CELEBRATING 53,000 Classical CD reviews on-line (Sept 2016); 21,000 page views each day. Return to MusicWeb International
Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
Posted by Chris Howell on May 29, 2020, 7:08 am
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 (https://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?
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
I cannot speak on behalf of such eminent Bruckner critics such as Patrick or John, but I personally was glad to reminded of your most interesting article on the Bruckner Sixth Symphony.
It is also quite timely - and indeed important - since a few months ago, Simon Rattle's recording of the work with the LSO appeared and it was the very fast tempo for the opening that raised many collective eyebrows (even faster than Andreae and Reichert, if memory serves correct). I certainly didn't think it worked on a practical level when the theme was repeated by full orchestra a few bars later (it sounded garbled), but others may disagree. Intriguingly, Rattle was apparently using a new edition of the score by Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs, so I wonder if he had incorporated Cyrill Hinais's markings into his critical edition (alas, the accompanying booklet is mysteriously silent with regards to this) ?
So no, I don't think you are making a 'mountain out of a molehill' - and it is also worth noting that two live Klemperer performances (with the Concertgebouw and BBCSO) made just before the EMI recording sees him adopting the slowest tempos for the opening of all, which in turn create other problems. I've emailed Herr Cohrs this morning to see if he'd be so kind to contribute to this thread too.
Best
lee
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
Chris, you raise a very interesting point - and one that probably applies to other Bruckner symphonies as well. My immediate reaction is that the tempo indication at the start of the Sixth - 'Majestoso' - leaves a lot of room for discretion on the part of the conductor.
Patrick and I will consider this quetion and post a more considered response in the next few days. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see what other readers may have to say on the subject - I note there have already been interesting messages from Ralph Moore and Lee Denham.
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
Can I just stress that my point is not so much the actual tempo at which the initial Majestoso is taken, but the relationship between this tempo and that for the lyrical second subject - and the exact point where the Majestoso is resumed. Also in the finale, my point concerns where you return to the original tempo after the passage marked to be played slower. In the first movement, this means that the triplet crotchets underlying the second theme will approximately equal the normal crotchets of the Majestoso. This imposes certain limits on your choice of tempo for the Majestoso. If you start as slowly as Klemperer, this tempo relationship, if observed for the second subject, would result in such a slow motion rendering that not even he could attempt it, and in fact he just ploughs on without changing the tempo at all. Quite a lot of conductors get this crotchet-equals-triplet-crotchet relationship right, but not so many of them hold this slower tempo until actually instructed to return to the original Majestoso. Keilberth and Horenstein were not the only two to play the first movement with the tempo relationships as instructed, but they were the only two (to my knowledge) who also played the finale as written, i.e. no tempo change for the second subject (because none is written), but a marked change where one is actually requested, and then holding the slower tempo until actually instructed to return to the original one. You might say, well, so what? Isn't the important thing that it sounds convincing? Maybe, but the differences between what is written and what is often played amount to the symphony having a different structure. Can both be right? To the best of my knowledge, no other Bruckner symphony has such clear cut markings, though the finale of no. 4 raises the issue of what we should do about the "half-tempo" marking present in Nowak but not in Haas - and again, when we should go back to the first tempo. I discussed this in some detail in my review of the Klemperer box. Klemperer seems to have liked the idea of the half-tempo. In no. 5 he practically doubles and halves his tempi at will, though nothing of the sort is marked here.
Previous Message
Chris, you raise a very interesting point - and one that probably applies to other Bruckner symphonies as well. My immediate reaction is that the tempo indication at the start of the Sixth - 'Majestoso' - leaves a lot of room for discretion on the part of the conductor.
Patrick and I will consider this quetion and post a more considered response in the next few days. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see what other readers may have to say on the subject - I note there have already been interesting messages from Ralph Moore and Lee Denham.
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
Readers may like to know that I have received correspondence from Dr Benjamin Cohrs with regards to the tempo relationship in Bruckner's Sixth Symphony, as discussed by Chris above. Dr Cohrs, most of you will remember, is a musicologist responsible, amongst other things, for the latest completed final movement of Bruckner's Ninth Symphony (recorded by Rattle in Berlin, as well as an earlier edition by Johannes Wilder on Naxos), plus is the editor of a new critical edition of the symphonies, the first of which was the Sixth as recorded by Rattle on LSO Live last year. At the time of that recording released, some eyebrows were raised at the (faster than usual) tempo Rattle adopted for the first movement's first subject, hence my writing to him with Chris's comments in mind.
Dr Cohrs, understandably, politely declined to join in the debate on this Messageboard, but did give me permission to quote from one his papers with regards to the tempo-relationships in the Sixth Symphony, which I will reproduce for your pleasure below. Do note, that it is a lengthy piece of musicological debate, so you might wish to have a strong cup of tea ready before you start - it took a little while for me to copy and paste, so apologies for any errors which are wholly my own. And for those who are curious, the next symphony to be worked on will be the Fourth, which I understand Rattle and the LSO are scheduled to perform next year.
Best
lee
T e m p o I n d i c a t i o n s First Movement
The tempi given in the ASc are in themselves unambiguous and persuasive. Cyrill Hynais largely adopted them for the en-graver's copy, as the galley proofs demonstrate. It was Josef Schalk who, through his subsequent alterations and sweeping additions, so changed Bruckner's perfectly coherent tempo conception that the formal coherence of the whole symphony was endangered. Unfortunately, until the Haas edition appeared in 1935 sufficient time elapsed for Schalk's conception to establish itself on the podium. It has influenced the interpretation of the Sixth up to the present day. Even at the 1982 Bruckner Symposium on Bruckner interpretation, this aural tra-dition led the esteemed musicologist Harry Halbreich, in his paper ›Bruckners Sechste: kein Stiefkind mehr‹, into sweeping speculation over the tempi that retrospectively justified Schalk but sadly completely overlooked the metronome markings of the ASc. Bruckner intended the principal movement to have two tempi – a faster, enclosing tempo for the exposition and reprise of the principal theme and last 17 measures of the movement as well as a »bedeutend langsamer« (significantly slower) for the greater part of the movement. Fundamental to a complete understanding is the choice of the correct opening tempo. Bruckner originally wrote in pencil, erased, but still recognisable at the top of the first page of the ASc »[?] Allegretto«. The first word can no longer be made out – from the position and the outline of the erasure it may most likely have been ‹molto› – but the »Allegretto« already suggests a rather lively character. Brucknerfinally decided upon »Majestoso«. A similar, solemn riding topos is otherwise found in Bruckner only in the Finale of the Eighth; there he wrote over the beginning »Feierlich, nichtschnell« and was so concerned about the correct performance that he even added an exceptional autograph metronome marking, namely »(Metron. = 69)«. The tempo of the principal movement of the Sixth may well occupy a similar world. This is confirmed by a metronome marking that Cyrill Hynais added in pencil and, remarkably, in Bruckner's own ASc, which furthermore was initially intended as the engraver's copy: »M.M. = 72«. One can scarcely imagine that Hynais, who was entrusted by Bruckner with the symphony's publication, would have taken it upon himself to insert this in the ASc without having spoken to Bruckner about it. It is admittedly curious that Hynais then subsequently did not copy the metronome marking into the engraver's copy. (Could this marking in the ASc have been a factor in his abandoning use of the ASc as engraver's copy, replacing it with a four-fascicle ScC of individual movements?) In his correction of the galley proofs Schalk did not add a metronome marking either. Up to the present day most conductors can't conceive of such a fluid tempo; usually the movement is taken between = ca 54 and 63. The new urtext edition therefore reproduces the metronome marking as clearly marked addition, as the editor considers it a significant key to a comprehensive understanding of the symphony's tempi that cannot be dismissed out of hand, as the marking in the ASc was inserted at least with Bruckner's approval if not at his bidding. Taken at this tempo the movement's character becomes animated, similar, for instance, to the beginning of Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony (in the same tonality), but at the same time powerfully spirited andtruly festive. Notabene: The slower the opening is taken, the more likely conductors are to torture entire generations of string players in the attempt to differentiate the second note of the motive as semi-quaver from the triplet quavers. They disregard the fact that Bruckner was only observing an old notational convention here, and furthermore, by marking the quaver with a vertical stroke, then semiquaver rest, then semiquaver, wanted only the first note to be played particularly short and at the same time heavily. And precisely to ensure that the semiquaver should NOT be played shorter, he provided it with a tenuto mark (!) and meticulously marked the bowing as well: the first two notes on the same down-bow, then changing the bow on each triplet note, so that every first quaver of the motive begins with a heavy downbow. For reasons of convenience Bruckner's bowing is usually ignored today, the semiquaver taken in up-bow, then everything reversed, so that the sixth note is taken as an up-bow instead of a down-bow. This change, and a tempo that is too slow, drain all spirit from the music. (Hardly necessary to mention that Bruckner's bowing was already absent in the galley proofs ...) At the transition to the Gesangsperiode (the second subject, m.49) it becomes clear that the alla-breve crotchets become triplet crotchets; the tempo becomes »bedeutend langsamer« (signifi-cantly slower). This corresponds roughly to the second metronome marking given by the Hynais in the ASc, = 50. More precisely it should be = 48 (as suggested by the editor in this new edition). Schalk then added four measures prior to this »dim. e rit.«; thereby a feeling for the correct tempo relationship is irreparably lost, as demonstrated by present-day performances. Admittedly – if one starts with too slow an opening tempo the less certain one feels the closer one approaches the »be-deutend langsamer« in the first fifty measures. Halbreich recognised the tempo relationship correctly but started from an opening tempo of = 63, which would lead to a second tempo of =42 and would mean that the whole principal movement sank into a limp Adagio – so also in the galley proofs. (This again demonstrates that false premises can only lead to false conclusions.). Already Hynais added at m. 101, the beginning of the third theme group, an »Erstes Zeitmaß« (= Tempo primo); Schalk replaced this with a »Gemäßigtes Hauptzeitmaß (etwas breit)« (Moderate principal tempo (somewhat broadly)). Bruckner, however, wrote – nothing. But at m. 95 the double basses originally played triplet crotchets, as an extant, discarded bifolio »4« reveals. Later he replaced them with normal crotchets, to prepare for the new basic tempo from m. 100. This effect is lost, of course, when one changes the tempo instead. In order to be able to retain the accelerando (m. 191) with which Bruckner so effectively arrives at the reprise of the principal theme (without crescendo, in other words, not as Schalk proposed, »poco a poco crescendo e accelerando«!), Schalk had to make a multitude of agogic changes and impose a gradual easing of tension in the development, that completely disguises Bruckner's lively play of changing metres while the same tempo is maintained. In the reprise Schalk also added a »(rit.)« prior to the Gesangsperiode, although Bruckner developed the contextual link even more clearly here. (Flute and oboe change in m. 243 from quavers tocrotchets, as an augmentation of the preceding motive.) At m. 269 ‹a tempo› is surely intended, despite the fact that Bruckner wrote »Tempo Imo«. This was already corrected by Schalk and was adopted by the new edition, as »Tempo I mo« could possibly be misunderstood as indicating a return to the opening tempo. In mm. 280f Bruckner originally had intended »poco riten.« and probably »langsamer«. Above the first flute he then eliminated both markings, likewise the »a tempo« that becomes necessary at m. 285. Only above the first violin part in m.280 did he leave the »poco riten.« notated earlier in pencil. Earlier editions had adopted it and added what was required after it in m. 281; for the editor, however, a neater solution seemed to be to omit the pencilled »poco riten.«, and allow the conductor a degree of freedom. In any case, according to the ASc, thesecond tempo of the movement should be sustained for the reprise of the third theme as well, since Bruckner specified a return to the opening tempo only at the end of the coda (m. 353). This kind of stretto is so unusual for him that many ‹Bruckner conductors› ignore this tempo modification. Even Schalk, however, retained the marking, although in doing so he was in effect calling his own tempo conception into question – one which basically turns Bruckner's conception on its head: Bruckner used the faster opening tempo only for the exposition and reprise of the first theme, while Schalk applied the slower second tempo only to the exposition and reprise of the Gesangsperiode, and it was due to this that this daring, powerfully spirited principal movement is misunderstood by most interpreters even today.
Second Movement
The second movement was originally only marked above the score as »Adagio«; Bruckner added the »Sehr feierlich« later, and entered this into the orchestral parts, the dedication score as well as the ASc (hence, prior to 13 June 1882). The tempi are comparatively unproblematic, although they allow the interpreter some freedom. The interpretations range from a very slow to a relatively flowing tempo. At m. 45 Bruckner writes »Largo«, whereby he doubtless intends the tempo to slow, as atm. 69 he places »Tempo Imo«. Musically, this has a somewhat unhappy effect, however, as the violas have ongoing quavers from m. 68. Without doing injury to the structure of the movement, interpreters could bring this »Tempo Imo« forward to m.53, or even ignore it completely, returning to the opening tempo only at m. 93.This passage appears somewhat contradictory: in the ScC Schalk corrects Bruckner's »Tempo Imo« at m. 93 in pencil with »Langsamer«; this, however, can be found in no other source and was therefore merely pointed out by the editor in a footnote for the conductor. After m. 93 Bruckner personally marked no further changes of tempo. It would be odd, however, were the funeral march motive at m. 123 to be played in a different tempo to its occurrence at m. 53. Due to this, the editor has added »Largo« at m. 123 and at m. 141 »a tempo«. Should interpreters wish to observe Bruckner's amendment of »Langsamer« at m. 93 in ScC-Schalk or, as suggested above, bring the »Tempo I mo« of m. 69 forward to m. 53, this alternative obviously becomes unnecessary. Nowak (unlike Haas) placed the tempo markings at mm. 45, 69 and 93 in brackets; he also nowhere explains why. This is all the more incomprehensible, as all markings are just as they stand in the ASc.
Third Movement
Bruckner intended only one tempo for the Scherzo; the movement is his only Scherzo in a slow tempo. Schalk, in adding his marking »etwas gemessen« (somewhat measured), characterisedthe movement well, but his numerous added rubato markings are often superfluous and hinder the flow of the movement. In ScC- Schalk Bruckner notated »langsamer« in pencil at m. 45, but this can be found in no other source. Moreover he indicated no return to the opening tempo. For this reason, this edition, like previous ones, does not take the marking into account. As the continuous groupings of three quavers recall the quaver triplets of substantial parts of the principal movement, it seemed natural to choose an identical crotchet pulse for the Scherzo ( = 96). Bruckner marked the Trio »Langsam«. In ScC-Schalk he added, in pencil, »etwas« (somewhat); however, this can again be found in no other source and was therefore relegated to a footnote for the conductor. Schalk crossed out the »Langsam« adopted by Hynais entirely and instead wrote »Die wie eben vorher die «(the like the preceding ) – but mainly, however, because Schalk, contrary to the ASc, suggested a repeat of the second Trio section and at the end even composed his own one-measure transition to the Da capo of the Scherzo, something which could not function properly without a direct tempo relationship (cf.Facsimile). At a tempo of = = 96 this is surely by no means inappropriate (and precisely, as Bruckner also intended, only »etwas langsam«, somewhat slower), although a much calmer tempo is also perfectly possible.
Fourth Movement
Bruckner's conception of the tempo of the Finale was simple and far less complex than that of the principal movement. All the themes share a common basic tempo (with the exception of a short episode in the Gesangsperiode that uses Tristan motives); the whole development is »bedeutend langsamer«, in order to present an appropriate contrast to the reprise. It seems natural to suggest that the opening tempo should be the same as that of the principal movement. An important indication that this is indeed the case can be found at m. 349 in the reprise, where the woodwind recall the prominent rhythm from the beginning of the symphony, and that subsequently, in the cadence preceding the coda (mm. 367–370), rises to a climactic cut-off point. Moreover, towards the end of the coda (which begins at the »a Tempo«, m. 371) the principal theme of the first movement re-appears (m. 407). The editor therefore added the suggested metronome marking »( = 72)«. It would accordingly make sense to take the »bedeutend langsamer« development section at the sec-ond tempo of the principal movement ( = 48), and by virtue of the similarity of mm. 19f with the reprise of the Gesangsperiode of the Adagio (m. 113) one could perhaps envision for the Adagio a basic tempo of = 48 as well. (For the Finale's development section Schalk suggested changing over to a 4/4 beat, thoroughly convincing from the conductor's standpoint; adopting this would, however, exceed the objectives of a critical urtext edition.) At mm. 331 and 370 Bruckner consistently wrote the Tin »a Tempo« uppercase; this curious spelling was adopted here. While imposing conformity (»a tempo«) might be seen as a viable option, what is assuredly intended here is an »im Tempo«in the sense of an »im Hauptzeitmaß« or »Tempo Imo«. Finally, it should be cautioned against taking the Gesangsperiode (at m.65, again at m. 299) slower, as Schalk suggested, since the passage is a typical Brucknerian polka.
Summary
Bruckners own tempi in the ASc of the Sixth are convincing and perfectly clear in themselves. Schalk's additions, on the contrary, often appear to diametrically oppose Bruckner's intentions andcodify a multitude of superfluous rubato indications which might be better left to the interpreter's own musical instincts. What Brahms wrote to Steinbach probably also applies to Bruckner's Sixth: »Tempo changes« are »nothing new« but they should be »used con discrezione«. As organist and choral conductor of many years' experience, Bruckner was doubtless used to refining phrases in rehearsal by appropriately articulated phrasing, breathing at appropriate places and differentiating between leading and accompanying voices. When a conductor is truly capable of grasping and fully exploiting the melos, musical syntax and the possibilities of internal rubato, he can scarcely go wrong – which by no means negates the fact that tempo relationships at points of formal juncture, typical in any case for the Viennese classical style, need to be strictly observed.
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
How comforting! Dr. Cohrs' conclusion regarding the first movement - "Bruckner intended the principal movement to have two tempi – a faster, enclosing tempo for the exposition and reprise of the principal theme and last 17 measures of the movement as well as a »bedeutend langsamer« (significantly slower) for the greater part of the movement" - is exactly the same as mine, where I likened the effect of having the opening theme, its return about half way through and at the end in a fester tempo while the bulk of the movement goes slower, to "a double window looking onto geltler pastures outside". Dr. Cohrs also makes the same point about the crotchets of the first theme being approximately equal to the triplet crotchets of the second. As to whether this means we are both equally right or both equally wrong, anyone can have their own opinion, but I hope those who think the latter will listen carefully to the Keilberth and Horenstein performances that eloquently prove the effectiveness of taking Bruckner's marking seriously.
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
For a point of view in addition to Rattle, the Cohrs edition of Bruckner 6 has also been recorded in the Basilica St Florian by Rémy Ballot as part of the ongoing Gramola cycle of Bruckner symphony SACDs.
Previous Message
How comforting! Dr. Cohrs' conclusion regarding the first movement - "Bruckner intended the principal movement to have two tempi – a faster, enclosing tempo for the exposition and reprise of the principal theme and last 17 measures of the movement as well as a »bedeutend langsamer« (significantly slower) for the greater part of the movement" - is exactly the same as mine, where I likened the effect of having the opening theme, its return about half way through and at the end in a fester tempo while the bulk of the movement goes slower, to "a double window looking onto geltler pastures outside". Dr. Cohrs also makes the same point about the crotchets of the first theme being approximately equal to the triplet crotchets of the second. As to whether this means we are both equally right or both equally wrong, anyone can have their own opinion, but I hope those who think the latter will listen carefully to the Keilberth and Horenstein performances that eloquently prove the effectiveness of taking Bruckner's marking seriously.
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
We didn't mention Herbert Blomstedt's Leipzig cyccle in 2009, Dieter. I assume that, like me, Patrick has never had the chance to hear it. I have heard his very fine Dresden recordngs of the Fourth and Seventh but the Leipzig cycle has eluded me, which is a pity. As we've made clear,our surveys are limited to those recordings we've been able to hear over the years. One day I hope I'll be able to catch up with that cycle by this very distinguished conductor.
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
John is correct that I haven’t heard the Blomstedt Leipzig cycle. There are some positive reviews of it out there (one describing it as “possibly the most important addition to the Bruckner discography in a generation”; also Brian Wilson has reviewed the Ninth on this site) and it’s certainly on my listening wish list. But for some years it has been expensive and hard to obtain, and I haven’t been able to find anywhere to stream or download it from. Let’s hope that situation changes soon.
Previous Message
We didn't mention Herbert Blomstedt's Leipzig cyccle in 2009, Dieter. I assume that, like me, Patrick has never had the chance to hear it. I have heard his very fine Dresden recordngs of the Fourth and Seventh but the Leipzig cycle has eluded me, which is a pity. As we've made clear,our surveys are limited to those recordings we've been able to hear over the years. One day I hope I'll be able to catch up with that cycle by this very distinguished conductor.
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
I am one of those who happilly have the Blomstedt/Leipzig SACD cycle, 1-9. This must be one of the most underrated Bruckner cycles ever. Few reviewers mention it, if any. It was released by a small company, Querstand, and is difficult and expensive to get nowadays.
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
One can hope for a future re-release and better distribution of the Herbert Blomstedt/Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra set of Bruckner Symphonies 1 - 9. As someone who has loved and lived with Bruckner for 55+ years, I will state without equivocation that this set is as fine as any and better than most -- never surpassed in my opinion. Each and every symphony receives a magisterial interpretation. All are public performance recordings, in fabulous 5.0 high resolution surround sound, co-produced between MDR (Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, aka Leipzig Radio) and the Querstand label, also a local Leipzig establishment owned by publisher Klaus-Jürgen Kamprad. In other words, very much a proud, 100% Leipzig production.
The boxed set remains out of print and hard to get, but individual SACDs from the set are generally available from, for example, jpc.de.
Previous Message
I am one of those who happilly have the Blomstedt/Leipzig SACD cycle, 1-9. This must be one of the most underrated Bruckner cycles ever. Few reviewers mention it, if any. It was released by a small company, Querstand, and is difficult and expensive to get nowadays.
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
I feel Chris has slightly misunderstood the view I expressed on Klemperer’s Sixth which was not that it is the finest recording of all but that “There seems to be a prevailing view that the Sixth (which was one of our top recommendations previously) is a great performance…”. Neither John nor I now have it as top recommendation, both preferring Haitink (in different live recordings). But having just revisited it, I think there is little doubt that it is Klemperer’s greatest Bruckner recording.
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.
Previous Message
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 (https://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?
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this particular discussion. As a result, a couple of footnotes have been added to the article in relation to Christopher Howell’s article on the Sixth symphony and also the issue of metronome markings in that work in relation to Rattle’s recording. When I posted previously I had missed Chris’s second post, although I am not sure I would have been able to address his specific questions anyway. I also made an incorrect assumption that Hynais’s metronome markings were included in the editions he edited. Subsequent checking on IMSLP and the contribution from Dr. Cohrs via Lee Denham show that (curiously) this was not the case.
Previous Message
I feel Chris has slightly misunderstood the view I expressed on Klemperer’s Sixth which was not that it is the finest recording of all but that “There seems to be a prevailing view that the Sixth (which was one of our top recommendations previously) is a great performance…”. Neither John nor I now have it as top recommendation, both preferring Haitink (in different live recordings). But having just revisited it, I think there is little doubt that it is Klemperer’s greatest Bruckner recording.
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.
Previous Message
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 (https://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?
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
I am rather surprised that neither of you mentioned the excellent Gerd Schaller Bruckner cycle from (mostly) Ebrach, Germany. The playing, recording, and Schaller's interpretations are all consistently excellent. Since no sketches for the 9th Finale's coda survive, any completion has to be conjecture but Schaller has made perhaps the best educated guesses and has an conductor's perspective on scoring. Ralph Moore evidently shares my enthusiasm for this very reasonably priced set, currently $62 US at Presto (18 CD's).
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller
Martin, that's a fair point but Patrick and I have consistently said in all three of our Surveys that they are limited to the recordings which we have actually heard. Whilst I can't speak definitively for Patrick, I'm afraid I've not heard any of Gerd Schaller's recordings.
Previous Message
I am rather surprised that neither of you mentioned the excellent Gerd Schaller Bruckner cycle from (mostly) Ebrach, Germany. The playing, recording, and Schaller's interpretations are all consistently excellent. Since no sketches for the 9th Finale's coda survive, any completion has to be conjecture but Schaller has made perhaps the best educated guesses and has an conductor's perspective on scoring. Ralph Moore evidently shares my enthusiasm for this very reasonably priced set, currently $62 US at Presto (18 CD's).
Re: Bruckner Symphonies update by John Quinn and Patrick Waller