50m, I truly appreciate your thorough post on your analysis of the two last Symphonies by Bruckner. Despite I may disagree with certain premises of your argumentation, I believe we need this kind of posts to debate on the essence of the works, instead of the rather futile issue of practically mentioning what we simply like or dislike in a recording. By analysing what we consider or we conceive as the essence of these works, we practically provide the framework of what we would like to see in a performance of this or the other work.
As you rightly mentioned, you were thrilled by Schuricht's 8th, since he "propels the motion forward". On the other hand, I believe that the real strength of Bruckner is neither his "melodic inventiveness" nor his "harmonic tension", but his amazing sustainability of a huge structure and an incredibly consistent form. For example, the slow movement of the 8th is the centerpiece of the whole work, as Bruckner himself stated. He used two contrasting groups of themes (in a A,B,A2,B2,A3 scheme), where A and B conatain four themes each (!), developed in marvelous combinations throughout. The closing Coda is also expanded into a "farewell" section.
Besides, the Second movement of the 9th departs from all other of Bruckner's symphonic Scherzi in that it does not share their rustic, buccolic nature. It is of the typical Scherzo-Trio-Scherzo shape, each of which is in two halves with certain contrast to some extent. Its structure is as close as possible to perfect and with a very keen orchestration, so that it may become very effective. The key of the tonic major (D major) helps to make the perfect contrast to the initial gigantic monumental First movement, in the declamatory yet utterly poignat d minor.
For what I can preceive by the last two Symphonies, I believe they are at the same height as the other ones, but for some different reasons and with a somehow different scope.
50m, I truly appreciate your thorough post on your analysis of the two last Symphonies by Bruckner. Despite I may disagree with certain premises of your argumentation, I believe we need this kind of posts to debate on the essence of the works, instead of the rather futile issue of practically mentioning what we simply like or dislike in a recording. By analysing what we consider or we conceive as the essence of these works, we practically provide the framework of what we would like to see in a performance of this or the other work.
As you rightly mentioned, you were thrilled by Schuricht's 8th, since he "propels the motion forward". On the other hand, I believe that the real strength of Bruckner is neither his "melodic inventiveness" nor his "harmonic tension", but his amazing sustainability of a huge structure and an incredibly consistent form. For example, the slow movement of the 8th is the centerpiece of the whole work, as Bruckner himself stated. He used two contrasting groups of themes (in a A,B,A2,B2,A3 scheme), where A and B conatain four themes each (!), developed in marvelous combinations throughout. The closing Coda is also expanded into a "farewell" section.
Besides, the Second movement of the 9th departs from all other of Bruckner's symphonic Scherzi in that it does not share their rustic, buccolic nature. It is of the typical Scherzo-Trio-Scherzo shape, each of which is in two halves with certain contrast to some extent. Its structure is as close as possible to perfect and with a very keen orchestration, so that it may become very effective. The key of the tonic major (D major) helps to make the perfect contrast to the initial gigantic monumental First movement, in the declamatory yet utterly poignat d minor.
For what I can preceive by the last two Symphonies, I believe they are at the same height as the other ones, but for some different reasons and with a somehow different scope.
Parla