Review: Poschner's Bruckner 0th--The Best of the Worst?
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 07. 2024
- Why, oh why, do we not take Bruckner at his word? He discarded this symphony, and so should we. With that said, you won't find a more knowing, intelligent performance than this one, from a conductor who clearly understands the work's problems and does his very best to minimize them.
Musical Example courtesy of Capriccio Records (Naxos) - Hudba
Dave, as always, you make a cogent argument. I accept everything you said on the grounds of your expertise and experience. And yet, for what it's worth, I still enjoyed that sound clip.
Of course. Some inevitably will enjoy it. It's not horrible to listen to, just incompetent.
I enjoy the Tintner recording of this, and I do mean enjoy. The first movement comes adrift in places for sure but there is too much enjoyable music in the symphony to give it up completely. And it is an infinitely better use of ones listening time than any of the abominations masquerading as the finale of the ninth.
Well, on that last point at least you get no argument from me.
Despite its readily apparent flaws I’ve always loved the 0th, so I’ll need to listen to this reference-caliber recording of a work the composer himself would rather not have referenced. Sounds like this truly is as good an effort as any out there; generally I rate Tintner and Haitink best in class. For a real treat accompanied by a neighing and braying horse, people should listen to Bruckner’s Symphony 000. That’s what I like to call the Rozhedestvensky double CD that includes both Die Nulte and the Study Symphony sometimes deemed 00. Musicologists have yet to discover Bruckner’s Bond Symphony, numbered 007 naturally.
I was in total agreement, until I heard the extract. It sounds great!
Oy.
I hope Poschner nails this cycle! I heard him a few weeks ago in Basel with Tchaikovsky‘s 6th Symphony. It was very beautiful. And I absolutely love his Bruckner recordings he released so far. Without you bringing him up, I would have never listenend to him. You guide us through this jungle of bad and mediocre recordings to find the real gems. As always-you are a treat!
You ask why. Because everybody slows down to look at a car wreck. We can’t help ourselves. Sometimes you just have to know.
I totally agree with you David! And... I love the piece also. Thanks for your talks, they are my daily routine!
This is such a hard symphony to like... maybe this recording will finally change my mind. Thanks Dave! Let's see what Poschner makes of the Fourth, up next.
'Magnificently performed total waste of time'. Brilliant. That said, I am going to purchase the CD especially for the Scherzo and the beautiful recording.
Ok. I just listened to it. Kicking the overall critique of the symphony to the side, what an interpretation! My God! I am actually using profanity I won’t use here. I am thrilled to my fingertips and toes.
With you, I feel like I am listening to the entire classical canon for the very first time and I am OLD. Luckily, my music streaming service offers me most of what you recommend for my instant gratification.
You have the ear, David. When it comes to quality of interpretation and recorded sound, I do not, though I know when I am dissatisfied, which is almost always. I have collected a library of duds.
When I have a moment I’ll subscribe to Classics Today. I need to make these last years count.
I agree with you, Dave. In early college days, I was friends with a budding musicologist (now a full Professor) who was a Bruckner fanatic. He in fact did introduce me to many of Anton's powers and glories, for which I am still grateful (shout out to Mark). The '0' was a special passion for him, one I never shared. Perhaps, with so much truly wretched music in the world, something with a bit of the 'flavor' of good Bruckner will be tasty enough for many good-hearted musical souls?
Although (I must add as devil's advocate) something the English contemporary of the great Tovey, the great Ernest Newman, once wrote might also apply here. In writing about the critics of Berlioz in the 19th century, he said:" For the ancient Berlioz critics were anything like fools...they reasoned logically about the nature of music, and, as they thought, they PROVED Berlioz to be a bad composer in terms of what were to them eternal verities. Much of what they said was true...if not Berlioz as a whole, at any rate of the youthful Berlioz. Yet, in spite of it all, Berlioz" (shall I also say now say Bruckner?) "not only lives on, but as far as public performances are concerned, is more alive than he ever was. What can the inference be but just this-that CRITICISM can be just as rotten to the core when it reasons as when it merely reacts... It becomes a question not only of what a new composer is in relation to other and older composers, but what he is in himself. It is this factor that declares itself in time...if there is something in a man's music that appeals for its own sake to a fair number of people, he (and that music) will become a classic in spite of all that criticism can urge against him. His defects will not be hidden from them-indeed, they will be less in dispute than they formerly were: but listeners will take these in their stride, frankly recognizing the alloy in the metal but still feeling that there is more than enough gold in it to compensate them."
I already see the snippet you played here has sparked this kind of debate, and I would not walk down a dark alley with a Bruckner cultist for a while if I were you, Dave. Will we be proved fools over the '0' in 100 years time, as Newman alludes had happened to ancient Berlioz critics? We won't give a damn by then, I think. All the best as always...
There is a huge difference between Newman's comment regarding critics of Berlioz as a composer generally, and my point that Bruckner is a genius whose masterpieces demonstrate the wisdom of his rejection of a single work. Remember, I am taking Bruckner's side. So I don't think it's a valid comparison at all.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Perhaps in my effort to type all that (a job I am not good at) I lost my point in agreement with you. Berlioz himself (as Bruckner here) moved beyond some youthful works. He refused some to be performed, despite the paucity of such things in his lifetime. Some may still enjoy them (as many are doing so here with the '0'), but your point about genius and its maturing taste, I agree, is a good one. I was trying to be ironical about those who laud the symphony despite this, and perhaps speculate on the reasons why it is still in the repertoire. No intention to disagree with you here, or fault your ear and musical reasoning. Sorry that was unclear. Onward to more enjoyment of your piquant and incisive video's...
The annulled is fantastic, Bruckner was always insecure and here he was wrong. Poschner made a gem out of it. I got the CD and it's most enjoyable to me. Also adding that I enjoy all of your amazing reviews, and I have seen all of them since day 1 of the channel. I just love how much you and horsey hate the 0! And regarding Brahms, I'll take Bruckners slightly sketchy but very charming annulled over his bloated and equally insecure first on any day.
Now, now. This isn't a zero-sum game. You were fine until you made a fool of yourself taking on Brahms. That was so unnecessary.
@@DavesClassicalGuide As a Viennese I love Brahms so much, except the horrible first - to my ears and taste. Just adding that I choose Dvorak over both of B&B.
@@KBMars Me too.
Who says Brahms 1 is awful? Thats just crazy talk. Give me Brahms 1 any day, Furtwangler and all!
I’ve only heard this symphony a couple of times and probably wasn’t paying enough attention. But that excerpt (particularly as it’s supposed to be the recapitulation for goodness sake) just sounds like a bunch of brucknery sounding things almost frantically strung together in hopes they might make sense somehow…
Indeed. The passage chosen sounds more like Bruckner parody.
This is one time, so far the only time, I couldn’t disagree with you more. I find this symphony far more compelling than either the first or second symphonies, which, to an extent, I have to force myself to listen to. The first movement of 0 is some of my favorite Bruckner. Still, I’ll listen to reassess in light of your comments. I will say I found the excerpt you offered in your video in no way backed up the comments you made just prior to it. Hearing the excerpt, I definitely agree this is one hell of a performance. As always, the recording you recommend just opens my ears and blows me away.
Van Beinum did a terrific version with the Concertgebouw. I bought the Poschner because I wanted a modern recording in great sound, with a stylish and speedy scherzo movement that rivals Van Beinum's.
I actually enjoyed the passage of crap you played in the video - what is wrong with me? I must confess that this passage makes more sense for me - the recapitulation with some extra stuff woven or thrown in - than the coda which follows and which seems to go on forever, repeating and restarting with the ostinato thing again and again. The same feeling of impatience, but to a lesser degree, do I have at a similar moment, the coda of the first movement of the second symphony, which seems too long for my taste, too. So not everything Bruckner writes after number 0 is good either. If one compares these codas for example to the ones of the first movements of the sixth or seventh, one can cleary see the improvements and the higher level of quality (or inspiration or genius if you like). The question is where you draw the "quality line" and different conductors drew that line differently, some play the nine numbered symphonies, some play all of them (and now even all versions) and some play the ones from number 3 onwards and some only the last three. All have their points, and the line the composer draw itself should certainly be respected (or at least considered) ... but it is so much fun quibbling with these things again and again, isn't it?
Yep!
Not only did he discard it -- he did nothing to revise it.
One rule of musical greatness is that the work is memorable. All I hear is disjointed ideas and cadences leading from nowhere to nowhere. It's almost listenable.
This work needed to be so cut that it would be uncharacteristically short for Bruckner.
Could interest in the symphony stem from the same curiosity we have when we want to hear Strauss' Symphonies in d minor and f minor? We want to hear how Strauss became Strauss or Bruckner became Bruckner? Nothing wrong with that I think? In that sense not a total waste of time.That said, the zero has never left my shelf since I first heard it. But Strauss f minor has been given a spin several times even if Raff wrote some more interesting symphonies than either infant Anton or Richard.
I am at odds with your interpersonal of Tobey's quotation. That said I agree with you concerning Bruckner's 0 and 00. Why don't we just do what Bruckner himself asked us to? He bequeathed to the ANL the scores that he wanted us to perform. That's so simple.
Does that title translate as The Nullity?
I guess Brahms was truly prescient in burning his manuscripts.
He was a smart man.
I don’t know, I think it’s reasonable to be interested in Bruckner 0. I’m not a Bruckner guy, but I understand why a scholar of Bruckner would want to study a piece the composer tells us “gilt nicht.” Why did Bruckner disown the piece? What might he have been going for, and why doesn’t it work out? Organizing performances and recording the piece to hear the result of his effort would be fascinating for Bruckner scholars I’d imagine.
Scholars very well might be arguing in favor of the piece over Bruckner’s word, but I’d be surprised since that is beyond the scope of scholarship. Non-scholarly Bruckner superfans would and probably are, they’re all a bit out there, but I doubt scholars are too.
Um, yes, the scholars are the biggest nuts of all when it comes to Bruckner. But otherwise, I quite agree that listening to failures can be interesting, and I think that is true in this case, provided at least part of the enjoyment comes from learning the difference between quality work and junk, and understanding, as you say, what Bruckner's reservations were. Even then, posterity need not agree with him, but let's at least try to understand what the issues might have been instead of saying that every note from "the master" is equally wonderful.
Don't forget that this symphony was written several years after No.1. A bit of an oddity.
I think it beats the saucy maiden, as he called the number one...
Still a fan, but when I hear his name from now on, I’m going to hear the horse sound and think, Frau Bruckner.
My hot take is that the 0th is less of an abomination than the 1889 revision of the 3rd
Well, we are spoiled when it comes to Bruckner abominations!
@@DavesClassicalGuide very true. I do sometimes listen to the Andris Nelsons Bruckner cycle to help me appreciate how great the best Bruckner recordings truly are in contrast
I wish I could write something so incompetent!
You could. Don't exaggerate the effort that went into creating this non-happening.
This symphony is so bad it should be given a negative numerical value. I own the Tintner box set and I give the disc it's on a wide berth.
Fancy numbering your composed Symphony ZERO !!! And that's what it is : a ZERO sounding Symphony