Almost as soon as this disc had arrived for review Brian Wilson
included the performance in his most recent download
review. Like Brian, I was mildly surprised to find Bruckner’s
Seventh clocking in at one hour’s duration. When I went
to my shelves to dig out some comparative versions the first
ones that I located - by Old Masters - were Haitink’s
2007 live version with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (review)
and Günter Wand’s 1999 Berlin Philharmonic traversal,
also taken from live performances, which Patrick Waller and
I admired in our survey
of Bruckner symphony recordings in 2009. The respective timings
were 67:31 and 66:37. These are both versions that I rate highly.
Had I left it at that - noting also that Karajan’s VPO
version, which I deliberately left on the shelf since Brian
had amply covered its virtues, plays for 66:15 - I might have
anticipated that Runnicles would prove a bit light in the gravitas
stakes.
However, a bit more ferretting unearthed another impressive
version, Haitink’s 1966 performance with the Royal Concertgebouw
Orchestra. What’s this? The younger Haitink dispatched
the symphony in 60:36! Furthermore, when I reviewed
the recording in 2003 I found it very persuasive. So, there’s
a precedent for a slightly less spacious treatment of the score
and this feeling is, if anything, reinforced by a live 1954
performance by Bruno Walter (Testament SBT 1424) which runs
for just 55:48. For ease of reference I’ll now refer to
Haitink’s 1966 and 2007 readings as Haitink I and II respectively.
Before discussing the performance I should say that although
Hyperion’s documentation is up to their usual high standard,
including a good note by Stephen Johnson, there’s one
glaring omission: nowhere does it say which edition of the symphony
is being used. My belief is that Donald Runnicles follows the
Haas edition but that, like several conductors, he reinstates
the cymbals and triangle at the climax of the slow movement,
which Haas left out.
At the start of the symphony I like the nice, natural flow of
the music as the wonderful first subject unfolds. Runnicles
doesn’t tarry neither does he push the music too fast;
there’s a proper sense of space and it seems to me that
Runnicles achieves a judicious balance between breadth and forward
movement. Jumping ahead for a moment, I came to feel that this
was the case for his view of the score as a whole. I’d
describe his way with the music as direct and unfussy and I
appreciate that. When the more mobile third theme arrives I
wonder if he does press forward just a little bit too much (5:08
- 6:45) and he’s consistent in his pacing of all the music
that flows from this material. However, I don’t feel that
this is a major objection to his handling of the movement overall.
The only point which does leave me rather uncomfortable is the
big timpani roll around 17:00. This is overdone to the extent
that the melody on the cellos is overpowered though the tremolando
violins manage to hold their own. Broadly, Runnicles’
conception of this movement is along similar lines to Haitink
I. Though I can certainly live with the slightly more fleet
pace adopted for the third theme in these two versions my preference
remains for the slightly more relaxed speeds that one encounters
in Haitink II and with Wand.
In the slow movement Runnicles doesn’t achieve - nor,
I suspect, does he aim at - the patrician gravitas of Wand or
the older Haitink. They take 21:44 and 22:26 respectively against
Runnicles’ timing of 19:09. Incidentally, it’s noteworthy
that this is the one movement in which Haitink I is appreciably
more spacious overall than Runnicles, taking 21:00. On the whole
Runnicles imparts an air of solemnity without this being excessive.
I do wonder if the second subject (from 3:29) is perhaps a little
too fleet but for the most part I was impressed with the patient
yet fluent way in which he unfolds Bruckner’s noble elegy:
there’s dignity allied with directness in this reading.
All of our three comparative versions are pretty much in line
with Runnicles’ conception of the opening paragraphs.
In Haitink I the pace for the second subject is marginally more
easeful than in Runnicles’ performance. In Haitink II
we find that the conductor hasn’t really changed his view
of the pace for the second subject but in the 2007 version the
phrasing seems more moulded and sophisticated. Wand offers a
more expansive treatment of the second subject. Whilst my own
preference is for a broad approach to this movement, as Haitink
II and Wand offer, I’m bound to say that I find Runnicles
very persuasive. The build-up to the main climax (at 14:52)
is handled very well indeed in his account and the climax itself
is a moment of fulfilment.
In the remaining two movements I don’t find a great deal
to choose between our four competing versions. Runnicles drives
the scherzo along purposefully, as do Haitink - in both his
recordings - and Wand. Walter, who brings the movement in at
an astonishingly swift 8:58, offers what is probably a heat-of-the
moment reading; this is undeniably exciting but a bit too much
of a white knuckle ride. Runnicles’ way with the trio
is very relaxed. In the finale he makes the first subject sound
sprightly, as it should, and the music wears a smiling countenance.
He exerts a good grip over this movement but, then, that’s
the case in all four versions under consideration.
So, how does this newcomer bear up overall in the face of comparative
scrutiny? I’d say that Runnicles emerges from the comparison
with no little credit. Those who favour an expansive, philosophical
way with Bruckner may feel that Runnicles is a bit short-winded.
Much though I love the Haitink II and Wand readings I’d
disagree with that view. Earlier in this review I referred to
Runnicles as direct and unfussy. That shouldn’t be interpreted
as implying that he underplays the poetry or the nobility: such
is not the case. However, he is clear-eyed in his approach and
I find his reading refreshing. Brian Wilson used a felicitous
phrase in connection with Runnicles’ tempo choices: “On
the face of it, by moving each movement along a little faster
than other conductors, he should emerge victorious, but the
opposite danger is to appear too superficial. In fact Runnicles
skirts around that Scylla and Charybdis neatly.” I think
that’s a very fair assessment.
It helps that his conception is supported by the BBC Scottish
SO playing at the top of their game. The competition against
which I’ve pitted them is daunting: they don’t come
much better than the Berlin Philharmonic, the Chicago Symphony
or the Royal Concertgebouw. However, the BBCSSO fares well in
the comparisons and while they may not quite rival the sheer
weight and depth of tone displayed by their illustrious rivals
they produce a fine performance. Their playing has been beautifully
recorded by producer Andrew Keener and engineers Simon Eadon
and Philip Siney. The sound is excellent, combining clarity
and depth; the sound of the brass has great presence, especially
in the finale.
It’s relatively unusual for Hyperion to issue a recording
of a piece from the standard orchestral repertoire but their
decision to make this recording has been vindicated by the results.
This may well be the first commercial recording by Donald Runnicles
as chief conductor of the BBCSSO; if so, it’s an auspicious
start.
John Quinn
see also
review by Brian Wilson
Masterwork Index: Bruckner
7
Support
us financially by purchasing this disc from: |
|
|
|
|
BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra/Donald Runnicles 