Bruch Symphonies 1-3 (cpo)

[Alan Howe]

In fact the five bonus orchestral items - three excerpts from Bruch's opera Hermione, the overture to Loreley and the Prelude to Odysseus - are more than mere makeweights. What they have in common is evidence of the composer's capacity to write music which conveys a sense of rapture - the very characteristic of his 1st Violin Concerto which has made it so popular over the years. Furthermore I have never heard the climax of the slow movement of the 3rd Symphony played as passionately and powerfully as it is in this new set. Wonderful!

Comparisons are often made with Brahms, usually to Bruch's detriment, but this is one feature of Bruch's music which, IMHO, Brahms cannot match.

[semloh]

"...amelioratise..." 
British comediatization at its best, Alan.

Back to Bruch. I have the three symphonies cond. by Conlon on EMI; hearing the 5th movement version will be interesting.

[Kevin]

I'm looking forward to this when it's available for download. You know, I personally think his second symphony in f minor is his greatest work, even better than the VC no.1. I'll go a bit further and say it compares favourably with Schumann's and Brahms symphonies. It a powerful work I find.

[Mark Thomas]

Greatest work? I don't know, but his Second Symphony is certainly the work of Bruch's to which I listen most frequently. There's a solemn dignity and restraint to it - suffering, nobly born - which I find always moves me. Nobilimente, to borrow an Elgarian description, might describe it best.

[Kevin]

Yes! Nice description Mark. There's no composer that can lift my spirits more than Bruch, his does the trick most of the time with me. I also much prefer his instrumental pieces over his lacklustre chorals works, which is ironic because thats what he was known for in his day.

[Alan Howe]

I agree wholeheartedly. Mind you, I have a huge soft spot for VC3 as well...

[hyperdanny]

I just wanted to weigh in because I got the set yesterday.......one thing is for sure: these Ouvertures/Entr'actes/etc etc  are a thing of wonder.
So beautiful and refined, just a delight.
I went through the lot of them 3 times already-
The execution by the Bambergers, which sound pretty fantastic to mee,  also bodes very well for the symphonies. which I love dearly.

[Kevin]

You lucky devil, I'm still waiting for a digital download. I've worn out the Conlon(my favourite) and Masurs sets that I never want to hear them ever again!

[hyperdanny]

so..I just finished the set.
Of course, it's just a first impression but..I am very impressed.
I would say that, as a complete cycle, this for me becomes the reference.
For either recording issues or matters of interpretation, I've never really loved much the Conlon or the Masur, and this quite supersedes the Johannes Wildner set.
I found this latest set altogether convincing.
Very refined echt-German sound from the clearly inspired Bambergers, but not a thick, dark sound, rather the opposite, very dynamic and "alive".
Beautiful terracing of orchestral layers and dynamics, and this is the conductor's merit...even the darkest moments of the 2nd are clarified without loss of impact or drama.
Also, Robert Trevino's tempi strike me as perfectly judged, he's not a speed merchant, but absolutely no slouch either, they just sound right to me.
The recording is also superior to cpo's generally good average: this one is very present and detailed.
Some individual releases I have retain their unique charms: I still think that the LSO in the late (and much missed) Hickox's unfinished set is a treat of luxury orchestral playing; I would not be without the very special elegance of Marriner's 1st for Hanssler and the monolithic Schmalfuss 2nd still casts a dark spell......but this set goes now at the top, and Wildner goes to retirement.

[Kevin]

Yeah shame I had forgotten Richard Hickox never finished his Bruch cycle for Chandos. He was definitely one of the most underrated of conductors, always willing to unearth unsung repertory.

[semloh]

Thanks for that lively review, hyperdanny. It sounds like that this is an essential purchase - yet another!

[hyperdanny]

I just listened back-to-back to Trevino's and Marriner's firsts, and it's remarkable how the reinstatement of the 7-minute intermezzo changes my perception of the whole piece.
Bruch is Bruch, but looking for analogies one could say that the 1st changes from Mendessohnian to Brahmsian.
Certainly, the 2 interpretations are already geared that way to begin with: Marriner is all sparkle, Trevino emphasizes weight, but in the end, I  think that it's the restoration of a genuine slow movement (and a beautiful one to boot) that does the trick.
Fascinating.

[Kevin]

What was the reason for the removal of the intermezzo, does the booklet say?

[hyperdanny]

well, you know what, Kevin? the otherwise VERY comprehensive booklet (in typical cpo fashion) does not quite say.
It goes to great lenghts to say that Bruch excised it when he conducted the 2nd performance with the Gewandhaus, and how this unbalances the work and so on and so forth...but I could not find an actual "why"..maybe Bruch never publicly stated a reason, so it's not known?
For sure not because he didn't like it..the booklet makes several examples of how bits and pieces of it resurfaced in other parts of his output (plus, it is IMHO audibly beautiful)
l will have to retrieve Christopher Fifield's wonderful Bruch book to check if he says more..

[eschiss1]

What I gather from just the Google preview of Fifield (p.361) is that Bruch did initially intend to re-use the intermezzo from the first symphony in the third, interestingly.