CELEBRATING 53,000 Classical CD reviews on-line (Sept 2016); 21,000 page views each day. Return to MusicWeb International
Marc Bridle's review of Furt's Bruckner 9
Posted by dieter barkhoff on April 12, 2022, 1:39 am
Fantastic review, Marc Bridle. I recall the occasion I played all of my Bruckner 9's to determine which was 'the best'. THis was 1989, I had 9 recordings: Jochum, Dresden, Karajan, Matacic, Mravinsky, Furtwangler, Haitink, Barenboim, and Schuricht. Jochum was clearly number 1 until I played the Furtwangler. Like the '43 Coriolan, it is simply mind-blowing. The one I liked least was Mravinsky - he had 'keine idee'. I understood Karajan, full of glib sound and fury, signifying nothing, Schuricht confirmed that I did not 'get' his Bruckner, and the Haitink was a non event.
Dieter's comment regarding Karajan's Bruckner 9 prompted me to listen to it again and I stand by the assertion that it is one of the great recordings of the century: grand, majestic, subtly phrased and paced, rising to moments of elation, suffused with mystery and menace. For me, it stands alongside Giulini, Walter and Furtwängler. Mind you, I maintain that opinion having listened to it rather more recently (i.e. ten minutes ago) than 1989, which strikes me as rather a long time to leave a response untested and not re-examined..
Previous Message
Fantastic review, Marc Bridle. I recall the occasion I played all of my Bruckner 9's to determine which was 'the best'. THis was 1989, I had 9 recordings: Jochum, Dresden, Karajan, Matacic, Mravinsky, Furtwangler, Haitink, Barenboim, and Schuricht. Jochum was clearly number 1 until I played the Furtwangler. Like the '43 Coriolan, it is simply mind-blowing. The one I liked least was Mravinsky - he had 'keine idee'. I understood Karajan, full of glib sound and fury, signifying nothing, Schuricht confirmed that I did not 'get' his Bruckner, and the Haitink was a non event.
Ironically - as in how one's perception of a piece of music is often formed by the interpretation one hears first - the first Bruckner 9 I bought was Karajan's. It was only after I had spent the hours - I was unemployed at the time - comparing all of the versions I had acquired that I realized Karajan's idea of the work didn't make sense to me after Jochum's, and especially after Furtwangler's. ( By the way, my 9th recording I played that day was the Giulini, which, as was usually the case with Giulini, I rated number three.) I guess this comes down to sensibilities again. In the same way that there are writers I love to read, others where I get bored after five sentences. For me, Proust and Gerald Murnane fall into the second category. Give me Raymond Carver or Dostoevski any day. Similarly, apart from an overture or two, the octet and the Scottish, I can't stand Mendelssohn. Ditto Milhaud.
Previous Message
Dieter's comment regarding Karajan's Bruckner 9 prompted me to listen to it again and I stand by the assertion that it is one of the great recordings of the century: grand, majestic, subtly phrased and paced, rising to moments of elation, suffused with mystery and menace. For me, it stands alongside Giulini, Walter and Furtwängler. Mind you, I maintain that opinion having listened to it rather more recently (i.e. ten minutes ago) than 1989, which strikes me as rather a long time to leave a response untested and not re-examined..
Previous Message
Fantastic review, Marc Bridle. I recall the occasion I played all of my Bruckner 9's to determine which was 'the best'. THis was 1989, I had 9 recordings: Jochum, Dresden, Karajan, Matacic, Mravinsky, Furtwangler, Haitink, Barenboim, and Schuricht. Jochum was clearly number 1 until I played the Furtwangler. Like the '43 Coriolan, it is simply mind-blowing. The one I liked least was Mravinsky - he had 'keine idee'. I understood Karajan, full of glib sound and fury, signifying nothing, Schuricht confirmed that I did not 'get' his Bruckner, and the Haitink was a non event.
Matacic did a live recording with the NHK SO in the late 1960s and I recall it being the first time I had ever heard the Adagio go over 30 minutes (it's actually a superb performance, btw). In those days the NHK was not quite the orchestra that it is today and whilst I can get on with their string section the brass is another matter: extremely loud indeed, pretty much unbalancing everything. A player from an American orchestra (I won't name which one) once said Japanese brass players were 30-years behind western orchestras - they have more than caught up today. There's another Matacic B9 made in Paris (I think it is the Orchestre de Paris) and it's wonderful. You do not often hear French orchestras playing Bruckner, but this one is fabulous. I may have reviewed it here, in fact.
Agree about Schuricht. I don't get any Schuricht, especially his Mahler! Same with Abendroth, even Knappertsbusch in Bruckner What is his Munich 8th all about).I think we have disagreed about Mravinsky's Bruckner before. There is much I find objectionable in Mravinsky's conducting - he can almost completely disregard colour in his recordings (they sound like the equivalent of 1950s Soviet concrete housing estates) he sometimes has little sympathy for the composers he conducts (Mozart and Beethoven, for example). But, he has a magnificent orchestra at his helm and in Bruckner (and Wagner for that matter) they sound as they should, and he understand the broarder picture. That B9 is massive, a towering edifice - but gloomy as hell. I think the Matacic French B9 and this Mravinsky B9 are highly distinctive in a way that Karajan, Haitink, Baraneboim, Jochum are simply are not.
WF is WF, of course. I believe it isn't a recording you can just listen to every day. It'll wear you down. Rather like many WF recordings do. I can listen to his 1942 Wagner T&I Prelude and Liebestod all the time, however. Music & Arts once coupled their B9 with this work but i do not remember which performance of the Tristan they used. It's a very appropriate coupling, given there isn't a Te Deum by WF.
BTW, i was recently listening to the Giulini B9 with the VPO on the Japanese Esoteric SACD disc. These are supposed to be state-of-the art transfers - the VPO strings sounded god awful. It was a good time to reassess the recordings as well. I found it underwhelming and not as impressive as I once did. Ironically, when I tested the Esoteric SACD of the Boulez Mahle 6 with the same orchestra - a recording I have always intensely disliked - the opposite view. Enjoy your B9 listening. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Previous Message
Fantastic review, Marc Bridle. I recall the occasion I played all of my Bruckner 9's to determine which was 'the best'. THis was 1989, I had 9 recordings: Jochum, Dresden, Karajan, Matacic, Mravinsky, Furtwangler, Haitink, Barenboim, and Schuricht. Jochum was clearly number 1 until I played the Furtwangler. Like the '43 Coriolan, it is simply mind-blowing. The one I liked least was Mravinsky - he had 'keine idee'. I understood Karajan, full of glib sound and fury, signifying nothing, Schuricht confirmed that I did not 'get' his Bruckner, and the Haitink was a non event.
Love your reply. Thanks. The Matacic was a Supraphon recording, Czech Phil. Regarding Mravinsky, it just sounded WRONG to me, emphasis and modulations more Mravinsky than Bruckner. What I liked about Jochum was/is simply the sound and the way the Dresden orchestra understands and modulates the Brucknerian tone palette. I was born in Austria, this sound is in my veins. That was a German joke...Though I was born in Klagenfurt.Regards to you, Marc.
Previous Message
Matacic did a live recording with the NHK SO in the late 1960s and I recall it being the first time I had ever heard the Adagio go over 30 minutes (it's actually a superb performance, btw). In those days the NHK was not quite the orchestra that it is today and whilst I can get on with their string section the brass is another matter: extremely loud indeed, pretty much unbalancing everything. A player from an American orchestra (I won't name which one) once said Japanese brass players were 30-years behind western orchestras - they have more than caught up today. There's another Matacic B9 made in Paris (I think it is the Orchestre de Paris) and it's wonderful. You do not often hear French orchestras playing Bruckner, but this one is fabulous. I may have reviewed it here, in fact.
Agree about Schuricht. I don't get any Schuricht, especially his Mahler! Same with Abendroth, even Knappertsbusch in Bruckner What is his Munich 8th all about).I think we have disagreed about Mravinsky's Bruckner before. There is much I find objectionable in Mravinsky's conducting - he can almost completely disregard colour in his recordings (they sound like the equivalent of 1950s Soviet concrete housing estates) he sometimes has little sympathy for the composers he conducts (Mozart and Beethoven, for example). But, he has a magnificent orchestra at his helm and in Bruckner (and Wagner for that matter) they sound as they should, and he understand the broarder picture. That B9 is massive, a towering edifice - but gloomy as hell. I think the Matacic French B9 and this Mravinsky B9 are highly distinctive in a way that Karajan, Haitink, Baraneboim, Jochum are simply are not.
WF is WF, of course. I believe it isn't a recording you can just listen to every day. It'll wear you down. Rather like many WF recordings do. I can listen to his 1942 Wagner T&I Prelude and Liebestod all the time, however. Music & Arts once coupled their B9 with this work but i do not remember which performance of the Tristan they used. It's a very appropriate coupling, given there isn't a Te Deum by WF.
BTW, i was recently listening to the Giulini B9 with the VPO on the Japanese Esoteric SACD disc. These are supposed to be state-of-the art transfers - the VPO strings sounded god awful. It was a good time to reassess the recordings as well. I found it underwhelming and not as impressive as I once did. Ironically, when I tested the Esoteric SACD of the Boulez Mahle 6 with the same orchestra - a recording I have always intensely disliked - the opposite view. Enjoy your B9 listening. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Previous Message
Fantastic review, Marc Bridle. I recall the occasion I played all of my Bruckner 9's to determine which was 'the best'. THis was 1989, I had 9 recordings: Jochum, Dresden, Karajan, Matacic, Mravinsky, Furtwangler, Haitink, Barenboim, and Schuricht. Jochum was clearly number 1 until I played the Furtwangler. Like the '43 Coriolan, it is simply mind-blowing. The one I liked least was Mravinsky - he had 'keine idee'. I understood Karajan, full of glib sound and fury, signifying nothing, Schuricht confirmed that I did not 'get' his Bruckner, and the Haitink was a non event.
Just for completeness, there's also a Matacic performance with RAI Turin (19.1.1962) that has been available here and there over the years. It's some time since I last heard it and I've never systematically compared it with his others, so I limit myself to remarking that it exists. I can say, though, that the finale, far from exceeding the 30-minute mark, takes 24:33.
Previous Message
Love your reply. Thanks. The Matacic was a Supraphon recording, Czech Phil.
There's a broadcast of Jochum performing just the Adagio of the B9 with the VPO in 1981. It's "In memorium" to the recent death of Karl Böhm. Not many conductors get that kind of treatment.
Previous Message
Love your reply. Thanks. The Matacic was a Supraphon recording, Czech Phil. Regarding Mravinsky, it just sounded WRONG to me, emphasis and modulations more Mravinsky than Bruckner. What I liked about Jochum was/is simply the sound and the way the Dresden orchestra understands and modulates the Brucknerian tone palette. I was born in Austria, this sound is in my veins. That was a German joke...Though I was born in Klagenfurt.Regards to you, Marc.
Previous Message
Matacic did a live recording with the NHK SO in the late 1960s and I recall it being the first time I had ever heard the Adagio go over 30 minutes (it's actually a superb performance, btw). In those days the NHK was not quite the orchestra that it is today and whilst I can get on with their string section the brass is another matter: extremely loud indeed, pretty much unbalancing everything. A player from an American orchestra (I won't name which one) once said Japanese brass players were 30-years behind western orchestras - they have more than caught up today. There's another Matacic B9 made in Paris (I think it is the Orchestre de Paris) and it's wonderful. You do not often hear French orchestras playing Bruckner, but this one is fabulous. I may have reviewed it here, in fact.
Agree about Schuricht. I don't get any Schuricht, especially his Mahler! Same with Abendroth, even Knappertsbusch in Bruckner What is his Munich 8th all about).I think we have disagreed about Mravinsky's Bruckner before. There is much I find objectionable in Mravinsky's conducting - he can almost completely disregard colour in his recordings (they sound like the equivalent of 1950s Soviet concrete housing estates) he sometimes has little sympathy for the composers he conducts (Mozart and Beethoven, for example). But, he has a magnificent orchestra at his helm and in Bruckner (and Wagner for that matter) they sound as they should, and he understand the broarder picture. That B9 is massive, a towering edifice - but gloomy as hell. I think the Matacic French B9 and this Mravinsky B9 are highly distinctive in a way that Karajan, Haitink, Baraneboim, Jochum are simply are not.
WF is WF, of course. I believe it isn't a recording you can just listen to every day. It'll wear you down. Rather like many WF recordings do. I can listen to his 1942 Wagner T&I Prelude and Liebestod all the time, however. Music & Arts once coupled their B9 with this work but i do not remember which performance of the Tristan they used. It's a very appropriate coupling, given there isn't a Te Deum by WF.
BTW, i was recently listening to the Giulini B9 with the VPO on the Japanese Esoteric SACD disc. These are supposed to be state-of-the art transfers - the VPO strings sounded god awful. It was a good time to reassess the recordings as well. I found it underwhelming and not as impressive as I once did. Ironically, when I tested the Esoteric SACD of the Boulez Mahle 6 with the same orchestra - a recording I have always intensely disliked - the opposite view. Enjoy your B9 listening. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Previous Message
Fantastic review, Marc Bridle. I recall the occasion I played all of my Bruckner 9's to determine which was 'the best'. THis was 1989, I had 9 recordings: Jochum, Dresden, Karajan, Matacic, Mravinsky, Furtwangler, Haitink, Barenboim, and Schuricht. Jochum was clearly number 1 until I played the Furtwangler. Like the '43 Coriolan, it is simply mind-blowing. The one I liked least was Mravinsky - he had 'keine idee'. I understood Karajan, full of glib sound and fury, signifying nothing, Schuricht confirmed that I did not 'get' his Bruckner, and the Haitink was a non event.