Helgoland is one of Bruckner's most compact and symphonically dramatic utterances *ever*. It strikes me, for instance, that it could very easily be a "draft" conception related closely to his contemporary thoughts on the grand orchestral finale he envisioned for the symphony.
One option that I have enjoyed is editing a Ninth performance that uses Helgoland *as is* for a substitute Finale. To me, this works gloriously as a pure-Bruckner alternative to the excellent, but speculative, reconstructions of the fragmentary finale manuscript by such as William Carragan and Sébastien Letocart - both of whom I respect highly and appreciate their forensic musicological work. Helgoland has the affirmative, grand, and glorious peroration of a coda that in my opinion could have been the mental "draft" ending of the Ninth!
Performance of Helgoland is difficult to arrange since it requires a large all-male (TTBB) chorus to balance Bruckner's large, late-Romantic orchestra. There are a couple of exceptionally fine recordings that do just that, one (my favorite) by Wyn Morris and the other by Daniel Barenboim and the Chicago Symphony.
Yes; I conform with Nils-Göran's experience in that I certainly did not respond to either composer's music until considerably later in life : I did not much care for Mahler until I was into my thirties and Bruckner took a decade longer than that - perhaps it has something to do with acquiring patience. The First is the most youthful of Mahler's symphonies in terms of both chronology and sensibility, and Bruckner's Fourth has a lyrical appeal, even chiming with Mahler's First regarding its "Romanticism" (forests, castles, chivalry etc) whereas the Third is more typically "monumental" in character, so indeed, those two symphonies might be the best places to start while waiting for the music to "click".
I usually resist ideas of psychological affinity with composers, but can't resist them when it comes to Mahler and Bruckner. To me, Mahler's music is a caleidoscope of shifting impressions. He tries to make sense of them while remaining open to life's multitude of possibilities. Bruckner's music shows me someone who wants to believe in a single truth and preaches it in order to convince himself - and me. When I encounter people like these I tend to be inspired by the Mahlers and smile a bit indulgently to the Bruckners. But I also commiserate with the former, and secretly envy the latter.
At least I believe that's why Mahler grabbed me the very first time I heard a live performance of one of his symphonies as a teenager more than half a century ago. As for Bruckner, I like every five minutes I hear and have collected lots of famous recordings. But often I get bored and exasperated by his restarts. Maybe Schuricht and Blomstedt are the conductors who conform best with my temperament for Bruckner. But I am still struggling and hope one day to love his symphonies as much as Mahler's.
For Mahler Mengelberg's fourth is my favourite. I also find several of Walter's and Horenstein's preferable to most later conductors. This has much to do with how present-day musicians have to learn things which came natural to those trained in the early 1900s, and are so well-trained that they don't have to struggle with their parts.
My advice to Noah would be to try and experience either live, and let yourself be overwhelmed. Then try to recreate that sensation by tasting a few contrasted interpretations of for instance the fourth symphonies of both composers which people seem to like, and see which strikes a chord with you. If it does not work, enjoy other music - and return in later life, like I have with Bruckner. Still searching...
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb