Customer Reviews

Bruckner: 9 Symphonies

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

There may never be a set of Bruckner performances that are consistently good across the board, but Herbert von Karajan's set of the nine is the closest to consistent satisfaction that I've heard.

Karajan's Bruckner style stands in stark contrast to Eugen Jochum's: while the latter is flexible tempo-wise and spontaneous-sounding, Karajan focuses more on maintaining steady tempos and preserving a sense of the symphonic whole. Jochum's more obviously Romantic approach to Bruckner works more often than it fails---his 1958 DG Fifth is a personal favorite among recordings of the Fifth---but, while it does bring a human warmth to some of the music, it could be argued that his sometimes excessive tempo fluctuations lose the sense of symphonic wholeness that Karajan is able to bring to them. And, while there are those who (sometimes rightfully) admonish Karajan for his obssessive attention to beauty of sound, his DG Bruckner performances certainly do not lack in moments of power and emotion. The performance of Bruckner's beautiful Seventh Symphony that is a part of this set is remarkable in this regard.

So, some thoughts on the individual performances:

No. 1: An energetic, intense performance of a relatively early work (he was about 40 when he wrote it). Perhaps could use a little more lightness of touch (the Finale does sound rather overweight); but an imposing performance nevertheless, with a lyrical slow movement.

No. 2: Another good performance of a highly underrated symphonic work. Karajan treats the second movement Andante as an Adagio, and makes it sound rather self-indulgent and draggy in spots; but the rest is right-on, both lyrical and anguished by turns. The finale, especially, is fiery and dramatic even at a fairly steady tempo. (Pity about the dropped Scherzo repeats, though.)

No. 3: The 1889 revision of Bruckner's troubled Third Symphony is not the best of the three existing versions of the work (Bruckner's original 1873 score is probably the best overall, with the 1877 version a serviceable compromise between the wild original and the 1889 bludgeoning), but Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic make the best of it. In fact, they do more than that. This is an electrifying performance from start to finish, played with power by the BPO (especially those glorious trumpets). Blazing stuff!

No. 4: On its own, this 1976 DG remake is basically fine---I like its driven, dramatic thrust, appropriate to one of Bruckner's "lighter" symphonic works. But Karajan's broader 1970 EMI recording with the same orchestra is much more memorable, and in slightly better sound too.

No. 5: 3/4s of a great performance. The Adagio is quite moving at a very slow tempo; the Finale culminates in a concluding chorale that is as awesome-sounding as any great performance should be. I have misgivings about Karajan's reading of the first movement, though; as magnificently as the BPO plays it, it still seems a bit too slow and monolithic for its own good (it's virtually at one very moderate tempo, which is not what Bruckner indicates in the score). A notable performance, nonetheless, with great orchestral playing throughout.

No. 6: The one misfire of the set. Karajan still shows a structural grip on the symphony, but the BPO playing simply sounds uninvolved in parts. The slow movement is a particular disappointment; the playing is so bland that it sounds merely slow-moving rather than transcendant. Not the worst performance of this underrated symphony, but hardly the best.

No. 7: A beautiful performance, with a particularly sublime slow movement. His 1989 recording with the Vienna Philharmonic has better recorded sound, though.

No. 8: This was Karajan's favorite symphony among the nine, and his 1988 recording of this work with the Vienna Philharmonic remains one of the best. The 1976 DG recording that is part of this set is no slouch either: it's quicker overall (which I rather prefer), and it has great authority. (That said, the VPO's orchestral playing---especially the brass playing---outclasses the BPO in spots.)

No. 9: The cycle culminates in a worthy performance of what could have Bruckner's greatest symphony, had he not died before finishing the Finale. Carlo Maria Giulini's grand 1988 Vienna Philharmonic recording will always be a personal favorite among Ninths, but Karajan's less extreme interpretation is almost as powerful. The Adagio here may not be as "final" as other interpretations make it, but it is touching nevertheless.

In the end, I would not recommend just getting one set of Bruckner symphonies, since Bruckner's Nine covers such a wide range of musical environments that inevitably some conductors will respond to some symphonies better than others. Still, all in all, this Karajan set will satisfy if you are looking to buy all the Bruckner symphonies in one purchase. As a whole cycle, this is one of the most consistently terrific sets around, and will serve as a fine introduction to the musical world of Anton Bruckner, one of the most touching figures in music history. Recommended.

I normally only add a review if I feel I have something to add to the existing reviews. The other reviewers have pretty well covered it here, but I just wanted to add that, for those who don't want to get into Bruckner collecting mania that "afflicts" some of us, this is the boxed set of Bruckner symphonies to get if you want to have just one. Now, if you find yourself really loving these symphonies, there are individual performances by other conductors that you might want to supplement with, but you can't go wrong with this set as a whole.

When I "clicked on" this set, I was kind of surprised that no "Karajan-bashers" had weighed in on this set. Personally, I feel that Karajan was unquestionably one of the greatest Bruckner conductors of the latter half of the 20th century. However I am of the opinion that there was a noticeable decline in the quality of his recorded performances (as a whole, not just his Bruckner) during the late 1970's. Most of the "too polished, too refined, lacking in 'fire'/passion" commentary is more pertinent to most of the last decade of his life, which happened to roughly coincide with the advent of digital recording technology. In the 1980's, the aging HvK became increasingly focused on sound quality, and many of his later recorded performances suffered from this. Some bugs in the new medium (digital), combined with Karajan's "ear" perhaps not being what it used to be, did indeed make most of his late recordings (esp. the studio ones) sound "too cold and refined." His last Johann Strauss recordings, and his last Beethoven symphonies cycle, are good examples of this. Posthumous remastering of many of these late digital recordings--i.e. the "Karajan Gold" series--has improved some of them.

Fortunately, for Bruckner fans, most of these Bruckner recordings were made prior to the aforementioned "decline," and thankfully, the ones that were made in the "digital era"-- symphonies 1-3--were some of the better recorded performances of his last period.

I don't usually review this way, but doing a breakdown of the individual symphonies in order might be the easiest way to do this...

1) This was the last symphony to be recorded in the series. Karajan's first does have some "early digital glare," and there isn't a lot of space around the orchestral sound, but it is still a good performance, not lacking in fire in the scherzo and outer movements. The brightness and closeness of the recording might actually add some intensity to it. Some recordings that I would put ahead of this one are Jochum's DG, Sawallisch, and Barenboim's CSO recording, but Karajan's is a good one to have if you want them all in one box. Chailly made an excellent recording of the, often unfairly maligned, "Vienna Version" of 1891 of the First that is worth hearing (the more familiar "Linz Version" of 1866 is the one that Karajan, and most other conductors, have rightfully used).

2) The second to last to be recorded in the series, and a really good Second, despite the "early digital" sound. This would easily fall into my top five Bruckner seconds. Karajan was generally a "Haas man," as am I (I'm not going to go down that winding road of the "versions" of Bruckner symphonies here, but his Haas allegiance is one of the things that gives the "Karajan-bashers" one more thing not to like about his Bruckner), but the version he uses here is a "hybrid:" i.e. the codas of the first and last movements have "two waves," the first of which were excised in the later version of the score. Karajan's version removes the first wave of the coda from the first movement, but leaves in the first wave of the finale's coda. This is the kind of editing that might make some Bruckner buffs say, "Hey, wait a minute!"--but Karajan manages it very convincingly, pacing his first movement coda, accordingly, so that it brings to mind the coda of the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth. As a side note, personally, I admire conductors who pick and choose from the versions of the Bruckner symphonies rather than rigidly adhering to either Haas or Nowak.

The sound here is less close and bright than the recording of the First Symphony, and the adagio (which is actually my favorite adagio of the first five numbered symphonies) is beautiful, with some glorious horn sound. My favorite Second is one by Hans Zender with The SWDRSO Baden Baden on the Amati label, which is unfortunately out-of-print and hard to find. The one in the Haitink Concertgebouw box is my next favorite. Barenboim's CSO recording (unfortunately, also only available in a box) is also very good, as is Wand's Cologne recording. I find most other recordings of this work too slow.

3) The third to last to be recorded in this set, this Third has my very favorite reading of the first movement, well-paced; and with blazing brass sound, esp. in the majestic climax. Unfortunately, Karajan chooses the 1889 version of the Third with its big cuts in the finale, but for better or worse this version was the choice of most conductors of his generation and before (incl. Jochum). Not only was this the first digital recording in this set, but having been made in late 1980, it was among the first generation of digital recordings. The sound is not w/o it's "early digital" glare and closeness, but it is not as uncomfortable to listen to as some early digital recordings, and as in the First Symphony, the brightness somehow seems to add to the intensity of the performance. For a recording of an earlier version, w/o the chopped-up finale, Sinopoli on DG is my favorite...although I must admit that I prefer the first movement of the 1889 version, mainly because it has a better climax, imo.

4) The Fourth and Seventh were recorded in 1975, and were the second and third recordings to be made in this series. Imo, this Fourth would be just about perfect if HvK had chosen the Nowak edition, which brings back the symphony's opening horn call in the coda of the finale. The pacing of all of the movements is excellent and the analog sound has plenty of atmosphere. As I mentioned above, I am generally a "Haas man" but the Fourth is the one symphony in which I think Nowak scores over Haas by bringing back that all-important horn call. Imo w/o the horn call in the coda of the finale, this is one of the symphonies in which Bruckner's first movement coda outshines the coda to his finale. Other conductors whose otherwise great recordings are marred by the missing horn call, imo, are Wand and Walter; while Jochum, whose Fourth might be my overall favorite despite his dirge-like slow movement, and Bohm are examples of conductors who brought back the "Nowak horn call" (as I call it) in the finale. Btw, this recording of the Fourth is much better than the one Karajan made for EMI/Angel, imo.

5) The Fifth was, appropriately enough, the fifth recording in this series, late in 1976. This was the first Fifth I ever heard, and it is still my favorite. I picked up a somewhat scratchy two-LP set of it in a used record store, and I still remember how excited I was the day that it was issued on CD (coupled with the First). There are versions with more flexible tempi, but none that are more majestic, and Karajan scores by using two sets of timpani in the codas of the first movement and finale, making the latter in particular, an even more thrilling conclusion than usual. You can easliy hear the second set of timpani, but a friend of mine who saw Karajan conduct a thrilling account of the Fifth live in Vienna confirmed that this was a trademark of his Bruckner Fifth. As with the Fourth, the sound has a nice sense of space which gives plenty of room for the majestic brass passages, incl. the all-important chorale of the finale, to resonate. Karajan-bashers, and purists, before you get your aquiline noses out of joint about the extra set of timpani, remember that Jocum augmented the chorale of the finale with extra brass (which may have been sanctioned by one of Bruckner's well-meaning "editors," such as the Schalks and Lowe, but was not officially sanctioned by the composer): such alterations are part of the vanishing art of interpretation.

6) This was the sixth recording to be made in the series, the last one of the '70's, and the last analog one. As others have commented, this is indeed the "acchiles heel" of this set. It is not a bad performance, but it does sound a bit cool and indifferent compared to the great recordings of this piece. However, if you only want one "in a box" you needn't feel bad about having this one. Jochum's DG Sixth is still probably my favorite, along with Haitink's, and Barenboim's CSO (DG) recording. Some people think the Sawallisch is the one to have, but I think his first movement is just too fast. The majority of Bruckner fans seem to like the Klemperer, but I think his first movement and scherzo are too slow, and his slow movement is too fast (of performances with a similar profile, I prefer the Keilberth BPO recording on Teldec, but it is out of print, and has become a bit of a rarity; although it occasionally turns up in a used CD bin).

7) This is a really good Seventh, recorded in 1975 within a month of the Fourth. The sound is a little more dry than the Fourth or Fifth, but still has a good sense of atmosphere. Karajan's pacing is very satisfying in all movements. Imo, this is his best recording of the Seventh, even better than his last (live) recording with the VPO, which is marred by sound that is too bright and harsh.

8) The Bruckner Eighth was one of Karajan's specialties, so it is perhaps not surprising that it was recorded first in this series, in early 1975. Even among people who greatly admire Karajan's Bruckner Eighths, I am probably in the minority when I say that this--and not his acclaimed final VPO Eighth--is my favorite of his recordings of this "Everest among symphonies," as it has rightly been called. The recording has plenty of presence and ambience, and the Berlin brass sounds great. Karajan's tempi have never had much of the flexibility that you will hear from great "old school" Bruckner conductors such as Furtwangler and Schuricht, but he never lets his tempos drag, like many of the latterday Bruckner conductors do. His reading combines granite-like grandeur with spirituality. I have more than 40 recordings of the Eighth (and have heard many more), and this one easily falls into my top ten.

9) This Ninth was recorded fourth in the series, in late 1975. The Ninth is my favorite symphony, by ANY composer, and I have, let's just say, "too many" recordings of it. Karajan's Ninth is more "tough," unflinching, and perhaps you could say "hard-nosed," than spiritual; an impression that is solidified by a recording that is not ideally atmospheric or transparent. I prefer performances that emphasize the mysterious, spiritual, ethereal, other-worldly aspects of this piece a bit more, but Karajan's granitic reading is still a very good one, and is satisfying on its own terms. HvK also recorded a Ninth for DG in the early 1960's; and there's a live VPO version from '76 that appeared in the VPO anniversary series, several years ago; but I don't think those performances are better than this one.

Since the Ninth is "my baby," I'll conclude with my five favorite Ninths: Furtwangler's 10/7/44 BPO; Haitink's 1980's CO recording; Barenboim/BPO (Teldec); Giulini/VPO (DG)...Wand's 1994 NDRSO Hamburg (not his '98 BPO) recording (BMG), and Skrowaczewski's Minnesota (not the Saarbrucken one) recording (Reference) vie for the Fifth spot. If you get into Bruckner enough that you want to supplement this set with individual recordings, you should know that the Furtwangler, classic though it is, will probably not be your first choice because the sound quality of the wartime recording made for German radio is not ideal. If I had to choose just one first choice for someone just getting into Bruckner, it would probably be the Haitink (the digital one, not the analog one from his boxed set). Unfortunately (and mindlessly--c'mon Philips and Teldec!), the Haitink and Barenboim are currently out of print, but not that hard to find in used CD bins. If you live in the L.A. area, I recently saw two copies of the Haitink in a used bin at the Amoeba in Hollywood.

Herbert von Karajan was a dedicated Brucknerian throughout his career. He recorded symphonies 4, 7, 8 and 9 more than once and, during the 1970's, produced a splendid integral cycle with the BPO. It is that cycle which is included in this volume of DG's "Karajan Edition" originally issued almost two decades ago.

Karajan's approach to Bruckner could aptly be called "Olympian": noble, rarified, lofty, hieratic, remote from worldly concerns. Don't look to Karajan for a humane or rustic view of the composer, for this is Bruckner *sub specie aeternitatis* so to speak. My guess is that Bruckner would have approved, given that in each of these works he was trying to bespeak the ineffable, to scale the heights of transcendence; though one does miss in Karajan's interpretations the heartfelt sense of religious devotion, tinged with human vulnerability, that Jochum provides. One also misses the existential angst, the near-operatic fervor, Fürtwangler evoked in his versions of 5, 8 and 9.

But at their best Karajan and the BPO approach something like perfection, and it's hard to gainsay that. If only the DG engineers had done their part and provided a richer, more alluring tonal spectrum, all would be well. Unfortunately, nearly everything Karajan did for this label from 1975 to 1985 was beset with sonic insufficiencies. The analog recordings in this set (4 through 9) sound shallow and cold, while the digital recordings (1 through 3) are almost unbearably strident. So if it's sonic splendor you are after, look elsewhere. I must also call attention to the fact that Karajan's cycle omits the two "non-canonical" symphonies (Nos. "O" and "00").

Those caveats aside, all Brucknerians should at least hear this set, for it contains many splendors, including a remarkably compelling 1, a minatory 3, a uniquely cogent 5, a serene and noble 7, an apocalyptic 8, and a majestic 9. No-one surpasses Karajan in these works. The other symphonies are also given splendid interpretations, even if one can do better elsewhere. I prefer a more lyrical, Schubertian 2 (try Giulini), a mellower 4 (as with Jochum or Walter), and a more searching 6 (Klemperer wins hands down). Prospective purchasers should also know that Karajan's earlier, more relaxed, interpretations of 4 and 7 are avaliable on EMI budget-priced reissues, and that his later, more deeply felt 8 with the VPO can be had on a full-price DG set. His warmer 9 from 1966 is also available as an DG import; many critics prefer it to the version included in the integral set under consideration here. His 1959 version of 8 with the BPO is darker and more meditative than either of his later accounts, and it's avaliable on a budget label from EMI.

Prospective purchasers of this set might do well to acquire some of these alternative Karajan versions, and wait to see if DG reissues the 1970's cycle at a lower price range. At the time of this writing it's clearly overpriced, even for an import. If you require a good integral cycle for a more modest outlay, I'd recommend Jochum/DG (though the sound is not great), Solti/Decca (wonderful sound, controversial interpretations) or Skrowaczewski/Oehms (superb interpretations, good sound, variable orchestral playing) or possibly Barenboim/Warner (eccentric with flashes of insight).

In the end, however, Karajan still reigns supreme in Bruckner. If price is not an issue for you, and you don't mind variable sound quality, then this set will be a worthwhile investment.

NOTE: Since I wrote this review, DG has reissued Karajan's Bruckner cycle as part of a "Karajan Symphony Edition" bargain box. This box is a worthwhile investment, since it also contains the conductor's 1977 Beethoven cycle, Haydn's "Paris" and "London" Symphonies, and the complete symphonies of Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms and Tchaikovsky (all for less than the earlier DG box of the Bruckner symphonies cost as an expensive import). I have also noticed that, in light of this development, Amazon's sellers are offering the earlier Bruckner set at substantial savings. Either way, if you love Bruckner don't pass up Karajan's great cycle.

Like any die-hard devotee of Bruckner, I could object to the reviewers here who lower Karajan to the status of such workmanlike musicians as Jochum, Wand, and Skrowaczewski. Taste is taste. But there's no denying that Karajan was a master of Bruckner's idiom, perhaps the greatest we have on disc along with Furtwangler, Klempereer, and Giulini. As for living conductors, only Harnoncourt impreses me as being potentially of this rank, although I have heard both ordinary and great Bruckner in concert from Haitink.

In this colleciton we get superior performances of every symphony but #6, which for some reason Karajan found uncongenial. It should be kept in mind that Karajan did not perform Sym. 1, 2, 3, or 6 in concert, so his readings are at a disadvantage compared to more lived-in interpretations such as Giulini's wonderful Second. (The symphonies he recorded repeatedly are Sym. 7, 8, and 9, so arguably some of the alternative recordings will be greater than the ones which appear in this box. I have three versions of each, and find new insights in all of them.) What I really wish is that DG would remaster this whole cycle. The sound tends to be steely and congested in loud passages, of which there are many, and the microphones come close to overloading in double and tripple forte climaxes. That's typical of early digital remastering from analog originals. Altogether, except for the sonic blemishes, I can't imagine anyone not finding this set the best cycle of Bruckner symphonies ever recorded.

P.S. - Let me amplify on my comment that Karajan's Bruckner cycle is badly in need of remastering. The original digital transfer remains the only one available, and it's badly outdated. Every packaging suffers from the same ovoerload in loud passages and digital shrillness in the uppper strings.

I have done quite a few A-B comparisons with other Karajan Bruckner recordings, and all have better sonics except the 1966 Sym. 9 on DG Galleria. The EMI Fourth and Seventh have considerably better sound than the versions in this box set, thanks to extensive remastering. The very late Seventh and Eighth from Vienna are also miles better. An early Eighth on EMI is worse, however, suffering from boxy early stereo. A mono Eighth from Vienna, included in an expesnive compilation from Andante, is good of its kind but inferior to all the stereo versions of the Eighth that came later.

If you are a fan of Bruckner's music, you must have this set. Period. No conductor has ever surpassed what von Karajan achieved in this set. Not Jochum, not Furtwangler, not Tintner, not Wand. Some conductors at their best (Jochum in #5 with the Concergebouw in 1986 just before he died, Giulini in #9 with the VPO) have surpassed these performances, but they are few and far between. The playing of the Berlin Philharmonic has to be heard to be believed. Von Karajan was a great Bruckner interpreter, perhaps most consistently the greatest of all. Even if you may have reservations about von Karajan, just listen and you will likely be blown away. The only issues with this set may have to do with von Karajan's choice of text in Symphonies #1 and #3 (Jochum's performance of #1 with the BPO is superlative, not just because of the text, and Tintner's performance of #3 is best of all recordings of that symphony that I've heard). The highlights of this set (and it's hard to call them highlights because the overall quality is incredible) are #2, and #4-9.

The Karajan set is one of the definitive Bruckner sets out there(along side the classic Jochum sets). He gives each symphony its total worth, with exactitude and monumentality it deserves. There is no lack of spiritual dimension in his interpretations. With the intesity so high and the sheer power of Karajan's readings, it is something to marvel at. Karajan is someone you can trust doing Bruckner...he performed Bruckner throughout his whole life and oddly enough his very first stereo recording was Bruckner's Eighth and his very last recording before he died was a digital recording of Bruckner's Seventh!

Karajan was a master at interpreting Bruckner and I don't want to go into each symphony because I could go on forever. The point is if you ever see this set, you must find a way to get it!...for you will experience miracles that will never be forgotten. Highest possible recommendation.

Karajan and Skrowaczewski are the only two great Bruckner conductors who've recorded all of the symphonies 1-9, and Skrowaczewski also did numbers 0 and 00, both of which are also great symphonies (0 being, in my opinion, up to the level of numbers 1-6--numbers 8 and 9 were even better, the greatest symphonies ever written).

In addition, Sawallisch was just as great a Bruckner conductor as Karajan and Skrowaczewski, but never recorded #'s 2,3, 7 and 8. Bernhard Guller's and Bernhard Klee's Bruckner 9th's are probably the two greatest performances of that work on records, but neither conductor has recorded any other Bruckner.

Specifically as regards the present set, the performances of numbers 1, 2 and 3 are definitive--the greatest ever recorded. However, Bruckner's 1890 version of the 1st is better than the earlier version which Karajan uses here, and I strongly recommend the F. Charles Adler performance of it, which, even though not definitive, is the best yet recorded.

All of Karajan's Bruckner 4ths are good, but none is great--the great ones are Sawallisch, Skrowaczeski and Matacic. Some critics dislike the version that Matacic used, but nonetheless that recording is the greatest of all for any listener who thinks the 4th should be played with ferocious intensity. The opening of the 4th movement in the Matacic sounds like an earthquake--no one else does it that way. The Sawallisch is probably the best all-around for most tastes, nearly as radiant as the Matacic, and yet done in a traditional manner. The Skrowaczewski is the most laid-back of the great Bruckner 4th's--especially the recording he did with the Saarbrucken orchestra, which is in the complete set. (The recording he did with the Halle is a little less laid-back.)

Karajan did a great Bruckner 5th with the Vienna Symphony in 1954, but the performance in the present set is inadequate in the final movement: instead of sounding monumental, it comes across as constricted, especially at the very end, where he races the notes. The other great recording of this symphony, and probably the greatest one done of it, is the one by Sawallisch, which is close to definitive.

The Bruckner 6th still awaits a definitive recorded performance, but this one is probably the best ever recorded. The only movement that's done less than definitively is the symphony's greatest, the first movement.

The 7th is the weakest performance in the set, though good, and none of Karajan's other recordings of it is better. The great one is in the Skrowaczewski set.

This Bruckner 8th is Karajan's most explosive, but his greatest one was its immediate predecessor, the one he did with the same orchestra, the Berlin Phil., on EMI/Angel in 1958--calmer, more selfless, a mystical trance throughout, and perhaps the greatest Bruckner performance ever captured on records. Karajan's worst of this symphony was his last, with the Vienna Phil., recorded near the end of 1988--the performance most widely available. It's the only nervous performance he ever did of this sublimely calm work, and it's by far the least trance-like. The only Bruckner 8th that competes for greatness with Karajan's 1958 recording is Skrowaczewski's, which is very similar to it, but craggier.

The performance here of the 9th is disappointing; it's only good. The great ones are Sawallisch and Skrowaczewski on the fast side, and Guller and Klee on the slow side.

The most over-rated Bruckner conductors are Furtwangler, who brutalizes the music, and so is especially bad in the mystical 8th and 9th, and Celibidache, who plays the music as melodrama and not as drama. Furtwangler's formula for conducting Bruckner was simple: the louder the music got, the faster he played it. Bruckner would have had a heart attack to hear his music butchered so. But most conductors are no better. The ones I've mentioned are the rare exceptions.

Close behind in the overrated category was Giulini, who seems to have been out of touch with the mystical aspect of the music, and was on the flaccid side instead of the necessary calm--the difference is subtle but crucial.

Even some of the greatest conductors were not great on Bruckner. Bohm, Klemperer, and Konwitschny, each of whom was superb in some other works, never got into the spirit of his music.

I can't add any further to the reviews already mentioned except to say these are some of the most enjoyable musical experiences I have ever had!