Customer Reviews

Bruckner: Symphony No. 8 (1887 version, ed. Nowak) / Symphony No. 0 "Die Nullte"

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Nearly thirty years ago, a former member of the L.A. Philharmonic under Otto Klemperer said to me that he thought of Bruckner as a composer who "had had his day," despite the efforts at the time (the mid-1970s) to foster a widespread revival of interest in his work. The individual in question was Austrian by birth, a man of profound musical education, and an admirer of Bruckner's symphonic art. It simply struck him as implausible that these gargantuan scores, with their extreme demands on audience attention, had much of a future in the concert hall. With slightly less tenacity, perhaps, than Mahler, Bruckner has proved my old friend (long since departed from this earth) wrong. One symptom of the curious peristence of Bruckner is the proliferation of recorded versions of his scores. The Fourth and Seventh Symphonies in particular may be obtained in dozens, if not scores, of competing performances. But it is a mark of how central Bruckner has become to the symphonic repertory that a half a dozen complete sets of his symphonies bedizen the "B" pages of the recorded music catalogues at any given time. To call attention to itself, then, any new traversal of the Bruckner symphonies must possesses extraordinarily individual character. The late Georg Tintner's cycle, for Naxos, is one such, and his interpretation of the mighty Eighth Symphony (C-Minor) tells us why. Tintner - who died, in his late eighties, a year ago - lavished studious attention on the different versions of Bruckner's scores. For his recording of the Eighth, he chose the rarely visited first-version of the work, which is the longest of the two major competing versions, and whose First Movement is significantly different from the one that most of us know. In the familiar version, the First Movement ends quietly; in the original version, it ends with a tremendous fortissimo dominated by the brass and underpinned by the tympany. Minor differences distinguish the other movements of the first version from those of the revised score. The difference that distinguishes Tintner's delivery of any of the Bruckner symphonies in any of their versions, however, is his slow tempi; only Celibidache takes a slower Eighth and not by much. But the slowing-down results in no loss of tension: This is Bruckner the religious visionary yearning for his God. It is "Geistlicher Bruckner," "Spiritual Bruckner." (Note: In the Scherzo, Tintner is not noticeably slower and is, in fact, faster than some other interpreters.) The National Symphony Orchestra of Ireland is a first-rate orchestra. We also get Bruckner's early D-Minor symphony, "Die Nullte," also called Symphony No. 0. Superb.

PERFORMANCES: 9 out of 10.

RECORDINGS: 9 out of 10.

THE 1887 VERSION OF THE 8th SYMPHONY:

There are 2 authentic versions of the 8th -one from 1887 and one from 1890. (The Haas edition is more than just a composite of the 2 authentic versions. Starting with the 1890 manuscript, Haas added a passage from the 1887 Adagio. He then restored 4 of 7 passages from the Finale which Bruckner had crossed out of the 1890 manuscript. Finally, Haas cut several bars from the Finale in order to insert a passage the he composed and which was only sketched by Bruckner!)

The 1890 version contains cuts to the Adagio and Finale. These are (almost) universally condemned. Thus, the 1887 version clearly scores a point here.

Many speak of the 1890 Trio section as being "new". It is only a rewrite. In the 1887 version, after a slightly different beginning, the melodies are recognizable. At its climaxes, instead of harp splashes, Bruckner uses light winds and horns - still delightful. I question the wisdom of the harp in the later version of the Trio. Bruckner's late Adagios are often likened to "long, ecstatic prayers". The harp is used to "celestial" effect in that movement and perhaps should be confined to it.

This brings us to the matter of the first movement coda. Many state that it was a mistake for Bruckner to end the 1887 version of this movement with a loud coda in C major when so much of the movement is in the minor and the passage leading up to it is soft. I would suggest that the 1887 coda should be seen as a statement of defiance against the prevading gloom of the first movement and a typical Brucknerian "prophecy" of the Finale Coda.

Therefore, I suggest that the usual criticisms against the 1887 version (the Trio and the first movement Coda) are erroneous. I believe that, except in the case of the 4th symphony, Bruckner's original thoughts are always superior.

SYMPHONY #0 "DIE NULLTE":

I really dislike the term "Die Nullte" ("The Annulled"). It is a wonderful piece. It is every bit as good as the 1st symphony and, in places, as good as the 2nd. (The latest scholarship shows that it was written completely between those two symphonies and that there was only ever one version.)

SUMMARY:

These CDs live up to the high standards that Dr. Tintner and Naxos have set. I heartily recommend the entire series to all those who are unfamiliar with the composer and to comparative "Brucknerheads".

Some of the world's greatest orchestras and most celebrated conductors have recorded Bruckner's monumental 8th Symphony, but this wonderful effort by lesser-known forces ranks right up there with the best. The National Symphony of Ireland is surely not the Vienna Phailharmonic, the Concertgebouw, or the Berlin Philharmonic, but it conveys the conductor's vision well. And if Tintner isn't as celebrated a Brucknerian as Furtwaengler, Jochum, Klemperer, or Karajan, then it may be time for the musical world to expand its long-held opinions. Tintner knows this complex work well, and he pilots this Titanic symphony with a clear vision of where he wants it to go, and how he wants to take it there. Yet, within his unflappable big-picture conception, there are many moments of seemingly improvisational serendipity; little plashes of detail or intensifications of expression reminiscent of that ultimate dionysiac Brucknerian, Furtwaengler. But unlike the usually murky and distorted recordings of the latter, this reading is captured in fine modern sound. And at a budget price, this set is well suited for those hesitant about a composer rumored to be difficult, as well as for converts who already have the piece but who would welcome another view of a cosmic work that can have no single "correct" interpretation.

I recommend this set to anyone who has puzzled over the darkening sky in Bruckner's last two symphonies. The Seventh, despite its elegiac slow movement, is basically as optimistic as earlier Bruckner symphonies, while the Eighth, in the revised version we all have come to know and love, projects a more ominous horizon that is not entirely transcended by the triumphant tone of the final movement (despite Robert Simpson's argument). I suggest, based on the evidence of this recording by Tintner, that Bruckner's "original" vision is as authoritative here as it has proven to be in the other symphonies that were revised (often many times) at the behest of others. Innumerable differences in orchestral color and weight (generally toward the lighter end of the spectrum), plus the anticipation of the final movement at the end of the first movement, create an entirely different total experience, one rather more like Wagner's Siegfried than the Goetterdaemmerung that is often evoked by the revised version of the Eighth. I think that the ominous tone in Bruckner's revised Eighth and Ninth is less a product of his own approaching death (and possible weakening faith) than of the devastating emotional effect of the rejection of the original Eighth by Hermann Levi. If this is true, then the Bruckner legacy needs to be reconsidered. I think we stand to benefit by coming to know and accept the very human, often garrulous, but ultimately encouraging Bruckner that this first version of the Eighth presents. Thanks to Tintner (as to Inbal in his previous recording) for giving us this opportunity.

The first thing to say about Georg Tintner is that he is perhaps the greatest Bruckner conductor who ever lived. In virtually ever case, Tintner's interpretations of these massive symphonies beat the competition in every category -- except, possibly, the quality of the orchestras. Although I have listened to Bruckner's 8th innumerable times for the past 30 years, I have never heard a recording that seems so "right" in terms of "getting" the elusive, inner emotional/spiritual power of this work in actual performance. Next to this recording, von Karajan almost sounds superficial.

That said, it needs to be emphasized that this is not the Version of this symphony that everyone knows. This, the First Version of Bruckner's 8th, is so radically different from the later version, written after the devastating blow (to the composer) of Hermann Levi's disapproval, that it almost seems like an entirely different symphony. A few of the transitional passages eliminated from the First Version were actually reincorporated in the Robert Haas edition of the Second Version, which is one reason why that particular edition is to be preferred to the Nowak edition, which does not restore those passages. These brief transitional passages (found in the Adagio and the Finale) hint at some of the forgotten glories of the original version. In my opinion, it's a pity Haas didn't reintroduce at least one additional transitional passage found in the development section of the First Version of the First Movement. One of the benefits of this recording is that you can now hear that passage, played beautifully.

This recording is an absolute must for any Bruckner lover. Not to know the original version of the Eighth, written so soon after the success of the Seventh, is not to understand Bruckner. At this point, I really can't decide which version I like better. I do prefer many of the changes Bruckner made in editing this symphony for the Second Version, particularly his deletion of the loud coda found in the First Movement of the First Version, and his change of the climax of the Adagio from C major to E flat major. But -- but -- there are so many lovely, inspired moments in this First Version that were unconscionably cut in producing the Second Version!

The bottom line -- this is a magnificent recording which every Brucknerite should own. It's just a pity that Tintner didn't record the Haas version before his untimely death. The pairing with Symphony No. 0 is an added bonus. This is probably the best available recording of that relatively unknown symphony, actually the third one Bruckner wrote (between the First and the Second).

Sometimes I really wish that I had become acquainted with the original 1887 version of the Bruckner Eighth before I became so well acquainted with the Haas and Nowak editions, because I might be able to appreciate Bruckner's first intentions a little more...and, conversely, I might also have an even greater appreciation of where Bruckner went from there with the score. Regardless of all that has been said and written about Bruckner's insecurity; suggestibility to cuts and changes; and obsessive inability to leave some of his scores alone--and the subsequent academic disagreements over his "final intentions"--the final product that Bruckner came up with has got to be one of the greatest editing/revising jobs in music history. Can you imagine sending your latest, and what you believe to be your greatest, creation to a mentor whose opinion you value greatly, only to receive it back with a befuddled reaction from him? Yet, despite Bruckner's well-documented "oversensitivites," he went on to turn it into an even greater masterpiece. How many of us have the insight and fortitude to take a rejected "magnum opus," and turn it into an even greater work? It's somewhat fitting, in a way, that this was the fate that Bruckner's Eighth Symphony faced, for I feel that the running theme of his works is the ability of faith (whether Catholic, like Bruckner's, or otherwise) to overcome all obstacles.

Personally, I am a "Haas man," when it comes to the Eighth, i.e. I prefer the Haas edition to the Nowak. I do not subscribe to the opinion that the Haas is somehow not a valid edition because it incorporates elements from different versions so it represents a score that Bruckner never really laid eyes on. I have been an avid Bruckner fan for nearly 20 years, and yes, like many of us, I got caught up in "the problem of the versions" for awhile...but I eventually got tired of all of that, and now I go mainly by what my ears tell me, and I like the passages that Haas put back into the Adagio and Finale of the Eighth; and when I listen to a recording of the Nowak edition, it sounds like something is missing to me.

I think Tintner makes a great case for the 1887 score, and it is a well-played and well-recorded version to boot. This recording blows Inbal's away. Inbal's first two movements are so fast they sound like a "run through," and even the finale sounds too fast. I have never understood Inbal's approach: in addition to just not sounding "right," the fast tempos don't really allow some of the details, such as the woodwind parts that were left out of the later revisions, to be fully heard. Some of Tintner's tempos are a bit slow, but he lets us hear a lot more details, and ultimately his tempos are convincing. Hats off to Tintner and Naxos for having the courage to release a recording of this "rare" version, in a market flooded with Haas and Nowak.

I am very pleased that Tintner has crowned his cycle with very satisfying accounts of the Eighth and Ninth, especially since I am not really a fan of the rest of his cycle. His Bruckner is too slow and "single tempo" for me. There is a style of Bruckner that I have come to refer to as "New Age Bruckner." This style, which began to emerge not long after the onset of the "digital era" is characterized by uniformly slow, safe, cushy performances, dressed up in the latest plushy digital finery. They are relatively light in the bass, and do not have strong timpani to underpin Bruckner's grand climaxes. Many of them are not without an element of spirituality, and some are actually quite lovely, but they make little attempt to present and overcome the spiritual upheavals that are central to the Bruckner symphonies, and that make the hard-won victories of their finales, and their codas (esp. those of the Fifth and Eighth), all the more satisfying.

Imo, some of the conductors and performances that fall into this "New Age" category are: Chailly's 2,3,5&7-9 (although his 7&9 do have their satisfying moments); Haitink's most recent (VPO) recordings of 4,5,& 8 (athough his earlier 2,6; 1970's 7th; and 1980's 8&9 Concertgebouw recordings are still among my favorites); and Sinopoli's 8&9 (a shame because his 3,4,&7 are still among my favorites). Some of you Karajan bashers may like hearing that, as much as I enjoy most of his full DG cycle, his final recordings of the Seventh and Eighth, as much as I was intitally impressed with the latter, have not worn very well. Even some of Barenboim's Teldec cycle has the ring of "New Age Bruckner" to me, esp. his 2,4,6,&7, which is a little curious considering that his style is generally very much informed by Furtwangler and the "old school" of Bruckner conducting, with it's more flexible tempi, heightened sense of drama, strong underpinning of bass and timpani, etc. (although his BPO Ninth is one of my five favorite out of the nearly 60 that I have, and I also like his Eighth very much). Incidentally, I feel that Barenboim's earlier Chicago cycle on DG is one of the most underrated, as a whole, and in terms of the individual performances, overall exceeding the Teldec BPO cycle, mostly by virtue of the fact that the former's 2,4,6,&7 are all preferable.

Some might put Celibidache's late Bruckner into the same category, but while his late Bruckner recording were slow, some agonizingly so, slow alone doesn't necessarily make it "New Age Bruckner," imo. There were elements of Celibidache's approach to Bruckner that continued to be informed by the "old school," such as the full bass and strong timpani, even as his tempi wandered off into eternity. I feel that part of what was going on with Celibidache, other than the fact that he always "marched to his own drummer," was that he was trying to make the listener hear Bruckner as he heard it in his head, and experienced it in his soul...and sometimes, toward the end of his life, the "Being Celibidache" ride was a bit too slow for many of us.

My early days as a "Brucknerian" were very much influenced by the "New Agers," and in fact, I was not very receptive to the "old school;" but once I heard some of the better Bruckner recordings by conductors like Furwangler, Schuricht, Abendroth, Kabasta, Hausegger, Horenstein, etc., I began to feel like there were elements of their approach that were still valid, and shouldn't be written off as anachronistic. I have, by no means, become stritctly an "old schooler"--hell, one of my favorite Bruckner recordings is still the Giulini VPO Eighth, hardly an "old school" interpretation, despite its strong bass and timpani (btw, has the Vienna Phil ever sounded better, in a recording, than they do on Giulini's Eighth and Ninth?)--but I have come to prefer Bruckner performances that effectively incorporate the old and the new.

Anyway, enough of my ramblings. If you don't already have Tintner's Eighth and Ninth, get 'em, but unless you like your Bruckner slow, approach the rest of the cycle with a bit of caution...but maybe at Naxos prices you can't go wrong; and sometimes you can get them REALLY inexpensively through the marketplace. Once again, Naxos raises the question: if they can produce good recorded performances at reasonable prices, why can't more other labels? Currently it seems like they are the only label keeping the rather stagnant classical music market alive.

I don't see a problem with revised works until debates emerged about Bruckner's various versions of each symphony (I think with exception of Symphony no 7). Tchaikovsky, Mahler and considerable number of symphonists particularly revised their works thoroughly, but it is Bruckner who gets most attention because usually his revision are done under pressure from many who didn't understand him as quoted from one of his admirers "He is a genius without talent".

This symphony is fascinating mainly because the market only practically has original Haas 1890 version and Nowak recordings in the market and only Inbal, as I understand, recorded this 1887 version. What struck me was this symphony's difference from Haas version is like stepping into an alternate universe. It doesn't sound independent from Haas version, yet there is many intriguing differences.

I personally love the first and second movement. The first movement is much more spiritual and mysterious compared to Haas version, whereas the latter sounds rushed when you hear both versions of the same movement. The second movement has much more vigour whereas the Haas version is more simplified and rather, dignified compared to a much more brash 1887 version. My only complaint is the 1887 version of Adagio, with painful counterpoints and very, very sappy climax. No fault of Tintner for that is why the Adagio is the only redeeming feature of 1890 Haas Version.

Georg Tintner maybe the sole sparkling gem of Naxos' compared to a huge array of maestros on other labels like Deutche Gramophon or EMI. Listeners don't simply buy his Bruckner because simply the recording is much more affordable. The Ireland Symphony is on a class on it's own with Tintner leading "Die Nullte" symphony, i considered the best symphony of Bruckner after Symphony no 4 and 8. I think it's one of the CDs that all lovers of symphonic music should own.

There are two ways to do Bruckner: fast or slow. It doesn't matter which way you do it, it'll work, as long as you're consistent and respect Bruckner's proportions. In this Eighth Symphony, for example, Schuricht was slow, Beinum was fast.

Tinter here is on the brisk side, and the work absolutely beams with incandescence. The smallest details shine forth, but it doesn't come off as posed or pernickety. While the whole presentation is distinguished, it's the Landler second movement that propels the work forward and makes us realize once again, that Bruckner was never long-winded, but quite succinct. Tinter knows the composer had a lot to say and his emotion comes through strongly.

This is one of the best versions around, one every Brucknerian should have at the front of the file. It would be five stars if it weren't for some untidy ensemble here and there that really should have been cleaned up, snaggly oboes and occasional slop in the upper registers of violins. The distinguished Scottish orchestra is intrinsically better than what we get here, but it's plenty good enough for the job at hand. Not to mention it though would be to admit deafness.

The Zero Symphony is a fascinating Bruckner "tryout" score and makes an interesting companion for the Eighth. Tintner's performance seems to me to be superior to those of Haitink, Jochum (twice), Spruit, and even Inbal.

Tinter's Bruckner cycle is a classic, and this is at the top of the cycle.

Allow me to add my two cents worth on this recording. First of all, this is the first time I've heard the original version of Bruckner's 8th. I must say its a fascinating experience, since it diverges so substantially from the 1890 version that we all know. Particularly the first three movements. The last movement is virtually the same, except for the coda and final peroration. Overall, I find the orchestration more interesting, colourful, and polyphonic; although it lacks the emotional impact of the standard 1890 Nowak version. Well...to be fair, I did find much that is quite beautiful and spiritual in this version that seems to be lacking in the later edition. But overall, if I had to make a choice, I'd prefer the standard 1890 edition. My suggestion: if you already have a recording of the 1890 version, you have to add Tintner's eighth to your collection, just to hear the composer's fascinating first thoughts. The performance is first rate and both the conductor and orchestra make an eloquent case for this rarely performed version. Oh yes, I almost forgot, this double cd set includes the 0 symphony (interesting historically but not particularly inspired). If, on the other hand, this is the only recording you have of Bruckner's 8th (highly doubtful but I suppose stranger things have happened), hurry up and buy the standard 1890 version as well! I recommend Karajan's 1958 version on EMI with BPO. Its a lot better than his last version on DG, which is very muddy and lacks a clear polyphonic texture. I haven't heard Celibidache's recording(s)(a little harder to find in my neck of the woods), but I suspect he has a far less conventional approach than Karajan. I would also recommend Giulini's VPO recording on DG, except I haven't heard it yet, but going by hearsay it seems like a winner. Bruckner's symphonies need spaciousness, and Giulini is one conductor who can always be counted on for that. Although in other works, say Brahm's first for example, it can work to his detriment. Anyway, coming back to the 1887/1890 comparison of Bruckner's 8th, I guess the ideal version would incorporate elements of the 1887 account but merge them with the more mature and emotionally powerful 1890 Nowak version. However I doubt that will happen any time soon....

I was a bit dissapointed with the Irish orchestra here and the sound spectrum was a bit diffuse...the strings are good but not as good in the previous #2 performance in this series. I am still a believer in Jochum's 8 in Berlin from the early 60s...it is a less literal approach to the score but the phrasing is superior to this interpretation. As to Tinter I tend to find some of the phrases wonderfully natural but a bit more bite at times could defintely go a longer way.

Overall good for budget but does not dissplace Karajan and Jochum and even Barenboim.