Bruch 2nd and 3rd Symphony finales

[JimL]

I was recently sent Bruch's 2nd and 3rd Symphonies in performances by separate forces (the 2nd by Masur and the Gewandhaus, the 3rd by Hickox and the LSO).  While researching the 3rd online I encountered another performance by Honeck with the Hungarian State Symphony on Naxos.  My question is this: in comparing the timings of the final movement between the two CDs, the Hickox is a full minute and 50 seconds shorter than the Honeck!  Did Hickox (and Chandos) take cuts from the finale, or does Honeck crawl through the finale at a snail's pace?  Also, I used to have the old Louisville Orchestra LP of the 2nd with Mester conducting.  It seems to me that the finale of Masur's 2nd is longer, and there seems to be a passage that I don't remember from my old LP.  Did Mester take cuts in his recording?

P.S. Don't get me wrong.  I'm happy as a clam.  This is the first time I've owned all 3 violin concertos and all 3 symphonies of Bruch at the same time.

[Peter1953]

I also have the 3rd by the Gewandhausorchester Leipzig under Masur. The final movement is 5'55''.

[JimL]

Fascinating.  Masur is 5:55, Hickox is 6:08 and Honeck a whopping 7:58.  He must literally slog through the thing, unless there is a repeat omitted on the other two or something, which is unlikely because the form appears to be a sonata-rondo.

[M. Henriksen]

James Conlon uses 6:12 conducting Gürzenich-Orchester on EMI.

Morten

[christopherfifield]

I can assure all contributors to this topic that there are no cuts nor ignored repeats made in the finale of Bruch's Symphony No.3. My own performance which I conducted on 8 February 2003 lasts 6'20". I was present and official advisor for my late friend and colleague Richard Hickox at the LSO two-concert Bruch festival at London's Barbican in October 1998 and the subsequent very fine recordings for Chandos coupled with two of the violin concertos (Symphonies 1 and 3, concertos 2 and 3) made at Blackheath Concert Hall with Lydia Mordkovitch. Honeck is far too slow in the opening theme, there is no line here, the Allegro itself is also rather stodgy, but where he loses time against all others is in that introduction and at its return. His take on 'ma non troppo' is taken too far! The two basic ingredients of the movement should consist of a contrast of mood set against a change in orchestral colour rather than tempo. When a composer writes Allegro ma non troppo, it's open to a wide range of interpretation. Richard was absolutely clear in his mind regarding the quality of the music, and how he wanted it played , particularly in matters of tempo, which, with instrumental balance, can make or break 19th century German orchestral repertoire.

[eschiss1]

By the way, welcome to the forum! Very much enjoy your Scharwenka symphony recording (e.g.)
Eric

[TerraEpon]

Well, I guess this means Masur still holds as the 'reference' for these pieces...

[Alan Howe]

Masur's too bland for me. I'll take Conlon's passion any day - and then we have Hickox, even though we don't have his Sym No.2.

[JimL]

If anybody has the old Mester LP of the 2nd compare the finale with Masur's.  I think there is some transitional material omitted on the older recording.  And does anyone have a year for the Bruch 3rd?  I figure it must be around 1885 or so just because the opus number is higher than that of the 2nd VC, which is from 1877 or so, and is Op. 44, whereas the 3rd VC is Op. 58 and dates from 1891.  Op. 51 should be more or less in the middle.

[eschiss1]

According to http://www3.wooster.edu/music/twood/bruchcatalog.html#51, 1887.
Eric

[edurban]

For me, Honeck is the only one who really extracts all the beauty from the intro to the last movement.  Masur plays it like he has somewhere to go right after the session, and even with Hickox it goes for little.  This is the most beautiful, and my favorite, part of the symphony in Honeck. 

Pace, Mr. Fifield (whose Bruch biography is so indispensable...)

David

[chill319]

I'd like to put in a good word for Honeck, too.  Yes, his Bruch 3 is markedly slower than other recorded performances and has been criticized elsewhere for sluggishness. Consider, however, the tempo marking of the Bruch 3 finale: Allegro ma non troppo.  Unfortunately, a score of Bruch 3 is not yet available on IMSLP, so I'm not sure if he has metronome markings to go with that indication.  However, the main subject of that movement always sounds to me as if the back of Bruch's mind was humming the finale of Brahms' then recent VC. The Brahms movement is marked Allegro giocoso, ma non troppo vivace. If anything, that marking might suggest a slightly faster tempo than the Bruch. In fact, Honeck's performance of those passages moves faster than many performances of the Brahms.

Why do most conductors take the finale even faster? Part of the reason may be that while the most important elements of the symphony are mature and personal, there are also passages that clearly take Mendelssohn's orchestral music as their model. (Masur, Mendelssohn specialist, can dish up the Scotch plus the Hebrides in the time it would take Klemperer to give you the symphony.) Another reason may be that if one doesn't hear the music as doing noble very well, one plays it enthusiastically instead.

Well, enough foolish hypothesizing! I personally DO hear the music as doing noble well (thanks to Honeck), and I would love to hear a performance that plays the finale of Bruch 3 with similar heart but a bit slower still in Honeck's faster passages -- to be precise, just a shade faster than the Brahms VC finale. Done right, I believe the result might have a positive effect similar to that exercised by Gidon Kremer's rethinking of the Schumann VC finale tempo. To take up Mr Fifield's point, such a performance, though perhaps too slow to suit him, might well have a greater sense of "line" than Honeck's does.

[chill319]

Regarding the date of Symphony 3: Honeck's notes on Bruch 3 are here: http://www.naxos.com/mainsite/blurbs_reviews.asp?item_code=8.223104&catNum=223104&filetype=About%20this%20Recording&language=English#

According to Honeck, this symphony gave Bruch a good deal of trouble. A first version was performed in 1883, after which the outer movements were revised, the final version being performed in 1886.

[JimL]

I'm happy enough with the tempo chosen by Hickox.  It certainly doesn't seem to be any faster than 'Allegro ma non troppo'.  And there is no 'introduction' to the finale.  That is a recurring rondo theme, and should be played in tempo at every recurrence.  I do find it odd that the scherzo should be longer than the finale at the tempi chosen by Hickox, but since the scherzo is in a rondo form, rather than the usual binary scherzo and trio form, it isn't that unexpected.

[JimL]

Beg pardon, but I appear to have been in error.  The finale of #3 is a straightforward sonata form, not a sonata-rondo.  I was thrown off by the reappearance of the first subject at the beginning of the development, but it is in G, not E.  Which makes it sonata, not sonata-rondo form.