Customer Reviews

Bruckner: Symphony No. 6 in A (Nowak ed.) / Wolf: 4 Goethe-Lieder

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

 

 

The primary appeal of this disc for me was the Bruckner, one of his more underrated symphonies. I already own an outstanding version by Wolfgang Sawallisch on Orfeo, but was not about to miss this one, which turns out to be an excellent performance.

Chailly's way with Bruckner, like his Mahler, emphasizes the inner voicing. For me it works, but clearly it may not for all Brucknerites (many of whom hold very strong opinions!). If there are more moments here that feel "wandering" it is probably the fault of the score, not Chailly's interpretation. Nevertheless, the quality of the orchestral playing, and many fine passages throughout, make it worth hearing.

The real discovery were the Wolf songs, gorgeously sung by Matthias Goerne. If you like the Straussian long line, these beautifully orchestrated gems will probably appeal to you. This was also my introduction to Mr. Goerne, a formidable singer indeed.

Since most recordings of the Bruckner Sixth have no couplings, this one gets a strong vote for including these compelling Wolf pieces.

Chailly lacks the imagination and the conviction to tackle this symphony. I have never been so turned off by a performance of any Bruckner symphony until I heard this one. Chailly, as pointed out by one of the persons who reviewed it (Chew), disregarded many markings by Bruckner, and those who know this symphony intimately have to fight hard to overlook these errors, and that takes away all the pleasure of listening. I like to listen with scores opened in front of me, and take notes. My score is now full of red circles highlighting all the errors Chailly has made in this renditon. There are moments when Chailly speeds up while the instruction in the score clearly says "slow down siginificantly". I was tickled by the polite way the official review describe this problem. Bottomline: the whole 1st movement is rushed, very rushed. The second movement, which is one of the beautiful movements Bruckner has ever written, is very dry, and completely uninspiring under Chailly's direction, and he clearly has a very vague idea of where the symphony is heading when it comes to 3rd and the 4th movements. And he leaves me completely lost at the end.

I am normally quite fond of Chailly's performances, but this one really crosses the line. Perhaps I dislike this recording for different reasons than Chew. My Bruckner does not have to be completely spiritual, but Geeez, the musicians have to at least execute the musical instructions right. I bought a Bruckner 6th, and I ended up getting a Chailly 6th.

I cannot comment on the Hugo Wolf lieder for this is the only version I have.

This one is for the nay-sayers. I read your discussion with interest and I must say I obviously disagree with the criticism. The point is, what do you ask from Bruckner. Do you want to silence your conscience for not going to church by engulfing yourself in the so-called religious depths of Bruckner. Or do you want to be enlightened by Bruckner's sublime manipulation of tonal colours and orchestral textures and large architecture. I myself am a convinced atheist. Yet I find immense pleasure in Bruckners opus. On the other hand I'm incredibly bored by the Klemps, Jochums, Celibedaches et. al. Not because they are not quick enough, but because imo they fail to see that Bruckner above all is MUSIC and not a holy mass. I've had a similar discussion about Wagner's Gotterdammerung, which imo is also ruined by the hordes of conductors who just want to grail-resonate in act I and III and rush through all the drama that's in the story. Now back to this Chailly recording : I live in Amsterdam, a few minutes bicycle ride from the Concertgebouw. I have not been able to see this 6th, but I've had the pleasure of hearing Maestro Chailly conduct the 8th with the Concertgebouw Orchestra. Personally I can't see anything wrong with it.....except that he doesn't conduct it like Klemp et. al. But this is just a matter of taste ! It's the same as those m%r(ns who blast away every Wotan who doesn't sing the role like Hans Hotter or every conductor who doesn't conduct Wagner like Furtwangler. This sixth shines in all it's glory (aided by the fantastic recording we've come to expect from Andrew Cornall) and I can't find anything un-Brucknerian about it. The structure is very clear but at the same time Chailly leaves all room for melodic beauty and for Bruckner's harmonic magic. Most of all this is one of those conductors who clears Bruckner of the image of "sound cathedrals" by perfectly outlining every contrapunctal line in the score and yet keep the whole perfectly integrated. Granted if you're stuck on one vision of Bruckner you're bound to hate this recording, but on the other hand if you love Bruckner's music qua music (as opposed to qua spiritual meaning) I can't imagine someone to dislike this recording. I don't think that Chailly goes for effectiveness, since I know him to be a very conscientious conductor whose integrity towards the music is beyond doubt. In the line of great Brucknerians, which for me consits of Haitink, Wand and very maybe Celibedache Chailly holds for me a fully justified place. Happy listening to whomever cares to explore this Bruckner miracle !

If nothing else, this review, compared to the one from the "Chicago Mahlerites" guy, will demonstrate that there's nothing as subjective as a performance of classical music. If I agree with some of the things said, I also believe that this kind of approach to Bruckner's music is old fashioned and profoundly simplistic. To bury Bruckner's symphonies under such an avalanche of ponderous pseudo-religious concepts is exactly what makes many listeners gasp at the very thought that they're going to hear 70 or 80 minutes of "pious beauty". Of course, the reach for something sublime, for a liberation from human struggles, is paramount in Bruckner but he was no saint, he was no hermit. As any good Bruckner biography can attest to ( recommended: R. Simpson "the essence of Bruckner" and especially D. Watson's "Bruckner", in the Master Musicians Series), Bruckner did not live in a monastery, he fought for all his life, in his own naive and goofy way, to gain recognition for his work from the Viennese establishment.He was well conscious of the revolutionary features of his symphonies: the abrupt pauses, the "germinal" growth of the themes from an indistinct "mist" of sound, the orchestration that is only superficially Wagnerian, but is actually Brucknerian, and many others). Hence the difficult relationships with critics and musicians , the many nervous breakdowns he suffered , the endless revisions of the symphonies. These (and the actual performances) are facts, the rest is speculation on the deeply personal feelings of a man which left us Music, and not Prayer Books ! Chailly's credentials as a Brucknerian are widely recognized. In his ongoing cycle he has given us at least 3 milestone recordings : the 5th (Concertgebouw) , and the 7th and "0" (RSO Berlin). One thing that he has demonstrated is exactly his deep understanding of Bruckner's tempi: he's far from the excesses of both Solti (that used to bulldoze through Bruckner's symphonies) or Knappertbusch (that let the music sag). He knows the spiritual power of this music, but doesn't ignore its overwhelming grandeur. A few months ago, I could personally witness this during a Chailly performance of the 7th when, at the end of the Adagio, I could hear the audience exhale all together, such was the awe, the hushed concentration conveyed to us. When Chailly, as sometimes happened, fails, it's because he's too laid-back and not because he over-conducts : this is why his 2nd, for example, is no match for Tintner's. Altogether a performance that tries (rather successfully, as for me) to be comprehensive of the different aspects of the symphony, and it's ravishingly played by the incomparable Concertgebouw. Striking Decca sound.

I have a few Chailly Bruckner symphonies -- all early, and quite acceptable as these are immature, however interesting, works.

The 6th is altogether a different matter as it is truly in the line of great Bruckner symphonies. Bruckner never felt the need to revise it and, in tribute to its special quality of having been written in blazing heat, called it "der Keckeste" -- the English translation would be 'the kickiest'. The composer knew. It is also the only mature Bruckner symphony to open without string tremelo. It is monumental, completely accessible (it's tiresome to hear otherwise, particularly in view of the fact that, actually, it's the 5th symphony that can be accused of impenetrability), and one of the composer's greatest. I would say that the boldest pages in all of the symphonies is the conclusion of the first movement, whose breathtaking modulations invoked in Sir Donald Tovey the image of being tossed upon 'Homeric seas'. For me, it's more spine-tingling and visionary than all the Brahms symphonies put together.

I have many fine versions of the 6th, including Klemperer, Sawallisch, Blomstedt, Celibidache. This is not one of them.

This is loud, fast, and clueless in general -- all exposed by excellent recording. To be avoided by Bruckner lovers and neophytes alike.

I am a lot more intrigued by the stimulating discussion among the reviewers than the actual recording itself, which in my opinion lacks both the poetry and the technicality to do this symphony any justice.

The extreme ratings of 1 and 5 stars exemplify the subjectivity of music appreciation, and it highlight the great emotion stirred up by the musical talents of Bruckner. It is precisely for this reason that one cannot ignore the factors which evoke our deepest reactions (whatever they may be) in Bruckner's music. To deny the spiritual quality of Bruckner's music is equivalent to negating the heroism in Beethoven's works, the romance in Tchaikovsky's music, or the human and nature qualities in Mahler's symphonies. Bruckner's music is never simple, and I would like to believe that those who seek out his symphonies and masses have the intellect to handle in-depth analyses underscored by his music.

Chailly's obvious disregards for Bruckner's instructions (especially in the outer movements) have been addressed by Mr. Andy Schuller and Teng-Leong Chew from the Chicago Mahlerites, and I shall not dwell with it. Chailly, contrary to what "hyperdanny" advocated, is not widely regarded as a superb Brucknerian conductor. Strict technical and artistic analyses by many Brucknerian authorities, Derek Watson and Robert Simpson included, repeatedly highlight the spiritual expressionism and structural expansionism so critical to Bruckner's symphonies. Chailly not only does not capture the expressive spirituality of this work (which I agree is hard to measure), but fails miserably to expand the various fragments. The musical units not only are not treated with great care and properly weaved to complement the next segment, they were contracted in scope and shrunken to the point that gaps appear in between sections. The architecture of the work collapses in incredible despair and hopelessness, sometimes utterly dissipates into complete loss of musical direction. These are absolute failures for interpreting Bruckner's music. If you are familiar with this work, this rendition will truly test your patience. If you are thinking about exploring Bruckner's music, this CD will kill your interest. Frankly, as a self-proclaimed Bruckner fan, I am so offended by this performance that I don't think it even deserves the beautifully written review by Mr.(?)Chew. I agree with Mr. Schuller, if you want to buy a symphony by Chailly instead of by Bruckner, get this CD.

Chailly is in general using the Nowak version, but makes some surprising choices that, to me, suggests he must have conferred with other versions as well. The performance does sound a bit leisurely at times even if the tempi aren't really overly slow; this is a warm, relatively sunny reading of the work, one that downplays the struggle and touches of desolation and darkness in favor of sensuality and a sense of yearning. That is not necessarily a bad thing, and the themes and developments are lovingly shaped, with much care and attention both to detail and to overall structure. The performance is particularly successful in the slow movement which is almost glowing here. Yet for all its qualities I cannot help missing a sense of urgency - the finale, for example, should build up to a gloriously blazing conclusion, and Chailly's account seems distinctly half-hearted, focusing instead on all the beautiful flowers along the roadside. This is not to say that the performance lacks life and vigor in general, but I miss some momentum.

The performance is given a wonderfully warm recording quality that serves the opulence of the Concertgebouw very well. And of course the orchestral playing is superb throughout. The coupling is slightly curious; four songs by Hugo Wolf in the composer's own orchestration (the Harfenspieler Lieder and Anakreons Grab). These are also finely performed, but here as well the dramatic element is downplayed, this time in favor of introspection. Goerne has a fine voice, of course, but seems a little bit stymied by the approach and doesn't always manage to fully capture the depth and darkness of these songs. Overall, then, I don't think this is quite a first choice in this symphony (even though there is a surprisingly low number of outstanding recordings available - I guess Klemperer is the most obvious candidate), even though I did indeed find much to savor - it is a performance with a heart but not really a vision. Still, I am a little surprised to see that it is as controversial as the different reviews here suggest.

I read with great interest Mr. Schuller's review, and gladly voted it because I found it very helpful in its "practical" approach. Maybe I was just too annoyed by the "pious beauty" blah-blah, and this is why I gave the cd a 5-star rating, which is a bit much. (after further listenings, I have to agree about a certain "wandering" quality of some parts). It also originated a few second thoughts. First of all, I'd like to point out that I'm just a listener who loves music, and not a scholar, so my opinions are mainly based on my subjective perception of the quality of the performance. Then, if I usually prefer deeply-felt, even idiosyncratic interpretations,( Bernstein, Sinopoli, Stokowski) to colorless "international" renditions, I acknowledge that Mr. Schuller scores a point with his remarks about Chailly's faithfulness to the score (but the whole concept of "authentic" Bruckner score is, at best, controversial ) . Like the majority of us, I can't read music, so I can't say nothing against that, but, while I'm still waiting for a "definitive" account of the 6th (any suggestions ?), I'll continue to enjoy this one for the many good things it has to give. I just have a (respectfully jokey) question for Mr.Schuller : do you REALLY like listening to the music "with the score open" and making "red circles highlighting the errors" ?

I liked this razor sharp recording a lot (and I own quite a few others). The conducting is excellent in my opinon. The orchestra playes when it should and stops in the breaks.

Celibadache's is very good also though not as accessible.

Klemperrer's is excellent conducting-wise, but the level of playing is not as good as in this recording.

Highly recommended.

First of all, let's please stick to reviewing the recording itself rather than others' reviews. That to me is a start toward rationality.

As a conductor, I can attest to the well recognized fact that Bruckner's Sixth is a tough nut to crack. There are a lot of musical challenges which if not properly treated, will easily disintegrate the structure of this work. Bruckner's thematic materials are normally expanded through patient development. This telescoping effect requires foresight, and superb control form the part of the conductor, and Chailly in this particular recording failed to do so. The music starting from the middle of the first movement begins to fragment to multiple directions. To these ears the first movement is the weakest in this recording. And that delivers the early yet fatal blow. The Concertgebouw, which is my favorite orchestra, play like a well-polished ensemble but without a much needed sense of direction. Too bad.

I personally has less problem with the tempo than with the overall integrity of the music. The second movement could be a little slower, but it doesn't bother me. I would probably have guessed this to be a late Karajan work if I were to listen to the second movement blinded. For the orchestral color was so incredibly well blended, but absolutely failed to highlight the significance of the thematic recapitulation, for I didn't sense the music going anywhere. It was reduced to a rich, sonorous, exciting symphonic sound with absolutely nothing more to say. That by itself is a major failure to these ears.

I am perfectly ready to overlook the errors (some rather glaring) in the first movement for I don't believe in note-perfect performance, but I came away not feeling the greatness of Bruckner in this recording.

And Anton Bruckner is my hero...