Rattle records Bruckner 9 completion...

[Dundonnell]

Again, many thanks for this, Alan

Very informative

I often find it hard to forgive Rattle for "failing to get" the music of Havergal Brian and Edmund Rubbra  but his obvious passion for Bruckner's music and the sincerity of his approach to the completion of the Ninth is transparent and I applaud him wholeheartedly

[Alan Howe]

My copy arrived today and I have to say that the completion seems totally convincing to my ears. Then there's the absolutely glorious playing of the BPO under Rattle which takes this version into quite a different league from previous recordings. There is just no substitute for the tonal weight of a great orchestra in full cry in such music - in fact I found the whole thing quite stupefying in its magnificence. Whatever else you buy this year, do get hold of this and prepare for something quite extraordinary.

[Mark Thomas]

Well, after such a recommendation I have no option but to try it for myself. My copy is downloading from Amazon as I type and I'll look forward to a revelation tomorrow morning.

[fr8nks]

My copy will be shipped on May 22nd from Amazon in the United States which is where I live. I can't wait.

[Gijs vdM]

The recording is indeed quite fine, and if Rattle might do for Bruckner 9 what he has done for Mahler 10, I could not be happier! That said, very fine as the SPCM completion is, I still do have problems with the very end, for the Coda('s end) is only very loosly based on main thematic material of the symphony, and while it makes for A peroration, it doesn't work (for me) as THE peroration to this symphony. I.e. is sounds a bit stuck on. And since the final bars of any Bruckner symphony are the clinching ones, tying the whole symphony together, this is, to me, a considerable weak spot. That said, I do think the SPCM is the best we now have (and this latest one the best of the SPCM versions), so may thanks to them for providing it!
Remaining to think that the 9th does not have or even need a Finale is just stubborn and stupid, I think!

all best,
Gijs

[Alan Howe]

I don't agree about the coda at all. It had the intended effect upon me!

[ahinton]

The recording is indeed quite fine, and if Rattle might do for Bruckner 9 what he has done for Mahler 10, I could not be happier! That said, very fine as the SPCM completion is, I still do have problems with the very end, for the Coda('s end) is only very loosly based on main thematic material of the symphony, and while it makes for A peroration, it doesn't work (for me) as THE peroration to this symphony. I.e. is sounds a bit stuck on. And since the final bars of any Bruckner symphony are the clinching ones, tying the whole symphony together, this is, to me, a considerable weak spot. That said, I do think the SPCM is the best we now have (and this latest one the best of the SPCM versions), so may thanks to them for providing it!
Remaining to think that the 9th does not have or even need a Finale is just stubborn and stupid, I think!

all best,
Gijs

I agree with you about this. The various efforts that have gone into trying to put together Bruckner's final finale (which by definition was long thought to be a nigh-impossible task and one which still carries a tremendous weight of responsibility) have spanned decades rather than months and, during that time, as you know, more material in Bruckner's own hand has come to light; however, the fact that the Coda will almost certainly never do so does create one massive headache for anyone seeking to create a convincing ending and, as you write, what we have here is probably about as good as it can get without a few more pages in the composer's hand turning up. Of course it's not entirely impossible that more bits of the ms. will yet be discovered, but the close of the symphony is likely to remain a stumbling block. I'm reminded of Anthony Payne's words about the coda to the finale of Elgar's Third Symphony - a finale for which the composer left very little at all besides hints of how it was to begin; the coda proved to be the most intractable of a series of difficulties for Payne and his observations, ending with what he had to say about working on the very end of the symphony, perhaps bear quotation in extenso:

"...nowhere did Elgar leave a hint as to how his Symphony was going to end. I had to compose the whole of the development section and the coda, much as in the first movement, but without the helpful pointers, and I had to envisage the work's ultimate goal - the toughest assignment of all, involving visionary concepts if I was to be true to Elgar's creative bravery. It was not even certain what basic structure Elgar had in mind for his Finale, although I felt that the breadth of the expository material in the sketches pointed towards a sonata form. This is enriched by incorporating into the development a ravishing G minor interlude whose placing in the movement is not precisely indicated by the sketches. As it now stands, the passage seems to have strayed from some rondo sub-stratum and yields a structural ambivalence which I hope is worthy of Elgar's symphonic thought.

As for the Symphony's closing pages, I decided to dare all in honour of Elgar's unpredictability. What if he had thought to place the haunting repetitions of The Wagon Passes from his recently completed Nursery Suite into a broader symphonic context? The Finale's main subject actually suggests this kind of treatment, and it would lead the music away into some new visionary world, spanning the years between the composer's death and my attempted realisation of his sketches. I trusted my intuition and went ahead and wrote".

Elgar's last symphony ends in visionary quietude, as though entering another world altogether (although a brief hint of the extraordinary coda of Shostakovich's Fourth Symphony suggests itself faintly to this pair of ears!) - the very opposite of the peroration of which you write and which is the inevitable crowning glory of Bruckner's final symphony - but I agree that what we have here sounds like A peroration rather than THE peroration. I also have a problem with the sheer length of the finale (although this may be down to Bruckner himself not quite getting to grips with the unusual length of the emotional and spiritual journey on which he had launched himself); rarely in anything else of Bruckner does he descend so far into the depths and, following the ultimately serene close of the magnificent Adagio, this descent comes in any case as something of a shock, so travelling from there to the blaze of light with which he celebrates the symphony's dedicatee seems (to me, at least) to presume the requirement for somewhat more expansive treatment, otherwise there may be some risk that the progress of the movement could come across as unceremoniously rushed. I could well be talking out of the back of my head here, of course - and I realise that, in writing this, I am having the gross temerity to question whether Bruckner got the scheme of this finale quite right - but I can only "trust to instinct", as Anthony Payne did when setting down Elgar's last notes.

[Alan Howe]

The problem, of course, is the subjective effect of music which we know to be a completion by other hands. What I was trying to get across was that Rattle and the BPO, by dint of their stupendous recording, have gone 99% of the way towards solving the problem. Thus, for me, there was never any doubt about the effect of what I was hearing - which, I repeat, is simply stupefying in its magnificence. The recording is far better than 'quite fine'...

[DennisS]

I have had my copy of the CD for several days now and have listened to the recording several times. I am a huge fan of Bruckner and it was strange at first to have a 4th movement as I am so used to hearing the Adagio as the finale. That said, I find the completed fourth movement very satisfying. It sounds like Bruckner and all bar 50 odd bars are indeed by Bruckner. I think I need to listen a few more times to appreciate even more the tremendous work that has gone into the symphony's completion. The playing by the BPO in particular is simply glorious.

cheers
Dennis

[jerfilm]

I'm anxious to hear this.  I fell in love with Bruckner's music the first time I heard the 7th back in the 60's.  But I smile when I think of how our tastes and opinions differ.  For me, I've always felt that if Bruckner had a weakness, it was in his codas.  They often just don't seem like "enough".   So.......

Jerry

[ahinton]

The problem, of course, is the subjective effect of music which we know to be a completion by other hands. What I was trying to get across was that Rattle and the BPO, by dint of their stupendous recording, have gone 99% of the way towards solving the problem. Thus, for me, there was never any doubt about the effect of what I was hearing - which, I repeat, is simply stupefying in its magnificence. The recording is far better than 'quite fine'...

Whilst you are, of course, correct about the subjectivity aspect, it might be interesting at some point (once the symphony has become firmly established as the four-movement work that it was always intended to be) to observe the reactions of first-time listeners to the work who were unaware that Bruckner didn't complete its finale himself (i.e. the particular subjectivity that you mention is inevitably predicated upon such foreknowledge and, since this symphony in its four-movement form still has a long way to go before it becomes the generally accepted way in which to perform it, that is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future). The performance itself is indeed very fine and it would be hard to imagine a better one from the point of view of "solving the problem"; that said, it is for the editors to "solve the problem(s)" (which they have done with immense patience and diligence about as far as is currently possible) and for the orchestra(s) to realise those solutions convincingly (which Rattle / BPO have certainly done). That the coda doesn't quite convince all listeners and that the proportions and overall duration of the entire finale don't quite manage to convince one of them are subjective responses to a performance that nevertheless serves the symphony wonderfully and an edition which, for the time being, could arguably not have been bettered without either more material turning up in the composer's hand or some additional composition along the lines that Anthony Payne had to undertake for Elgar's Third Symphony.

All in all, we should indeed be immensely grateful that the symphony in its full four-movement form has now at long last been presented as well as it has by a world-renowned orchestra and conductor and one can only hope that this will encourage others to perform it in this way; only if this happens will the torso that the symphony has been for more than a century cease to be regarded as the accepted norm.

[Mark Thomas]

Whilst I'm hardly the "first time listener" required, I am definitely not a dyed in the wool Brucknerian and would say that, whilst I have heard the three movement torso of the Ninth several times, I hardly know it. So, I came to this recording pretty much with an open, if basically positive, frame of mind and I must say that I found the finale a totally convincing and satisfying end to the work. I have to take on trust what others have said about the quality of Rattle's interpretation but, as everyone agrees, the playing of the Berliners is absolutely wonderful making this a completely involving and rewarding experience, of which the finale's coda was clearly an important component.

[Alan Howe]

A good mix of subjective and more objective views, I think. Thanks to all of you for your thoughts.

[Gijs vdM]

The recording is far better than 'quite fine'...

I should have expressed myself clearer I think. Yes, the performance is very good indeed, and the recording thereof ditto. When I wrote 'the recording is quite fine' what I referred to was the piece of music that was recorded. The mix-up was probably due to the fact that when I refer to a recording usually I refer to the music recorded; I think that the value of what is recorded is greater than how it was recorded (not that I like an excellent recording of an excellent work, of course!). Blame my faulty faculties in English, which isn't exactly my first language. This coupled with a sometimes shakish grasp of writing (as in understanding that whomever reads my texts not necessarily can read my mind as it was when I wrote the text; not even I myself manage that on a regular basis...)

I also have a problem with the sheer length of the finale (although this may be down to Bruckner himself not quite getting to grips with the unusual length of the emotional and spiritual journey on which he had launched himself)

At first I thought you meant that you found the Finale too long! That said, I don't think it's too long; in fact, it is about the same length as Mvts 1 and 3! And about as long as the Finales to Symphonies 5 and 8, and the 9th's Finale is a kind of combination of those forms. (NB: Kurt Eichhorn takes just over 30 minutes for the 1992 version of the SPCM. While he does take that time because of a slower tempo (in certain sections)  rather than a longer Finale, the effect is quite noticeably darker and more torturous. It does have something...) I don't know if you know this Eichhorn recording?
The Carragan completion, by the way, who uses a slightly different approach to SPCM, also comes to about the same length. Both lengths are based on the amount of bars Bruckner left behind and some clever guessing about how much are missing. It is quite possible that Bruckner, had he lived to complete the Finale, might have come to a greater number of bars while working out the 'emerging score' This had happened to the original Bifolio 2, which was, when working out the orchestration, lengthened to the extend that he had to replace the original bifolio with two new ones, containing 34 bars (a single bifolio would have contained normally 16 or so measures). So yes, perhaps the final Finale might have been longer than it stands now. But I think it would not have been much longer, for I believe that the general shape of the Finale had been clear to Bruckner, leading to perhaps here some bars more, there a few less. To me, it doesn't feel too short or rushed.
What does feel rushed is the Finale completion by Nors Josephson (which is about the size of SPCM's and Carragans, for obvious reasons), at least the way it is played by the Deutsche Staatsphilharmonie Rheinland Pfalz conducted by Ari Rasilainen. Playing it in just over 13 minutes is beyond unceremoniously rushed...
For a longer version of the Finale, well, there is Jan-Peter Marthé's. Not that it has much to do with Bruckner, the 9th, or even its Finale...

Anyone interested in another version of that Coda, I'd happily recommend having a look at this link: http://www.abruckner.com/downloads/special_downloads/joanschukkingscoda/. It is a MIDI presentation of a scored attempt at creating a Coda that is based on main motives/themes of the symphony, and I think it comes closer to the intentions of Bruckner here than do SPCM. This Coda was created by a fellow countryman of mine, and he generously supplied me with the score and the MIDI thereof. I also know SPCM's reaction to it...

rarely in anything else of Bruckner does he descend so far into the depths and, following the ultimately serene close of the magnificent Adagio, this descent comes in any case as something of a shock

One of the (main) reasons for people to dismiss the Finale, I think! Once you've reached the lovely warm glow of the last bars of the Adagio, it's quite unpretty to be presented with all kinds of troubled things that are hard to swallow and even more hard to digest.. After all, we come to be entertained by what we know, not to be hit by what we don't know...
NB; I have become to find the close of the Adagio not exactly serene. Yearning, aspiring, hoping, yes. We see the light, we want the light, but we can't reach it yet. Why not, ah, here comes the Finale....!

the subjectivity aspect

...is quite important and unavoidable (and doesn't need to be avoided!). Subjective is how we respond to what we hear, objective is how we think about what is done how and why and if such is the right way. As for the SPCM version, objectively I very much agree with their method and how it sounds in result, barring the final bars for reasons I have stated. Subjectively the Finale to me sounds splendid, and the Coda makes impressive sounds indeed (but my objectives do cut in here). But purely subjectively, everyone's (sincere) opinion is alike, I think.
For ex, the Sebastien Létocard completion (basically taking the SPCM as a starting point – not to the joy of SPCM – but working to a much more extended and quite darker and convulsed Coda) is to me, objectively, going awry on that too long, too dark and too convulted Coda. However, subjectively – I'm a sucker to dark and convulted music – I can't help but be moved by it.

But I do hope the SPCM's hard work, often against the grain, will pay off in the end in establishing the 9th as the 4-movement work is has been all along. If the new Rattle recording does rattle a few old and fairly dusty, mouldy and quite far beyond the 'best-before' date  prejudicials out of the way, all the better!

PS: If I may be allowed some commercial talk: I did write down some (dark and convulted and going on for too long) notes about the 9th and it's Finale. In need for revision.
http://www.abruckner.com/articles/articlesEnglish/vandermeijden/
For those inclined to  sadomachism by reading...

All best,
Gijs

[Gerhard Griesel]

THANK YOU to Alan and others making us aware of this recording. It is totally moving and stunning. Gerhard