In January 2013 I went to Birmingham to review
for Seen and Heard a concert in which Andris Nelsons
was scheduled to conduct the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra
in Bruckner’s Eighth Symphony. Unfortunately he fell ill
and had to withdraw. Though I was disappointed not to hear the
highly impressive Nelsons conduct this work there were two compensations.
In the first place, his place was taken by Simone Young, who
I had never seen conducting before though I have admired her
work on disc. Secondly, since she took over the concert at short
notice Ms Young, not unreasonably, opted to conduct the version
of the score with which she was already familiar; this meant
that instead of Robert Haas’s well-known edition of the
1890 revised version of the symphony we heard the much less
familiar original version of 1887. I’d heard it before
in Georg Tintner’s Naxos recording but, to put it mildly,
Simone Young’s performance was a revelation (review).
I came away from Symphony Hall that night resolved to acquire
Ms Young’s recording of the symphony.
Her recordings have been well received in these pages. Dan Morgan
was most enthusiastic about her account of Mahler’s Second
symphony (review).
That impressed me also, as did her recording of the Sixth. As
for her Bruckner, I’ve heard the Second and Fourth symphonies
and found them to be very good (review
review)
while Gary Higginson also thought well of her reading of the
Third, even if he was less convinced by the edition used (review).
Bruckner composed his Eighth Symphony between 1884 and 1887
in the wake of the triumph he’d enjoyed with the Seventh.
He sent the completed score to the conductor, Hermann Levi,
who had achieved a conspicuous success with the Seventh. Levi
found he couldn’t understand the work and when this news
was relayed to Bruckner it was a devastating setback. He set
about a wholesale revision and the 1890 version that resulted
is what’s been commonly played ever since. Actually, that’s
not entirely true for the edition of the 1890 score that Robert
Haas compiled, and which is most commonly played nowadays, is
largely based on the revision but is, in fact, something of
a hybrid. Haas reinstated some passages from the 1887 score
which his researches convinced him Bruckner had omitted under
pressure from well-meaning friends. For ease of reference, however,
throughout this review references to the “1890 score”
will be to the Haas edition with which most collectors will
be familiar.
It’s fascinating to listen to the original version and
spot where Bruckner made his changes. Many of the alterations
are what I’d call internal in that they involve changes
of scoring - the harps, for example, aren’t involved in
the scherzo - though they all add up to a pretty thorough revision.
However, there are a lot of alterations to the musical material
and though many of these involve only a few bars here and there
several changes are radical, including a substantially different
trio section in the scherzo. The 1890 score is somewhat shorter
than the 1887 version: in his detailed booklet note Michael
Lewin tells us that the 1887 version of the first movement contains
36 more bars than the 1890 score; the 1887 Adagio is longer
by 38 bars and the finale is 62 bars longer. It’s not
really helpful to compare the two versions of the Scherzo since
the respective trios are completely different.
As was apparent in Birmingham, Simone Young really has the measure
of this score. She conducts with a fine appreciation of its
breadth and nobility but there’s also urgency aplenty
at times, not least in the Scherzo, where she generates excellent
momentum and energy. The music of the scherzo itself is largely
familiar from the 1890 revision. However, the trio (5:19 - 9:16)
is completely different in the original score, even if some
fragments which survived into the revised version can be glimpsed
(for example 6:13 - 6:30). One major difference between the
1887 and 1890 scores is that in this earlier version the harps
do not appear in the trio; Bruckner held them back for the Adagio.
I feel that the 1890 trio is better but there’s some good
music in the 1887 trio and it’s good to be able to hear
it, especially when it’s as well played and persuasively
conducted as here. When the scherzo material is reprised Ms
Young invests the music with fire and even more excitement than
first time round, just as she did a few weeks ago in the Birmingham
performance I heard.
I’ve got ahead of myself and omitted to comment on the
first movement. From the very start this performance impresses,
firstly because the playing is so good - sample the richness
of the cello sound in the opening pages, for example. The first
entry of the brass (0:56), which is slightly different to what
we’re accustomed to hearing, has great presence, which
underlines the excellent quality of the recorded sound. As the
movement unfolds listeners will recognise passages which Bruckner
re-thought for the revised score. On balance I think that most
of these revisions were beneficial. For example between 7:28
and 7:51 we hear a string figure repeated several times before
the music eventually modulates. These bars are omitted from
the revision and rightly so in my view; they hold up the progress
of the music. The climax which immediately follows (to 9:04)
was also subject to some revision though the changes seem to
be mainly questions of dynamics - I haven’t seen a score.
One change which I’m absolutely sure was beneficial concerns
the end of the first movement. The subdued, desolate conclusion
in the 1890 version is a masterstroke but that wasn’t
how Bruckner originally saw things. In the 1887 score that passage
is followed by a fortissimo major-key conclusion (from
14:53). By comparison with the highly original conclusion at
which Bruckner eventually arrived this loud ending seems obvious
and rather bombastic. If Bruckner had changed nothing else during
the revision process his second thoughts at this point would
have more than justified a reappraisal of the symphony.
The great Adagio, one of Bruckner’s finest creations,
opens with tremendous breadth and conviction in this performance;
the Hamburg strings are superb in these pages. In the first
few paragraphs there is virtually no difference that I can discern
between the 1887 and 1890 versions. Later on there are some
significant changes. One example is the climax between 20:17
and 20:55, which is extended and sustained in a way that’s
very different to what we’re accustomed to hearing in
the 1890 score. Furthermore, the approach to this climax and
the passage that follows it are very different indeed compared
to the 1890 version. The main climax of the movement is reached
at 21:31 and one of the most obvious differences concerns the
use of the cymbals. In the 1890 revision Bruckner caps this
climax with two cymbal clashes - one at the start of the climax
and one at its conclusion. The 1887 score had two series
of three clashes at these points. I prefer Bruckner’s
second thoughts. After the climax there are quite a few changes,
some of which concern dynamics, but some good musical material
was jettisoned in the revision and Simone Young enables us to
hear what was lost. The coda (24:34 - 27:44) was subject only
to fairly modest revision, which means it’s just as inspired
in the 1887 score. Ms Young and her orchestra are absolutely
superb hereabouts, delivering this marvellous music with real
dignity. In fact, though I’ve commented in this paragraph
on some of the principal differences between the two versions
of the score, the truth is that not many minutes of this performance
had elapsed before I stopped bothering about which edition of
the score was being played. Quite simply, this is a magnificent
performance of the Adagio, irrespective of what edition is being
used. If you want proof that Simone Young is a Bruckner conductor
of genuine stature you will find it in her magisterial account
of this movement.
The finale once again contains many points of detail that Bruckner
changed in his revision and there are also some passages that
he cut completely. This movement can seem episodic in the 1890
version; not all the transitions work. Somewhat to my surprise
the 1887 version seems to flow rather more satisfactorily. What
I’m unsure about is whether this better flow suggests
that Bruckner’s first thoughts were preferable or is it
down to the persuasiveness of Simone Young’s conducting?
As was the case in the Birmingham performance, I found myself
wishing that she’d invested the build-up to the final
peroration (from 22:00) with just a little more breadth. However,
having had the chance to assimilate her interpretation more
thoroughly through hearing it on disc I’m more than willing
to accept that what I might perceive as marginally too
much urgency is of a piece with her dramatic approach to the
movement. Those coming new to this score from the 1890 version
will find one last surprise just before the end (23:25 - 23:41)
where there’s a sudden and unexpected reduction in the
dynamics. It makes an interesting effect though I’m not
sure that it works as well as the conclusion with which we’re
all familiar.
So, having heard the 1887 score in Simone Young’s masterly
performance, what view is one to take of the revision: should
Bruckner have made it? Previously, and based solely on hearing
Georg Tintner’s recording, my answer to this question
would have been that the 1890 score is vastly to be preferred.
I still believe that’s so: the trio section of the second
movement is preferable in the 1890 version and I have no hesitation
at all in preferring the revised version of the end of the first
movement. However, I think it’s a measure of the quality
of this Young reading that in many other respects I’m
now less sure than I was. Many of the changes that Bruckner
made smooth off what, by reference to the 1890 score, are jagged
edges and some of the transitions and passages of repeated figurations
were improved; There’s little doubt that the 1890 score
is a more polished piece of work. Yet I wonder if in the process
some of what, in 1887, may appear to us to be rough edges Bruckner
didn’t sacrifice some of the radicalism in the Eighth.
Recordings of the 1887 version of this symphony are rare. The
only other recording that is currently available so far as I
am aware is the 1996 Naxos recording by Georg Tintner (review).
That comes in a two-disc set coupled with the Symphony No. 0
in D minor (“Die Nullte”). That enjoys a price advantage
over Simone Young’s recording and the interpretation is
marked by the integrity and dedication that one associates with
Tintner in Bruckner. However, if you want a recording of the
1887 version of this great symphony my unhesitating advice is
that you should choose Ms Young. The recorded sound is significantly
better, for one thing. Also, although the National Symphony
of Ireland plays well enough for Tintner the Hamburger Philharmoniker
is in a different - and much superior - league. Finally, I find
Simone Young’s interpretation more consistently convincing.
Tintner takes longer over every movement - nearly four minutes
longer in the case of the Adagio - and he brings the symphony
in at 89:30. Ms Young doesn’t sacrifice any nobility or
grandeur but her way with the score is consistently tauter and
often more urgent. Her account of the Scherzo has more thrust
and fire in its belly than we hear with Tintner and though Tintner
is good in the trio Young phrases the music even more persuasively.
Tintner is daringly expansive in the Adagio and there’s
a craggy grandeur to his conception but I think he’s a
bit too broad at times and Simone Young’s superb interpretation
is served by much richer and sonorous orchestral playing. The
greatest compliment I can pay her is to say that, despite years
of familiarity with the Haas edition, never once did I find
myself pining for it while listening to her performance; that’s
not quite true of my experience of Tintner’s rather plainer
account.
In the last analysis there are two reasons why anyone interested
in Bruckner should invest in this set - and I use the word “invest”
deliberately; it will be an investment. Firstly, it is absolutely
fascinating to compare and contrast Bruckner’s first and
second thoughts on this great score. He was right to revise
it but not all the changes were gains, as this recording makes
clear and Simone Young here makes the best possible case for
the first version. Secondly, irrespective of what edition is
being played, this recording preserves, I believe, what is simply
a great Bruckner performance. I hope Simone Young will go on
to record the rest of the symphonies but this is surely her
finest piece of advocacy to date for Bruckner and Oehms have
captured it in superb, realistic sound.
John Quinn
Masterwork Index: Bruckner
8
Support
us financially by purchasing this disc from: |
|
|
|
|
|
Hamburger Philharmoniker/Simone Young 
[30:45 + 51:56] 