RECORDING OF THE MONTH
Anton BRUCKNER (1824-1896)
Symphony No. 8 in C minor - first version (1887) [82:41]
Hamburger Philharmoniker/Simone Young
rec. live, 14-15 December 2008, Laeiszhalle, Hamburg. DSD
OEHMS OC 638 SACD [30:45 + 51:56]
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
Bruckner’s first thoughts on the Eighth Symphony in a superb performance.
Masterwork Index: Bruckner 8
Support
us financially by purchasing this disc from: |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|