I wonder if people could play the Bruckner’s Ninth during peace-time or the universal misery of this work do requires some presents of some war-like external non-resolvable tragedy?

The WWII started in end of 1944 when a first “Liberty” ship was trying to deliver a Yankees’ BBQ grill to England and accidentally lost direction in fog and hit Normandy… Ok, Ok, let do not mock the American’s sick perception of history.  The WWII started in September of 1939 when Germany invades Poland and since then unit Germany capitulated in May 1945 the Bruckner's Ninth was performed and recorded 3 times (at least the recordings that I am familiar with). All recordings are “live” and all of them are true benchmark of conducting and performing art. They also, as far as I concern are light miles further away then anything that was performed since then...

One of the greatest Dutch conductor Eduard van Beinum played in January 1941 with Concertgebouw. What an event, what a play! Did Concertgebouw even was able to develop such a great pressure via musicality even since? The insultingly brilliant Oswald Kabasta, who was an uncontestable king of musicality in South Germany, performed with his Munich Philharmonic in June 1943 another stunning Bruckner Nine. In 3 years Kabasta will be dead but not before Wilhelm Furtwangler with his Berlin Philharmonic in October 1944 delivered a final nail into the performing art of the Nine.  Were any more extraordinary Bruckner’s Ninth attempts since Beinum, Kabasta and Furtwangler?

Well, perhaps there were but… here is one huge problem for me – I can’t listen Bruckner, and particularly the Ninth, if the recording is, what the contemporary people consider “well-recorded”. I do not want “to hear the orchestra” but I need an orchestral to give me juts a general lead OF A DEMANDED MAGNITUDE and then, I want to reflect myself on the Bruckner’s “program” and to invent my own reading of this music….

So, what make the Bruckner’s Ninth from 1941, 1943 and 1944 to affect us so strongly? Was it the war? Was it the frustration of the people who played this music in 40s? Was it the better sound of the recording technologies in 40s? I do not know….

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

clarkjohnsen wrote:

One recording that you must become familiar with: Sigmund von Hausegger and the Munich Philharmonic (1938). It was the first, and followed (be a few years) that conductor's famous concert of two Bruckner Ninths -- Lowe's and Bruckner's. The former has scarce been heard of since. The performance is unsentimental and surprisingly fleet of foot. As it happens, I have a set of superb Victor pressings that sound far better than any LP or CD dub -- as per usual.

http://www.preiserrecords.at/2/aboutus.php

I was listening the recoding this morning. The transfer is very-very high quality, unexpectedly good; noise is filtered but very tastefully. Although I do like the von Hausegger’s version… hold on. I would not say that I like it but rather I do not hate it. Still it is not how I would like Bruckner Nine be played. The Munich Philharmonic is too elastic and too lush for this symphony. von Hausegger’s reading is too musical and too playful. It more sounds to me like polka dances of like the Tchaikovsky ballets then the Bruckner’s sound that I call “accordion accompanied stones in a drier”. After the WW2's Bruckner, the von Hausegger’s Bruckner sound overly melodic and almost blended. I think this reading would be very fine for Brahms but not for Bruckner. Well, I have to admit that that last moment was kind of nice if it were not followed the second movement that was “not there”.

Still, altogether is it very-very impressive and VERY non-annoying sound….from 1938

Rgs,
Romy

As I told before: screw the after war recordings of the Bruckner 9! I think it is not about the performances itself but the way in witch they are recorded. For whatever reasons Bruckner sound very strangely recorded if it is not live and if the poly-microphone techniques were uses. At least it requires taste the unfortunately many (if not all) sound engineers do not demonstrate. For instance the wonderful performance of Celibidache with Stuttgart Radio from beginning of 70s I find completely unlistenable. It mixes in so strange way that when I hear it I think that my speakers are broken as sounds pop up from all redirection at completes rand one locations and volumes.

Today I received from Israel the Mravinsky 1980 recording of the Bruckner 9 with Leningrad Philharmonic. Mravinsky recorded the peace 3 times: mid 50s, 1980, 1982, all recordings were “live”. I am not big fan of the Mravinsky orchestra from 80s, and I do not particularly like the Mravinsky’s readings from that time. But what was the most insulting that this recoding was like any other after-war recordings had that “audio quality: that destroyed the entire work.

I do not need to hear the distinct string section in the Bruckner 9. I do not need the “clarity”. To me the correct “Bruckner Sound: is something that I call “accordion sound” what everything is melted together and act as one “pressure force”.  Gabriel Garcia Marquez described the Bruckner’s sound as sounds coming from stones spinning in a washer machine. I think something like this was possible only in war-time recordings and then, the recording technologies become “too inappropriately good” to record Bruckner…

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Romy the Cat wrote:

JJ, do not even think that you can find Amy by investing 30 seconds of picture standing. It took for me 44 years to find her.