BaL 31.12.16 - Bruckner: Symphony no. 3 in D minor

[Beef Oven!]

In the first place I have no respect for Marthe's "approach". We don't need any conductor to make his or her own arrangement of any Bruckner symphony as we have now quite enough well-authenticated editions of Bruckner's own (and enough residual uncertainty in the reasons for them) to enjoy exploring - listening to them, thinking about them. Marthe's is just an extreme version of the mythical concept of Bruckner as a composer who didn't know what he wanted, or was some inveterate tinkering reviser, as if the genuine revisions he did make give licence to any later performer to do what they like. Imagine applying that to any other composer, conflating the two Schumann 4ths or Rachmaninov 4th Concerto versions, or combining the 3-movement and the 4-movement versions of Sibelius 5th.
I recall Pinnock or Payne saying of their chamber-scale Bruckner 2nd, Payne having made his own "version", that "we'll never really know..." etc., what Bruckner "really" wanted. Well of course we do know now, very clearly (2/1872 and 2/1877 both well-authenticated) and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. (***).

I sampled the Marthe 3rd (it's certainly not any one of Bruckner's) on Qobuz and was appalled by some of the things I heard, e.g.. the deafening, melodramatic drumroll accompanying the first part of the scherzo (capriciously placed second); Marthe's conducting is plodding, his phrasing stodgy, and the sound he produces from his orchestra terribly overblown and bombastic. It really does sound like look-at-me directorial self-advertisement. I can see it may have an entertainment value for anyone familiar with the true symphony, in following what Marthe does with its ideas. But personally I wouldn't waste much time on it.

(***) As noted above, I think it's disproportionate to find a source or a culpability for these irresponsibly individualised versions in Haas (or any other editor who tried to find subtle, restrained solutions to historically complex problems which we now have a clearer view of). Just as one may forgive earlier conductors such as Karajan for making similarly subtle restorations or choices between editions, at a time when several of the original versions were little known or unpublished, and the authenticity of various revisions seemingly uncertain.

Quoting from the review by the amazing philosopher and music critic, Bernard Michael O’Hanlon, is in order here .....


"Scholars would sneer at PJM's decision to merge all three versions of the Symphony (1873, 1876-77 & 1889) into the one performing edition with a many a cymbal crash thrown in for good measure (yes, they feature in the coda of the finale). PJM's reversal of the order of the inner movements to mirror the Eighth Symphony is also highly unorthodox (for lack of a more polite word) . . . . . but to the pure, all things are pure. Other than the extenuated close of the Scherzo which is Cacophony Central, JPM justifies every one of his editorial decisions. Indeed, he could cite Robert Simpson who calls for the 1873 edition to be conflated with select passages from 1876-77 where they make sense.

Music is irreparably associated with the sacred. Here, music-making becomes metaphysics. And what fun it is, too. Hitch a ride on the cosmic train with the notorious PJM!"

[ahinton]

In the first place I have no respect for Marthe's "approach". We don't need any conductor to make his or her own arrangement of any Bruckner symphony as we have now quite enough well-authenticated editions of Bruckner's own (and enough residual uncertainty in the reasons for them) to enjoy exploring - listening to them, thinking about them. Marthe's is just an extreme version of the mythical concept of Bruckner as a composer who didn't know what he wanted, or was some inveterate tinkering reviser, as if the genuine revisions he did make give licence to any later performer to do what they like. Imagine applying that to any other composer, conflating the two Schumann 4ths or Rachmaninov 4th Concerto versions, or combining the 3-movement and the 4-movement versions of Sibelius 5th.
I recall Pinnock or Payne saying of their chamber-scale Bruckner 2nd, Payne having made his own "version", that "we'll never really know..." etc., what Bruckner "really" wanted. Well of course we do know now, very clearly (2/1872 and 2/1877 both well-authenticated) and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. (***).

I sampled the Marthe 3rd (it's certainly not any one of Bruckner's) on Qobuz and was appalled by some of the things I heard, e.g.. the deafening, melodramatic drumroll accompanying the first part of the scherzo (capriciously placed second); Marthe's conducting is plodding, his phrasing stodgy, and the sound he produces from his orchestra terribly overblown and bombastic. It really does sound like look-at-me directorial self-advertisement. I can see it may have an entertainment value for anyone familiar with the true symphony, in following what Marthe does with its ideas. But personally I wouldn't waste much time on it.

(***) As noted above, I think it's disproportionate to find a source or a culpability for these irresponsibly individualised versions in Haas (or any other editor who tried to find subtle, restrained solutions to historically complex problems which we now have a clearer view of). Just as one may forgive earlier conductors such as Karajan for making similarly subtle restorations or choices between editions, at a time when several of the original versions were little known or unpublished, and the authenticity of various revisions seemingly uncertain.

Spot on in all particulars once again!

[Beef Oven!]

Sorry, I don't get that. I clarified that I'd not listened to this but referred to something else that PJM has done to Bruckner as an illustration; I did not suggest that this is why no one else has responded to reference to it but merely wondered whether that might be the case. It would be up to people to say if it is indeed so.

It wasn’t so much about people responding, more about why an available recording of Bruckner’s symphony 3 isn’t being listed in this thread, as would normally be the case. Alpensinfonie often misses recordings, he’s only human. But when an omission is pointed out it should be added to the list. Especially useful when months or even years later, one wants to use the thread as a reference point.

Celebrated Bruckner archivist, John F Berky lists it as an available recording in his a.bruckner.com website and lists it as "2006 'Neufassung' reconstructed from the 1873-1876-1877-1889 editions. Ed. Peter Jan Marthe”. Jayne has often cited this authority and referred us to the website.

It’s hard to know why Alpensinfonie is refusing to list it, without an explanation.

All seems a bit weird to me.

[jayne lee wilson]

'NEUFASSUNG" means simply "new edition", that is to say JPM's own new edition, nothing more. No specious or implied authority is conveyed or intended by the terminology used on abruckner.com.
John Berky's lifelong mission and obsession is to compile a library, a database of literally all the Bruckner performances and recorded versions or editions, of whatever dubious provenance, he can find. Away from the discography, Berky has even catalogued a digitised FM radio tape of my own, made from a Radio 3 broadcast in 1992. John asked me to send it to him because Colin Davis reversed the order of the inner movements of No.7, placing the scherzo second, as he had done on an earlier Orfeo Bavarian recording which John listed in his section on Brucknerian releases' misdemeanours ("Discographic Horrors") and which I'd written to John about. No-one can adduce any authority or precedent for this reversal, no more than they could for Marthe's various spatchcockings. It is listed there because it exists, nothing more. Note too that in the notes to Marthe's recording of the 9th Symphony, it says simply "finale composed by Marthe". It is a listing, not some implied approval.

As for someone calling himself "Bernard Michael O'Hanlon" whose tedious verbal circuses can be found footnoting many an Amazon listing and which I've long since stopped bothering to read, one can only say that his prose style is every bit as self-regarding as the conducting style of Jan Peter Marthe, and quite as likely to obscure or lead away from any attempt at musical truth, insight, honesty or integrity on whatever level of listening or scholarship, Brucknerian or otherwise.
His description of Robert Simpson's comments on the 3rd Symphony as calling for "conflation" is of course a grotesque, self-justifying misrepresentation. As anyone who had actually read the revised version of Simpson's book would know for themselves.

[Thropplenoggin]

As for someone calling himself "Bernard Michael O'Hanlon" whose tedious verbal circuses can be found footnoting many an Amazon listing and which I've long since stopped bothering to read, one can only say that his prose style is every bit as self-regarding as the conducting style of Jan Peter Marthe, and quite as likely to obscure or lead away from any attempt at musical truth, insight, honesty or integrity on whatever level of listening or scholarship, Brucknerian or otherwise.
His description of Robert Simpson's comments on the 3rd Symphony as calling for "conflation" are of course a grotesque, self-justifying misrepresentation. As anyone who had actually read the revised version of Simpson's book would know for themselves.

Bien dit. An utterly tedious man who ignores all 20th century repertoire, insults all HIP practitioners, and seems to think even Beethoven's or Mozart's jobbing pieces reveal the Godhead at work. I've had funnier bouts of gout.

[Beef Oven!]

Bien dit. An utterly tedious man who ignores all 20th century repertoire, insults all HIP practitioners, and seems to think even Beethoven's or Mozart's jobbing pieces reveal the Godhead at work. I've had funnier bouts of gout.

That’s him! Knows his stuff, though.

[Beef Oven!]

'NEUFASSUNG" means simply "new edition", that is to say JPM's own new edition, nothing more. No specious or implied authority is conveyed or intended by the terminology used on abruckner.com.
John Berky's lifelong mission and obsession is to compile a library, a database of literally all the Bruckner performances and recorded versions or editions, of whatever dubious provenance, he can find. Away from the discography, Berky has even catalogued a digitised FM radio tape of my own, made from a Radio 3 broadcast in 1992. John asked me to send it to him because Colin Davis reversed the order of the inner movements of No.7, placing the scherzo second, as he had done on an earlier Orfeo Bavarian recording which John listed in his section on Brucknerian releases' misdemeanours ("Discographic Horrors") and which I'd written to John about. No-one can adduce any authority or precedent for this reversal, no more than they could for Marthe's various spatchcockings. It is listed there because it exists, nothing more. Note too that in the notes to Marthe's recording of the 9th Symphony, it says simply "finale composed by Marthe". It is a listing, not some implied approval.

As for someone calling himself "Bernard Michael O'Hanlon" whose tedious verbal circuses can be found footnoting many an Amazon listing and which I've long since stopped bothering to read, one can only say that his prose style is every bit as self-regarding as the conducting style of Jan Peter Marthe, and quite as likely to obscure or lead away from any attempt at musical truth, insight, honesty or integrity on whatever level of listening or scholarship, Brucknerian or otherwise.
His description of Robert Simpson's comments on the 3rd Symphony as calling for "conflation" are of course a grotesque, self-justifying misrepresentation. As anyone who had actually read the revised version of Simpson's book would know for themselves.

You’re not coping with this very well, Jayne.

It’s just another edition of Bruckner 3, FFS!. What it says on the tin!

Maybe a reference to the esteemed reviewer D.S. Crowe will act as a balm..........

As an ardent Brucknerian, I will confess to never having been particularly taken with the Third symphony in any of its incarnations. While enjoying well enough any decent recoding or performance, it's not one of the symphonies I regularly seek to explore. Of course, when discussing the Third it has to be established exactly what is meant as there are 3 versions by Bruckner (1873, 1877 and 1889-or 91 dependant on the scholarly authority) and an alternative Adagio from 1876. All this has flummoxed editors and academics seeking to assemble a definitive version of which Bruckner might have approved-Haas never attempted it and Novak gave up! To make matters worse, conductors have added (or subtracted!) their own individual touches to the work causing even more confusion, though most have opted for some form of the later version which omits most of the references to Wagner.
Peter Jan Marthé has shown himself to be fearless when it comes to disregarding the established scholarship, and giving no heed to any attempts at "authenticity". His freely composed finale to the 9th Symphony is the most extreme example and in this 2005 live recording of its premiere we have a chance to hear his thoughts on the Third. Put simply, he has conflated all 3 versions into a performing whole, added to the orchestration, opted for the 1876 Adagio and reversed the order of the Scherzo and Adagio to balance the work more in line with the Eight and Ninth. This will divide opinions sharply, for it transforms the work into a near 90 minute colossus of the stature of the Eighth in a structure that Bruckner would not have recognised.
PJM's argument is that he would have done given time!!!
For all the showmanship and whiff of the mountebank, PJM is a committed Brucknerian with a deep understanding of the Bruckner ethos, and in reading the often unintentionally hilarious and copious notes that accompany this set, there can be deciphered a cogent and telling argument for what PJM has attempted. I use the word attempted, but achieved would be a better choice, for to my ears it is an overwhelming triumph.
PJM was a protégée and disciple of Celibidache, so it is no surprise when the first movement opens and unfolds at a stately majestic pace, followed by a leisurely but well pointed scherzo, a simply divine adagio and a bristling, lilting and glorious finale. The allusions to Tristan, Tannhauser and even the Faust Overture are all clearly expounded and all in all, I believe that PJM has succeeded in elevating the symphony to a stature that genuinely equals 8&9.
The European Philharmonic is not a youth orchestra in the true sense, but is made up of younger players, who play with the utmost commitment if occasionally less than total precision, and PJM conjures up a true rich Bruckner sound, aided as well as hindered by the resonant acoustic of the Stiftkirche of St.Florian, Bruckner's resting place. While giving the orchestra added bloom, the acoustic also results in an occasionally diffuse sound picture, and the live recording, while better than that for the Ninth is prone to edginess and occasional distortion, especially when unravelling the more opaquely orchestrated sections. However the ears adjust and the brain compensates quickly enough and it does not unduly affect the sheer unmitigated pleasure of the music-and ultimately that's what it's all about.
Is it "authentic?"-No. Will it offend the purist Bruckner scholars?-almost certainly -Yes!
For all other lovers of Bruckner or lovers of glorious music of the late Romantic period, this is a "must hear."
In normal circumstances, the minor technical deficiencies would result in my docking half a star, but star ratings are irrelevant in this case as this is likely to be the only chance we get to hear this work in this version on record. I love it and will return to it regularly, not just as a curio, but as a wonderful Bruckner experience that I want to repeat. Totally and utterly recommended. Stewart Crowe

P.S. Amazon’s stock of this recording of Bruckner 3 has been sold out, but you can get it from market sellers. I actually got mine as a CD quality download from Qobuz (as recommended by Jayne )

[jayne lee wilson]

#52....give a man enough rope....

"Peter Jan Marthe has shown himself to be fearless when it comes to disregarding the established scholarship..."

So there you are. It's not only Brexiteers who have "had enough of experts".

[Beef Oven!]

#52....give a man enough rope....

"Peter Jan Marthe has shown himself to be fearless when it comes to disregarding the established scholarship..."

So there you are. It's not only Brexiteers who have "had enough of experts".

Get over it Jayne, find a coping strategy!

It’s an outstanding edition of Bruckner 3, pulling together the three main editions, and reversing the scherzo and adagio to produce an amazing tour de force!!

[Alison]

When we say we enjoy a recording of Bruckner 3 it doesn't necessarily mean we swear full allegiance to the edition being used.

[Beef Oven!]

When we say we enjoy a recording of Bruckner 3 it doesn't necessarily mean we swear full allegiance to the edition being used.

Totally agree.

[mathias broucek]

'NEUFASSUNG" means simply "new edition", that is to say JPM's own new edition, nothing more. No specious or implied authority is conveyed or intended by the terminology used on abruckner.com.
John Berky's lifelong mission and obsession is to compile a library, a database of literally all the Bruckner performances and recorded versions or editions, of whatever dubious provenance, he can find. Away from the discography, Berky has even catalogued a digitised FM radio tape of my own, made from a Radio 3 broadcast in 1992. John asked me to send it to him because Colin Davis reversed the order of the inner movements of No.7, placing the scherzo second, as he had done on an earlier Orfeo Bavarian recording which John listed in his section on Brucknerian releases' misdemeanours ("Discographic Horrors") and which I'd written to John about. No-one can adduce any authority or precedent for this reversal, no more than they could for Marthe's various spatchcockings. It is listed there because it exists, nothing more. Note too that in the notes to Marthe's recording of the 9th Symphony, it says simply "finale composed by Marthe". It is a listing, not some implied approval.

As for someone calling himself "Bernard Michael O'Hanlon" whose tedious verbal circuses can be found footnoting many an Amazon listing and which I've long since stopped bothering to read, one can only say that his prose style is every bit as self-regarding as the conducting style of Jan Peter Marthe, and quite as likely to obscure or lead away from any attempt at musical truth, insight, honesty or integrity on whatever level of listening or scholarship, Brucknerian or otherwise.
His description of Robert Simpson's comments on the 3rd Symphony as calling for "conflation" are of course a grotesque, self-justifying misrepresentation. As anyone who had actually read the revised version of Simpson's book would know for themselves.

Jayne was that tape from a prom? I remember being at a prom where Colin Davis and the BRSO reversed the inner movements. The performance was (from memory) good and the orchestra wonderful.

My lossless rip of the Orfeo CD has the true order restored!

[jayne lee wilson]

Jayne was that tape from a prom? I remember being at a prom where Colin Davis and the BRSO reversed the inner movements. The performance was (from memory) good and the orchestra wonderful.

My lossless rip of the Orfeo CD has the true order restored!

My TDK MA-XG tape has "Barbican Live 2/96" handwritten on it (not '92 as I wrote above - my note is right, my memory wrong...).
I'm fascinated to hear that he did this repeatedly. Scroll down to see Berky's note here -

https://www.abruckner.com/editorsnote/discographichorror/

[jayne lee wilson]

Get over it Jayne, find a coping strategy!

It’s an outstanding edition of Bruckner 3, pulling together the three main editions, and reversing the scherzo and adagio to produce an amazing tour de force!!

Yes, it's a model example of post-truth Brucknerian musicology....

Where Marthe goes wrong (which is even clear from his everything-but-clear essay on the 3rd https://www.abruckner.com/Data/artic...theb3essay.pdf - happy reading...) and where many others like D.S.Crowe go wrong after him (like Caliban besotted with Stephano and Trinculo) is to claim that scholars were always trying to seek some single or final "definitive version" rather than establish accurate texts of the various revisions the composer made; which latter they have largely succeeded in doing, wonderfully well. We can enjoy all these well-authenticated editions, all written by Bruckner.
One notes too the use of phrases such as "sneering scholars" or "purist scholars" in Hanlon's and Crowe's verbose commentaries; clichéd paper tigers, mythological adversaries very similar to the "liberal élite" so often invoked as their enemy by Brexiteers. And used in just the same way to justify one's own lies and misrepresentations.

Two obvious questions:
What do you think Bruckner would have made of the JP Marthe "Neufassung", given Bruckner's own, lifelong efforts to define or refine his own text and his own "vision", and his bequeathing of his Autograph Manuscripts of the Original Versions to the Vienna Imperial Library, with instructions for his engraver to use them for future editions?
Why have no other conductors taken up the JPM "Neufassung"? Is it likely than anyone else will in the future?

[jayne lee wilson]

The historical truth about the 3rd so far as has been ascertained, from David Griegel:

"Symphony No. 3

1873 Version (Haas [unpublished], Nowak)
1874 Version (Carragan [unpublished])
1876 Version (Adagio: Nowak; I, III, & IV: Röder Revisionsbericht)
1878 Version (1879, Oeser, Nowak)
1889 Version (1890, Nowak, Redlich)
When Bruckner completed the Third on 31 December 1873, he had two copy scores made: one is the Wagner dedication score and the other is Mus.Hs. 6033 in the Austrian National Library. The 1873 version is based on the Wagner dedication score. Haas edited this version for publication in the Complete Edition in 1944; however, all except a single set of uncorrected proofs was lost in Leipzig during the war. It was published by Nowak in 1977. The 1873 version was rehearsed by the Vienna Philharmonic in June or July 1874, but it was not accepted for performance.

The other copy score, Mus.Hs. 6033, contains the 1874 version. It includes revisions made in 1874, presumably after the unsuccessful rehearsal. Bruckner mentioned the "significant improvements" he made at this time in a letter to Moritz von Mayfeld dated 12 January 1875. This version was rehearsed by the Vienna Philharmonic in the autumn of 1875, but it too was not accepted for performance. The first performance of the 1874 version took place on 21 November 2007, with Akira Naito conducting the Tokyo New City Orchestra, using a score edited by William Carragan (unpublished). According to the program notes, the revisions of 1874 "add greatly to the rhythmic interest and complexity of the piece, particularly in the first movement. There are no simplifications or changes in length; instead, in certain crucial passages the brass parts are broken up into a highly detailed canonic texture that makes the music shimmer and vibrate with a luminous intensity present in no other version."

The next wave of revisions began in 1876 and was finished in November of that year. During this period, Bruckner revised all four movements. So far, only the Adagio of the 1876 version has been published, but the entire work could be reconstructed quite accurately. After completing this version, Bruckner arranged to have orchestral parts copied (probably in December 1876), and this fact demonstrates that Bruckner considered his revision to be complete.

However, Bruckner revised the symphony again from January through April of the following year. Based on dates in the score, we know that Bruckner revised the Finale during this time; he may or may not have revised the other movements also. Bruckner announced the completion of the new version in a letter to Wilhelm Tappert dated 1 May 1877, and it is likely that this is the version that was rehearsed by the Vienna Philharmonic on 27 September 1877. Though initially rejected once again, the decision was made to have the symphony performed. Bruckner revised the Adagio in October 1877, and it may have been in this form that the symphony was first performed on 16 December 1877. Bruckner then revised the Scherzo in January 1878, which included the addition of a 41-measure coda, and this represents the final form of the autograph manuscript, now Mus.Hs. 19475 in the Austrian National Library, which is one source for the 1878 version.

A second source for the 1878 version is Mus.Hs. 34611, which was the Stichvorlage for the first printing of 1879. Oeser's edition was also based on Mus.Hs. 34611, while Nowak's edition (the so-called 1877 version) is based for the most part on Mus.Hs. 19475. The editions are very similar. In Mus.Hs. 34611, measures 67-68 from the first movement of Mus.Hs. 19475 are cut (with the notes on the downbeat of measure 67 moved to the downbeat of measure 69), and the coda from the Scherzo of Mus.Hs. 19475 is also cut. In Mus.Hs. 19475, measures 152-153 from the Scherzo of Mus.Hs. 34611 are cut. (Nowak retained these measures; one can hear the actual form from the autograph in the Mahler-Krzyzanowski piano-duet version of the Third published in 1880.) Finally, Bruckner suggested additional cuts (marked by vi-de) in the Finale of Mus.Hs. 34611: measures 379-432 and 465-514 in the recapitulation. (The second of these cuts is observed in the Mahler-Krzyzanowski piano-duet version.)

The final revisions of the Third were made in 1889 for the purpose of a second edition of the symphony published in 1890. Nowak's edition of the 1889 version is based on the Stichvorlage for the 1890 edition, while the latter includes additional revisions presumably made in the proofs. It is possible that some of the latter alterations are authentic. In particular, there are two passages in the 1890 edition that differ from the Stichvorlage but follow exactly the 1878 version. Bruckner might well have cancelled the revised forms of these passages in the proofs. The 1890 edition was reprinted in 1961, edited by Redlich.

The most significant alterations in the 1889 version are in the finale; Bruckner based his revision of the movement on a version by Franz Schalk. Both passages marked with vi-de in the Stichvorlage of the 1878 version were cut in the 1889 version. The material following the second of these cuts was also completely rewritten by Bruckner, who did not accept Schalk's suggested text for the passage."