, (both DG). For me, pace JLW, Venzago's "lean & mean" approach doesn't quite cut it in these later symphonies, where his fast-pacing (51' compared with Haitink 62' or Abbado 63') rather compromises Bruckner's inherent spirituality.

If you prioritise the old-fashioned and possibly outmoded Brucknerian attribute of "heavenly length",
here's another Italian maestro whose ascension into the Bruckner "Hall of Fame" is assured. Those who revere Venzago's concise approach (51'36") may find it a tad overlong at 105 mins, but recalling the enthusiasm which greeted Leif Segerstam's Bruckner 8 at tortoise-like velocity a couple of years ago, I offer this as a corrective...

[jayne lee wilson]

I do love the Nielsen 1st very, very much! It's often in my head. I thought everyone loved the Walton!?
Well, it certainly deserves the love....Martinu's 1st is another member of a fascinating, inspired and inspiring club.

Pedant's Corner: The Karajan studio Berlin 9ths are 1966 (Christus-Kirche) and 1975 (Philharmonie), though there is is a 1985 live Lucerne one, out on various DVD releases....

I'd certainly agree that Venzago isn't at his best in 8 and 9 (what a shame we never got the promised CPO sketch & completion-CD of the 9th from him...) full of interpretative interest though they are. But his 7th is one of my very favourites, marvellously translucent and lyrical. His 5th is the only real disappointment for me. It sounds rushed and unsettled as a performance and a reading.

But Cobra's 9th - 105 minutes.!?..105 minutes for just the three movements? I favour swifter, lyrical, tightly cogent Brucknerian readings anyway, so I'll keep well away!
What we need most are more performances of the completed 9th, especially in astonishingly tight, swift readings like the BBCSSO/Dausgaard one discussed here recently by Bryn and others, which would indeed make a very good BBC MM CD....

[underthecountertenor]

I've reached this very late, with but 3 days to spare before it disappears from the ether (it's a race against time for the rest of the season for me).

The Mozart is very enjoyable, but I cannot see that anyone has remarked on a surprising number of what sounded to me like errors in BG's playing, including in his very first statement in the first movement. Am I hearing things? Or being shallow in expecting greater accuracy? I do like Grosvenor's approach (and have enjoyed everything I've heard from this), but am surprised that he was not more on top of the notes. But perhaps it's my ears/brain (by the same token I've not been bothered by things that have exercised others in other concerts, so perhaps I'm going mad).