Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
17 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The breath and majesty of Gunther Wand's reading., February 24, 2000
As Gunther Wand points out, Bruckner was "the most important symphonist after Beethoven." Listening to his symphonies and reading much about this great Austrian composer (especially Robert Simpson's enterprising literature on Bruckner), to my mind, Wand could never be farthest away from the truth. The thing about Bruckner was that he entered into a new sphere in symphonic writing no composers has ever gone before. The deeply religious and spiritual expressionisms in the symphonic literature since Bach were never so profound before Bruckner's symphonies entered the music scene. The grandfather of structural expansionism and inheritor of Schubert's writings of Austrian nobility, simplicity, and optimism, Bruckner was arguably the most unique composer since Beethoven.Gunther Wand is among the most important advocate and expert of Bruckner's symphonies. Like Eugen Jochum, Daniel Barenboim, and Herbert von Karajan, Wand recorded all of Bruckner's symphonies more than once and promoted his works throughout Europe and North America (especially in Chicago with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra). This recording of 1998 with the Berlin Philharmonic (which earn a 1999 Gramophone award) was done with such a high level of depth and spirituality. Wand's choice of tempo was as spacious and majestic as that of Karl Bohm with the Vienna Philharmonic (London Decca-Legends CD). Like Bohm, Wand interpretation was not hurried, avoiding the emotional zest and urgency one will notice with Jochum and the Berlin Philharmonic or even Barenboim with the Chicago Symphony (both under Deutsche Grammophon). Like the Vienna Philharmonic under Bohm, the Berlin Philharmonic played with magnificent discipline and balance. The Vienna Philharmonic's brass and strings has more imposing presence and bloom than that of its' Berlin counterpart, but overall the performance offered the occasion of its own. The sound engineering is suburb for this RCA/BMG CD, with the sound of real blend and balance, never short of its dynamic range. The London Decca re-issue offer slightly more of the atmospheric opulence than RCA, but the recording quality of the RCA/BMG CD is first class. My favorite CD rests with Eugen Jochum's 1966 recording with the Berlin Philharmonic (again under Deutsche Grammophon-a reissue with more than appreciative sound). But Wand's new recording confirmed him as among the greatest of Bruckner conductors. So, go for Wand or Bohm, or even Jochum. But Wand will not disappoint you, not even by the long shot.
|
|
|
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Wand does it again, August 31, 2004
Although I do agree with some of the reviewers in their belief that Wand's approach here does not work as well as it does in, oh, lets say the Eighth Symphony, I still believe that Wand's interpretation is rock-solid, spacious, transparent, and strikingly powerful. As always, Wand breaths life into the score, making Bruckner sound so alive. This living quality also allows the listener to appreciate Bruckner's incredible musical architecture. While so many composers favor the "bigger is better" approach to Bruckner, I would go as far as to say that, at least in this recording, Wand's tight , transparent, and solid approach brings an almost chamber-like quality to the symphony. The playing is so focused and so direct that the result is breathtaking. Although this reading is not as incisive and powerful as Wand's amazing recording of the Eighth Symphony, Wand's forth is certainly one of the best performances out there.
|
|
|
14 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Monolithic Bruckner, July 12, 2001
I gave a quick summary of my thoughts on Wand's Bruckner in my review of his go at the 5th symphony so this will be a bit more abbrieviated. Wand glacial, monolithic, monumental, etc. approach to Bruckner worked in his interpretation of the 5th symphony. Perhaps this was because the 5th is Bruckner's most austere and serious work (the 8th and 9th snarl a good deal more than the 5th, and show a bit of doubt and hysteria at times as well). However, this approach, I hesitantly suggest, represents a regression back to ...-fied Bruckner(notice the proliferation of Haas performances again). This is a German and Teutonic Bruckner; not Bruckner the upper-Austrian whose foot-stomping scherzos reveal an incorrigible peasant. Wand's approach falls flat in the 4th symphony. Where is the drama and suspense one would expect from a "romantic" symphony? Where are the evocations of nature one would expect from such a symphony? Those aspects are washed away in a straight-faced, colossal, Teutonic interpretation. This is not a lithe, optimistic and youthful knight "sallying forth" as Bruckner suggested. I get the sense that many conductors these days try to save the world with every Bruckner symphony. Though Wand may not be AS guilty of this as say Celibedache or Karajan, he leans more in that direction. To those who aren't sure what I'm getting at, some remedial listening is necessary. Jochum's interpretation of the 4th is a romantic blaze in comparison, and I think many would be suprised by how quick Klemperer conducted the 4th. There is a livelyness, flexibility, and a bit of a snarl in Jochum, Klemperer, and Furtwangler's Bruckner (Furtwangler's Bruckner could be downright wild; listen to his wartime Vienna recording of the 8th). This is a Bruckner tradition, that I think is probably dying, but it is worth getting to know nevertheless. In conclusion, while Wand's stoic and plodding approach may work in the 5th and 8th, it fails in the 4th which calls for more dramatic contrasts than Wand is capable of calling forth.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Anton Bruckner 
