Well, it is in the very different first version which is so rarely played or recorded:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2013/Jan13/Bruckner_sy8_OC638.htm (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2013/Jan13/Bruckner_sy8_OC638.htm)
Thoroughly recommended, by the way!
is this the version that's been recorded a couple of times (still rarely, since only maybe two or three times) or is that the second of three versions, or something?... I quite like hearing that earlier version at least occasionally, especially the coda he later dropped from the first movement...
I'm not exactly a Bruckner fanatic, but have always found the Eighth his most satisfying work despite its (for me) over-blown scale. Out of curiosity I bought the Tintner interpretation of the 1887 Eighth and was utterly underwhelmed This is such a persuasive review that I simply have to try again. I see that Simone Young has also recorded the "original" versions of the Second and the Third.
Young's performance is very exciting indeed.
I share Mark's position exactly - perhaps far more so since my copy of the recent Rattle completion of the last symphony went off to the S/H shop! Bruckner, for good or ill, is not for me. Why, for example, do the symphonies have to be so damned big? What's the virtue of that?
Some years ago I also bought the Tintner version and was also "underwhelmed" (what a well chosen word!) But then I also read that MusicWeb review of the Simone Young recording....and hopefully it will turn up in the post tomorrow! Who knows, I might become a Brucknerite (but I'm also conscious there's a fair chunk of resistance to overcome, and I can't easily imagine myself being "excited" by it.)
The problem with Bruckner isn't that they're so big, it's that they are badly - really badly - conducted. Mahler's symphonies are no less "big" and it bothers few. The problem with Bruckner is that most conductors somehow think that if they don't drag them out to ridiculous lengths, that the listeners won't get Bruckner's view of heaven. They have come to believe that Bruckner must be treated as some quasi-religious experience. Nonsense. No Bruckner symphony should ever occupy more than one cd. All of them can tolerate much quicker tempos that bring the music to life. For me, Gunter Wand's early 1970's set hits most of the marks. Some Bruckner fans think Solti was merciless and overdriven in Bruckner. Not me - he electrifies the music. Stay away from the boring, dirge-like readings of the big names and you'll discover Bruckner anew. How bad can Bruckner get? Try the Maazel EMI 8th which is so long, so dull, so lifeless that it could turn anyone off of Bruckner forever.
Actually, Solti wasn't particularly quick in Bruckner. Nor was he in Brahms, or Beethoven, or lots of things.
Anyway, back to the topic, please - the unsung first version of No.8.
As Peter has kindly paid me the compliment of praising my choice of words, I'll do the same for Martin:
QuoteThey have come to believe that Bruckner must be treated as some quasi-religious experience.
Spot on.
True, Mark and Martin. However, we cannot ignore the Catholic mysticism that infuses the music either.
No, I agree, and I'm not ignoring that. But the religious element doesn't make Bruckner good music per se, any more than it lends quality to Perosi's unending dirges. Martin can speak for himself, but what I read into his remark wasn't a reference to the strong actual religious component in Bruckner the composer. It was the way that Bruckner enthusiasts treat experiencing the music as a quasi-religious rite born of their devotion to it, and not necessarily linked to Catholicism or any other belief.
Quite. That's why I agreed with you both! Listening to Bruckner as rite is almost as silly - and sacrilegious - as worshipping at the shrine of Wagner. Bruckner himself would certainly have thought so. It's simply that, in our very materialistic age, we ignore very real religious motivation of Bruckner as composer at our peril. His 9th was, after all, dedicated "dem lieben Gott" ("to the beloved God"). Of course it doesn't necessarily make his music any good - as you say, Perosi's is awful - but it can't be ignored.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what you think of Simone Young's recording of No.8. It's a substantially different work in a blazing performance.
It's been very interesting reading this thread. I am a confirmed Bruckner admirer and no 8 is my favourite Bruckner ( I have some 8 versions in my collection but no Tintner). In view of the very positive comments about the Simone Young original version, this is a must-buy for me! Now on order!
I listened to it this afternoon. A wise man of course would keep silent and not 'sound off' an instant and hastily made view and thereby get himself a red face. Two quick points to begin with: first, my 'listen' was (deliberately) a superficial one to enable me to get some hold of the musical 'geography' of the Simone Young performance. Second, and related to that, I was often confused by how different this original 1878 version is from the later versions that we have been accustomed to hear. My knowledge of the work is flimsy, and I really need to do a fair bit of work to establish in my mind what differences there are between these versions.
Those points of course disqualify me from expressing any view, let alone anything masquerading as a judgment. However from what I remember of the symphony (maybe 12-18 months ago) Simone Young is a real breath of fresh air. I'm tempted to think mbhaub (Martin?) above has got it absolutely right: an overly reverential approach, with a deliberately slow, 'massive' and solemn sound produces an almost turgid performance. Poor old Bruckner may have conceived of himself as addressing his beloved deity, but that doesn't imply he wished to bore the pants off the chap.
It would be besides the point to compare Young's timings with those of other conductors, for she is performing a substantially different version of the symphony. But, gosh, the music really 'flows' here. There is little that is slow and solemn about it - and nor is there any feeling at all that she's anxious to catch the last train back home. The tempo of the music feels (to me, who is hardly equipped to pass comment on it) exactly right and perfectly natural. And crikey, the strings of those Hamburg players (I don't think it is the recording - though a very clear recording helps - but rather the playing itself): beautifully clear and precisely articulated sounds, quite silky - and not at all the almighty sludge of massed string sound sometimes heard in Bruckner.
Quite whether it is all worth it is another matter of course. But, please, no snarling at me: I am a Bruckner agnostic, and I often feel that other composers can 'say' far more in a 20 minute string quartet than Bruckner can manage in an 80 minute symphony with as many musicians. But that is entirely a matter of utterly subjective personal prejudice.
I am (honestly!) looking forward to hearing this disc again in a few days time. Next time I shall be much more prepared to listen properly. But I'm sure that for confirmed Bruckner admirers like Dennis (and many others for I'm all too aware I'm in a real minority) this Simone Young performance will be quite a revelation. I can imagine it being on several lists of great discoveries of 2013.
Depends on the composer- Beethoven and Mozart, no argument there.
(Hrm. 1878?.. 1887, 1889 slight changes, 1890- so in some sense 4?... versions of which the 1878, 1887 and 1890 versions have been recorded now. Wikipedia does not mention this 1878 version, .. .hrm-- ah. Two "complete" autograph scores, from 1887 and 1890 ; I'm guessing those are the two versions of Bruckner 8 I know, and that the 1878 version one mentions is recorded by Young required some surgery.) (Oh. And 1892 edition, too, alterations not by the composer. The one recording I actually have :) , Knappertsbusch, which is also the first one I heard multiple times (on loan from the college library back in the 1980s after hearing one of Karajan's recordings on the radio, anyway), is apparently a complete recording of this much-cut 1892 edition.)
Hrm... on consideration and consulting sources maybe 1878 (an unlikely date- at that time he was working on the last version of the 4th symphony, I think...) is a typo for 1887 (Wikipedia, Musicweb, etc. seem to agree on this one for the first version of the 8th symphony).
1887 is the correct date.
Yes, well spotted, sharp-eyed Eric!
The rear of the CD cover states "First version 1878" - but then the (very full) notes make it clear that 1887 is indeed the original version which Bruckner worked on from 1884. If I'm right it was that version that Levi held to be in need of revision. Bruckner then revised it, completing the thing in 1890 and it then received its first performance under Richter in Vienna in 1892.
But then the version that is most familiar to us is the Haas version, and this is largely the revised version of 1890 but which then sometimes reverts to the original 1884 first version.
Hope I've got it right. If not try the very full (and I assume accurate) account of Michael Lewin in the CD booklet.
Don't know where the "1878" on the rear of the CD cover comes from - a typo on a Friday afternoon? Pity it wasn't picked up.
Well, Bruckner's 8th is a real puzzle, as most Bruckner's symphonies are.
In fact there are more or less 4 and a half versions of this symphony:
-the original version of 1887, which was discovered long after Bruckner's death
-the revision from 1890 published by Nowak, which is the "normal" version we know.
-Haas's edition, who mixed the 1890 revision with some cut portions from 1887 (imho the best version even if not very "pure")
-the last revision from 1892, the first published edition, very interesting in the way Bruckner indicated in this edition many changes of tempo and rubatos as well, indications absent from the other editions.
-an intermediate version of the adagio, from 1888, was recently discovered and one recording is to be published next, conducted by Gerd Schaller (Profil).
Some conductors didn't hesitate to make their own edition, for example Furtwängler or William Steinberg.
???
Thank you! Very clearly set out. If I ever make it to heaven I'm going to ask Bruckner which is his preferred version - I'd be very puzzled if I failed to find him in that place!
Here I have a confession to make. Around 50 or 60 years ago, when vinyl reigned supreme, I had a naughty habit of playing 33rpm disks of Bruckner symphonies at 45 rpm. :)
You don't have to do that anymore. Try Norrington instead ;)
What is the general opinion of the Young/Hamburg readings of Bruckner on oehm? I received a download of the symphony no 0 and am quite pleased but my ear isn't to the level of many of the members.
Tom :)
I've heard both versions of Bruckner 8 on CD, and to be honest, I have a hard job saying which I prefer. But this is not the case with Bruckner 3, where in my opinion the original version, which is very rarely heard is actually much better than the various revisions. It is very interesting to listen to it in conjunction with Robert Simpson's essay on the Bruckner symphonies. Simpson, I think, never heard the original version. It seems to me that the structural problems that Simpson exposes so clearly are actually introductions in the revisions, and the original is much more successful.
Well, I downloaded the Young/Hamburg recording. I suppose my opinion is not very objective since the 8th is my very least favorite of Bruckner. With a movement that's 30 minutes long, it's just too tedious for me. Altho I would say I like this original version marginally better than the others.
I know, assume the position - 20 lashes with a wet noodle. :o :o
Jerry