The question of tempi is an interesting one in several ways. In relation to the references Chris made in 2018 to the metronome markings of Hinais, I had understood that his edition was effectively discredited. Certainly Robert Simpson was dismissive and they do not appear in the Nowak score I have (or presumably in Haas which I believe to be almost identical). The first movement doesn’t really have a tempo marking in my view – Majestoso being more about the character of the music. As Chris points out there are fluctuations marked in the score and I agree that Klemperer doesn’t always respect them, most notably ignoring the molto ritard at the very end. But there is something majestic about his first movement. Whilst I do feel his tempo for the slow movement is a little quick (Haitink is substantially slower in Dresden), his finale does work for me. Overall Haitink seems to me to both capture the spirit and follow the letter of the score (in his studio and live recordings) whilst Klemperer adds (as he often did with other composers) more of his own take, particularly with regard to tempi. I don’t really see it as a “validity” issue - some of what he did works for me and some of it doesn’t. And in Bruckner, I feel that it’s only really his Sixth that competes with the best. I would still regard it as my first alternative choice for this work.
I am, of course, delighted that, in the section discussing Bruckner's Sixth, the author has referred to (and linked) my review of the Klemperer recording in support of his view that this is the finest recording of all.
I hope I shall not come out of this with egg on my face, but four years later I revisited Bruckner Sixth in an article (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2018/Jan/Bruckner_sy6_article_CH.pdf) in which I examined the question of tempi in this symphony and, specifically, the tempo relationships that Bruckner indicated (with unusual clarity for him) in the outer movements. In the light of this examination, I was forced to conclude that Klemperer, like most other conductors, seriously misrepresents the work and, whatever his felicities along the way, is not really a valid performance at all. The only two mentioned in my article that fully respected Bruckner's indications were Keilberth and Horenstein, though of course there may be others that I haven't heard.
It's embarrassing, of course, that I said one thing in 2014 and something very different in 2018, but it is a feature of the human mind that, the more one looks into things, the more they change.
Do the authors of the article have any thoughts on this issue of Bruckner's indications in this symphony? Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb