Prom 47: Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra - 23.08.19

[gedsmk]

From the hall. Having played all the Bach on various instruments I felt the interpretations were rather withdrawn and safe, lacking brightness or fire.
The Bruckner seemed restrained. Needed more sense of forward movement. Extraordinary beautiful sound throughout.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Where do you stand on pulse, Ferners?

I tend to use my fingers, rather than my feet!

I am - perhaps appropriately enough - flexible on this matter. My preference is towards ... towar ... to ...

... hold on!

"ferners"???!!!

... <ahem>

... my preference is towards the swifter tempi that are found both in many newer recordings, and in the studio and Live recordings from the '30s & '40s (Böhm's 1936 #4 with the Dresdeners is a much more "fiery" performance than the measured contemplation of his 1960s VPO - all of Furtwangler's recordings of the 8th each fit comfortably onto a single CD). Bruckner provides no metronome markings, but he regularly peppers even his slow movements with "not too slow" caveats (feierlich langsam - "solemnly slowly", he directs for the Third Movement for the 8th Symphony, adding doch nicht scleppend, "but not dragging" - the faster movements also frequently have the cautionary "not too fast" added). In this, if in nothing else, he resembles Brahms - extremes are to be avoided.

I believe also that there's evidence from people's recollections of his own performances and comments to conductors that his Music loses an essential aspect if the pulse is kept rigidly metronomical (the first, cut, editions of some of the Symphonies are useful to performers in that the editorial tempo modifications give at least a hint of the sort of tempo fluidity that the composer so took for granted that he didn't think he needed to write them in, any more than he needed to add "blown" in the wind parts) - but the fact that he didn't include them at least suggests that these should be effected with the same "caution" he marks in his Tempo markings.

I don't think - and I don't think that Richard Osborne thinks this, either - that an "all-commanding pulse" means a constant, unwavering one. The different ways that a conductor and the players arrive at ways of revealing a central "tonic" Tempo/pulse that acts as a flexible core enabling fluctuations - that's the sort of engagement with a text that really gets my own pulse dancing.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Perhaps he wanted to experience the music in its proper setting, but did not dare show his face for risk of invoking Catholic wrath? I must try to find the reference if I still have that episode of COTW.

It could well be, Flay - I don't know. But I(and it's a big I)IRC, Bach's own Chorale settings weren't used "in their proper settings" (the Cantatas) in Bruckner's lifetime, so he wouldn't've been able to so experience them?

[jayne lee wilson]

For excellent detail on Bruckner's performance-intentions, see the notes to the 1888 first published edition of the 4th here, especially from page 5....
(This was the standard performance version of the 4th, for many years well into the 20thCentury...).

https://www.eclassical.com/shop/art96/BIS-1746-SA_booklet.pdf-de0873.pdf

These tempi and expression indications are often far more prevalent in the first published editions, including the aforementioned 1892 8th.... at the very least, they should offer considerable support to a flexible approach to the works, in tempi and expression.....

Since Bruckner organises the 1888 4th's finale around four basic tempi, might it not seem misconceived to search for, or try to arrive at, an "all-commanding" or "core" pulse from which to derive them? Especially if you should imagine this needs to apply to the whole work.

[Alison]

I tend to use my fingers, rather than my feet!

I am - perhaps appropriately enough - flexible on this matter. My preference is towards ... towar ... to ...

... hold on!

"ferners"???!!!

... <ahem>

... my preference is towards the swifter tempi that are found both in many newer recordings, and in the studio and Live recordings from the '30s & '40s (Böhm's 1936 #4 with the Dresdeners is a much more "fiery" performance than the measured contemplation of his 1960s VPO - all of Furtwangler's recordings of the 8th each fit comfortably onto a single CD). Bruckner provides no metronome markings, but he regularly peppers even his slow movements with "not too slow" caveats (feierlich langsam - "solemnly slowly", he directs for the Third Movement for the 8th Symphony, adding doch nicht scleppend, "but not dragging" - the faster movements also frequently have the cautionary "not too fast" added). In this, if in nothing else, he resembles Brahms - extremes are to be avoided.

I believe also that there's evidence from people's recollections of his own performances and comments to conductors that his Music loses an essential aspect if the pulse is kept rigidly metronomical (the first, cut, editions of some of the Symphonies are useful to performers in that the editorial tempo modifications give at least a hint of the sort of tempo fluidity that the composer so took for granted that he didn't think he needed to write them in, any more than he needed to add "blown" in the wind parts) - but the fact that he didn't include them at least suggests that these should be effected with the same "caution" he marks in his Tempo markings.

I don't think - and I don't think that Richard Osborne thinks this, either - that an "all-commanding pulse" means a constant, unwavering one. The different ways that a conductor and the players arrive at ways of revealing a central "tonic" Tempo/pulse that acts as a flexible core enabling fluctuations - that's the sort of engagement with a text that really gets my own pulse dancing.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Probably better to have said "Extremes are to be carefully rationed - the timing and placing got just right to make fullest effect" rather than "avoided". (True for both Brahms & Bruckner - both extremely good composers!)

[edashtav]

For excellent detail on Bruckner's performance-intentions, see the notes to the 1888 first published edition of the 4th here, especially from page 5....
(This was the standard performance version of the 4th, for many years well into the 20thCentury...).

https://www.eclassical.com/shop/art96/BIS-1746-SA_booklet.pdf-de0873.pdf

These tempi and expression indications are often far more prevalent in the first published editions, including the aforementioned 1892 8th.... at the very least, they should offer considerable support to a flexible approach to the works, in tempi and expression.....

Since Bruckner organises the 1888 4th's finale around four basic tempi, might it not seem misconceived to search for, or try to arrive at, an "all-commanding" or "core" pulse from which to derive them? Especially if you should imagine this needs to apply to the whole work.

Thanks for that link, Jayne. I hadn't read that piece before and it's helpful.

My chief issue with Nelsons' tempi was in the slow movement in which his basic tempo was so slow that impeded the sense of line and flow. Elsewhere, his concern for the moment conflicted with momentum, direction, and the vital relationship between the instant and the whole.

[jayne lee wilson]

Thanks for that link, Jayne. I hadn't read that piece before and it's helpful.

My chief issue with Nelsons' tempi was in the slow movement in which his basic tempo was so slow that impeded the sense of line and flow. Elsewhere, his concern for the moment conflicted with momentum, direction, and the vital relationship between the instant and the whole.

I've come to love a more impulsive approach to this composer (if not exclusively...) - Volkmar Andreae and Knappertsbusch back then, with the sound of Old Vienna in their blood and in their orchestras; and latterly Mario Venzago.

Nézet-Séguin seems almost conflicted, if fascinatingly, in his approach. Giving us on the one hand a marvellous airy, light, lively 6th; on the other a 2nd Symphony, needlessly employing the unauthorised Haas 1872/77 Edition, which while sounding very beautiful, is at times numbingly reverential too; "solid-state" Bruckner, again....
Still he has given us TWO fine recordings of the indispensable 1872 3rd; in Dresden and Montreal, whose striking differences (swifter & more flexible the second time) tend to confirm his own creative Brucknerian adventures have, I'm glad to say, miles to go before they sleep....

[Master Jacques]

... needlessly employing the unauthorised Haas 1872/77 Edition

So which Bruckner editions are "authorised"? None of them, of course, by definition, except for some of the cut-down or otherwise butchered revisions he passed during his own lifetime.

I think you are perhaps unkind to Robert Haas in the case of the 2nd Symphony, to single him out for disapproval - I wonder if anyone can tell the difference between the echt-Bruckner here and the short links supplied by his editor, or included from crossed-out parts of the original manuscripts? His hybrid version has been at least partially vindicated by modern scholarship and microfilm, has it not?

Even Carragan sticks with some of the Haas version, for his own publication of the 1877 version, on the grounds that "the effect is better".

[richardfinegold]

Kna, Andreae, Venzago and others don't necessarily need the "all-commanding pulse" (as established by Karajan sometimes, Wand usually, stop-go Jochum not so much...) to make sense of the music - to make it "cohere"....
There is that other more "provincial" (in the best sense) Schubertian/Wagnerian (especially with Kna) sonority, melody, drama and volatility....
So too the Berlin Staatskapelle, the Leipzig Gewandhaus...

It's a sunny day! Trying to keep track of the cricket , so....back to the cat(s) and the garden for now...

I haven’t heard Furtwangler in Bruckner except the Eighth, but one of the many virtues there is the long arcs, that seem to treat Bruckner’s many tangents as ornaments rather than ends in and of themselves

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Since Bruckner organises the 1888 4th's finale around four basic tempi

I only have access to the 1887, 1890 [both ed Nowak), & Haas editions so cannot comment on the text of a year later. In all three editions there are but two main tempi - the importance of which the composer emphasizes by giving them Metronome markings - the only time these are used in the score (in these editions). The first is marked minim = 69, the second minim = 60. Bruckner makes very clear when these motivating tempi are required by reference to metronome marks and in verbal directions such as "Erstes zeitmass" (which he keeps clearly distinguished from "Tempo 1" - something the printed edition of 1892 didn't). There are other tempo modifications, but these are always "corrected" back to either of the two main tempi after a few bars (the noch langsamer, "still slower" at rehearsal mark F (in all three editions - page 160 ['87], 114 ['90], 116 [Haas]) goes back to minim = 60 ("Tempo 2!, if you like) after 12 bars. This is true throughout the Finale - material is either in/related to a minim pulse of 60, or to one of 69.

The possible exception in these scores is the marking ruhig, "calmly", which appears at rehearsal mark Z (b373+, p185 ['87]; b345+, p131 ['90], b365+, p134 [Haas]) and continues for a considerable period of 42 bars. In '90 and Haas there is a further ruhig passage - this time of 24 bars - and the Symphony as a whole concludes with a Coda whose marking is also ruhig. The conductor has to decide whether "calmly" requires a further tempo change, or whether the pulse/tempo should be kept in the region of the minim = 60 that precedes all the appearances of the ruhig markings, as the absence of a third metronome marking might suggest. The clock ticks at a metronome of 60 beats per minute - can four quavers in each tick sound "calm"? Or does it require a slower tempo? These are the aspects of performance that really intrigue me.

[jayne lee wilson]

So which Bruckner editions are "authorised"? None of them, of course, by definition, except for some of the cut-down or otherwise butchered revisions he passed during his own lifetime.

I think you are perhaps unkind to Robert Haas in the case of the 2nd Symphony, to single him out for disapproval - I wonder if anyone can tell the difference between the echt-Bruckner here and the short links supplied by his editor, or included from crossed-out parts of the original manuscripts? His hybrid version has been at least partially vindicated by modern scholarship and microfilm, has it not?

Even Carragan sticks with some of the Haas version, for his own publication of the 1877 version, on the grounds that "the effect is better".

...."authorised" simply means what Bruckner signed off on during his lifetime (it takes a little effort to find this out, too long to summarise here...)...... Carragan is a far more devoted, precise, Bruckner scholar, especially about No.2 (1872 and 1877 - the "links" you mention here, mainly cyclical quotations within and across the first and last movements - make a crucial difference), than your comment suggests.... you'll have to spend some time consulting the abruckner.com website and these two indispensable guides......about No.2 and much else....
(as you see above, I'm very appreciative of Haas in the 8th...)

https://www.unicamp.br/~jmarques/mus/bruckner-e.htm#2

https://bruckner.webs.com/versions.html#sym8

(note especially the detail on the latest Carragan Edn. of No.2)

More comments from me here...

http://www.for3.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?116-Bruckner

Anyway.... beautiful day, astounding cricket.....back to the garden....
Please watch out for my Dalbavie review "coming soon".....

[jayne lee wilson]

I only have access to the 1887, 1890 [both ed Nowak), & Haas editions so cannot comment on the text of a year later. In all three editions there are but two main tempi - the importance of which the composer emphasizes by giving them Metronome markings - the only time these are used in the score (in these editions). The first is marked minim = 69, the second minim = 60. Bruckner makes very clear when these motivating tempi are required by reference to metronome marks and in verbal directions such as "Erstes zeitmass" (which he keeps clearly distinguished from "Tempo 1" - something the printed edition of 1892 didn't). There are other tempo modifications, but these are always "corrected" back to either of the two main tempi after a few bars (the noch langsamer, "still slower" at rehearsal mark F (in all three editions - page 160 ['87], 114 ['90], 116 [Haas]) goes back to minim = 60 ("Tempo 2!, if you like) after 12 bars. This is true throughout the Finale - material is either in/related to a minim pulse of 60, or to one of 69.

The possible exception in these scores is the marking ruhig, "calmly", which appears at rehearsal mark Z (b373+, p185 ['87]; b345+, p131 ['90], b365+, p134 [Haas]) and continues for a considerable period of 42 bars. In '90 and Haas there is a further ruhig passage - this time of 24 bars - and the Symphony as a whole concludes with a Coda whose marking is also ruhig. The conductor has to decide whether "calmly" requires a further tempo change, or whether the pulse/tempo should be kept in the region of the minim = 60 that precedes all the appearances of the ruhig markings, as the absence of a third metronome marking might suggest. The clock ticks at a metronome of 60 beats per minute - can four quavers in each tick sound "calm"? Or does it require a slower tempo? These are the aspects of performance that really intrigue me.

...(Well, see my comments in #49 above, & especially the BIS note linked to, on the 1888 4th...)...

[jayne lee wilson]

For a excellent, plentifully-exemplified discussion of the concept of "unified tempi" in Bruckner interpretation, see John Williamson "Conductors and Bruckner" in the Cambridge Companion to Bruckner (Cambridge 2004). It would be fair to say he is broadly critical of such a concept, but it is a very balanced and insightful historical and comparative assessment in any case.

[Master Jacques]

...."authorised" simply means what Bruckner signed off on during his lifetime (it takes a little effort to find this out, too long to summarise here...)...... Carragan is a far more devoted, precise, Bruckner scholar, especially about No.2 (1872 and 1877 - the "links" you mention here, mainly cyclical quotations within and across the first and last movements - make a crucial difference), than your comment suggests.... you'll have to spend some time consulting the abruckner.com website and these two indispensable guides......about No.2 and much else....
(as you see above, I'm very appreciative of Haas in the 8th...)[/I]

Thank you as ever for your helpful links. My point, though, was simpler and needs no instruction, i.e. there is no need to castigate Haas alone as "unauthorised" simply because you happen to prefer what Novak or - as here - Carragan might have come up with.

In his scholarly devotion and precision at least Professor Carragan has the modesty to accept that Haas's leaps of faith can occasionally bring us closer to the composer himself, in this 2nd Symphony and elsewhere. The problem with scholarly reconstructions in our time is that they too often throw out the baby with the bathwater. In perpetuating certain of Haas's revisions at least as options for performers, Carragan has been mercifully aware of that.

Haas is in fact no more "unauthorised" than Novak, Carragan or any other 20th c. editor of Bruckner, so to reserve the adjective for him is not cricket, though I hope you enjoyed watching that and your garden this afternoon. It was too hot here in London to do anything other than stay inside, lie flat and listen to Tippett piano sonatas!