Bruckner's 9th (Finale)

Jane

It sounds like you know more about this issue than most (which might I suggest is possibly connected with your surname). The last point you make about the missing bifolio/sketch is very interesting indeed.

Going back to the symphony itself, I would strongly suggest that the agnostics here should give the "unfinished" finale a very thorough listen. Imperfect it may be, but there is something hidden deep down inside the music, which only reveals itself after repeated listening. In parts it sounds like the soundtrack to a disaster movie with some very peculiar sounding dissonant chords. What is Bruckner trying to say?

DSM

I've been travelling for a few days and missed much of this interesting discussion, the third on this subject. By chance, I was listening again to the Rattle version during my flight home.

I don't want to repeat my thoughts from earlier posts but it might be worth repeating, for newer contributors, that there is a very comprehensive description of the available material for the last movement, as well as details of the reconstruction, written by those responsible. it can be found at:

http://www.abruckner.com/articles/articlesEnglish/cohrsB9finale/

(then click on the download).

Only 3 minutes of music of the finale had to be 'composed', the rest is all to be found in the bifolios or in sketches.  There are even notes for the unwritten coda, which make it quite clear that Bruckner did not intend a quiet conclusion.

I strongly suspect that the biggest problem associated with all completions including this one is what might be called 'The Uncertainty Factor'. Imagine for a moment the (highly improbable) case that the completion is exactly what Bruckner himself intended.  The problem is, we'd have no way of knowing it. And that's the same with all reconstructions.  It's all but impossible not to be thinking and questioning the reconstruction as one listens, however perfect it is. The automatic reaction is to attribute any perceived weakness to the reconstruction, isn't it? This makes it much harder to just listen objectively. Certainly I find this, and most others I suspect too, to different degrees. Many critics have found problems in several of Bruckner's finales anyway.  Imagine we only had the finale of the 8th (just as it is now) as a reconstruction from drafts.  I can already hear the comments that Bruckner would never have left it like that etc.

And that's not a problem just for listeners. The conductor and performers too, dealing with problems that they know to be there in Bruckners music are willing and determined to solve them. When looking at a reconstruction, it seems to me that they may be less confident, simply because they do not know for sure where the problem lies, with Bruckner or with the reconstruction, and the natural inclination is to blame the reconstruction.

Does anyone else agree that, how to put these doubts aside and just assess the music objectively is a barrier to both listening and performing reconstructions.  One of the great merits of Simon Rattle is his seeming ability to achieve this. Like his performances or not, his Mahler 10 and Bruckner 9 performances, exude belief in the music. Or so it seems to me.

Chris

I've had similar thoughts to Chris's. Even lovers of Bruckner will admit that some movements are more successful than others. However, we don't deign to omit them from performances and recordings. The 9th finale is arguably not at the same brilliant standard as the preceding movements, but as it is, except for a few patches, the composer's own work, it should not be ignored.

(It's not just Bruckner. I feel in general that it is not for any of us to second-guess the artistic decisions of a genius.)

I think two great living Bruckner conductors are Zubin Mehta and Daniel Barenboim, and not just in recordings. I saw Mehta/Bruckner twice, first in Vienna with the VPO in the Ninth Symphony, and last year at the Salzburg Easter Festival with the BPO in the Eighth: both potent, solid and idiomatic performances. As to Barenboim, I heard him live with the Staatskapelle Berlin in symphonies 7, 8 and 9, also in very impressive and authoritative renditions. Christoph Eschenbach is another conductor who takes a keen interest in Bruckner, but after seeing him with the Philadelphia Orchestra in Vienna playing the Sixth Symphony and with the LPO in London in the Seventh, I don't think he's in the same league as Mehta and Barenboim as far as Bruckner is concerned.       

Parla wrote: "Chris, if you mean by 'living' even those who are still alive, I could mention at least Haitink, Von Dohnanyi, Blomstedt, Maazel."

Ha, ha, Parla, so politely put!

I'm not such a great admirer of most of the younger others' Bruckner. And you're probably right, most of them will probably not do the four movement ninth. If the Mahler is anything to go by it will be years before others take it up. Hmm. Probably too late for me! Barenboim just might I suppose.

Chris

Jane, I'm sure you're right. I find though that as I get older I enjoy the swifter leaner performances less, and am now rarely troubled (as I used to be) even by Celibidache's slow tempi. Most of my preferred recordings (Schuricht excepted) are on the slow side.

Actually, it may not be the older (i.e. earlier) conductors. The performances I've enjoyed the most, live and on record, have been given by older conductors. Perhaps Bruckner comes more easily to older men (and women). The problem is, do I have time to find out whether the younger conductors of today will be great Brucknerians when they are older. Trouble is they're all much younger than me - this used not to be the case!

Chris

Having attended many live Bruckner concerts with Celibidache I must say that the CDs appear to be much slower than the live events. He knew why he didn't want recordings of his concerts! The relationships don't work in a different acoustic of your room and limitations of speakers, you don't hear half of the notes, hence it appears too slow. This live-vs-disc "problem" is particular to his music making, the colours and overtones you could hear live were astonishing, unlike anything I have ever heard before or after, so live he did need the slower tempi, they seemed perfect then.