Bruckner: Symphony No. 8 in C minor, WAB 108 [1st version; 1887] (with Score)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лип 2024
- Anton Bruckner:
Symphony No. 8 in C minor, WAB 108 [1st version; 1887] (with Score)
Composed: 1887
Conductor: Eliahu Inbal
Orchestra: Frankfurt Radio Symphony (hr-Sinfonieorchester)
00:00 1. Allegro moderato (C minor)
14:07 2. Scherzo: Allegro moderato (C minor) - Trio: Langsam (A-flat major)
27:35 3. Adagio: Feierlich langsam, doch nicht schleppend (D-flat major)
54:28 4. Finale: Feierlich, nicht schnell (C minor)
In 1887, an elated Anton Bruckner sent the score of his eighth symphony to his newly found champion, conductor Hermann Levi. The accompanying letter read, "To my artistic father. Alleluia! May it find grace!" Nevertheless, this immense symphony, dwarfing anything in history before it, was greeted with trepidation by the conductor. After the recent breakthrough success of the Symphony No. 7, Levi was reluctant to hurt the composer's feelings, so he sent a friend to break the news to Bruckner. The result was a nervous collapse on the part of the sensitive, self-doubting composer -- and, upon recuperation, an extensive revision of the symphony. In its new form -- somewhat pruned and with many dramatic new features (including a different ending to the first movement and a new trio) -- the still imposing work was premiered in 1892 under Hans Richter with the Vienna Philharmonic. A more complete triumph could hardly have been hoped for. Bruckner's rival Brahms heartily joined in the long ovation, while the critic Hanslick, the bane of Bruckner's existence, fled the hall amidst jeers and hisses from the audience.
Even in its revised form the work was the longest symphony on record, with a performance time of roughly 80 minutes. The stern character of the work earned it the nickname "Apocalyptic" (a subtitle which has largely fallen by the wayside), and indeed there is the impression of an eruption as the highly chromatic opening theme thunders out in the full orchestra. A complex of solemn themes unfolds, and an almost cosmic battle occurs in the development section; the recapitulation reaches an awesome climax against an obstinate brass figure; the grim, fading coda, appended in the revision, was described by the composer as a "wake."
The immense scherzo, one of Bruckner's best, is constructed around an infectious carillon-like figure, and was said by the composer to represent the German national figure "Cousin Michael." The trio is expansive and dreamlike in quality.
The following adagio is perhaps the longest in the literature and it unfolds in visions of religious ecstasy, reaching a climax similar but structurally surpassing that of the Symphony No. 7. The serenity of its coda is jarringly contrasted with the opening of the finale in which the opening urgency of the first movement returns with even greater intensity. Militant fanfares hammer out the main theme against a jabbing ostinato; a meditative second theme and a rhythmic third are worked out on a vast scale; the sudden return of the opening theme in the recapitulation is one of the most terrifying moments in all of Bruckner's music. The coda to the entire symphony is perhaps Bruckner's greatest orchestral achievement. Over a slow, inexorable build-up the main theme of each movement is reworked in a major key and played in counterpoint with the others, bringing this titanic work to an awe-inspiring close. (www.allmusic.com/composition/...)
The 4th movement intro is one of the best openings ever
yes
Yes, and it is anticipated or foreshadowed by the coda of the first movement in the original version, providing a sense of unity that the revised version lacks. Bruckner was right when he composed the original version, it makes much more sense than the revised one.
@@pepehaydn7039 I couldn't disagree more. The somber coda of the first movement in the revised version is answered by the coda of the finale, magnifying its impact. In the 1887 version, the ending of the 1st both fails on its own and diminishes the finale.
@@GreenTeaVieweryea ima have to say the revised version is sooo much more polished
@@joseg.matamoros2847 indeed
This recording is very clear. All instruments of the Orchestra are up close and personal
Although the revised version got rid of the ending to the first movement that I personally think was trying too hard to make a triumphant ending just for the sake of it, I actually prefer how he handled a lot of the details in the 1887 version. The second version is got rid of a lot of the more edgy, more stylistically Brucknerian elements. Sure, this version has its own problems that could’ve used some smoothening out but generally it is already peak Brucknerian to me.
EDIT: more thoughts: The larger instrumentation (triple woodwinds) sometimes makes the orchestra sound more muffled, making a lot of interesting details inaudible. The recapitulation in the of the 1890 version (8:29 of ua-cam.com/video/OJSJeieA7B0/v-deo.html ) sounds unconvincing to me, the string tutti part (9:01 of the video mentioned above) is interesting yet to me feels out of place (material like that could fit in better in his Ninth in my humble opinion), like it is not meant to be in this piece of symphony. To me, the original recapitulation works a lot better than the rewritten one.
The coda of the 1 mov. does not try to make a triumphant ending but anticipates or points to the 4 mov explicitly, but falsely, creating a easily discernible tension that the revised version lacks. I adition, in the original version the contraposition between the abrupt, savage 1 mov and the extremely refined 4 mov is more evident. In the revised version Bruckner pulished the 1 mov in a very successful way, AS AN INDEPENDENT MOVEMENT, so to say, but the result is incoherent with the whole sympony. Only the orginal version provides a coherent symphonic experience. That's is why the revised version by Jochum, Haitink, Jarvi, Giulini and Wand has been never my cup of tea: because it is devoid of the genial mind of Bruckner to build a coherent masterwork.
Never heard the 1887 version until now..
Listened a few times and can safely say I love both 1887 and 1890 versions. Both incredible!
Wow, some strong feelings against this version.
I actually prefer this version to the revised version. Maybe it's because I heard this version first. But, for whatever reason, this version works for me in ways the revised version doesn't.
Thank you for creating this.
You are right, the original version is much better. That's why we are seeing more recordings of it lately.
The worst part of the revised version occurs at about 2:50 of this recording, right around bar 79, where the horn call was completely altered and the notes are all wrong; they don't make sense.
@@billyh4068 the revised version is way better
@@billyh4068 don’t apologize for your opinion, it’s ok, but the first version includes so much nonsense. The end of the first movement is just annoying stupidity, but the end of the first movement in the revised version is perfect. The voices are much better harmonized in the revised version. The revised version sounds much bigger and better. The first version sounds like a demo-version of the final version. But even if I like the coda of the final version more, I must admit it’s a nice effect, that the trumpets are playing their solomelody alone and then there is the big orchestra hit after that. But I like the final coda still more. I just must say, the final version is so perfect, sometimes my favorite Bruckner Symphony, but the first version has so many stupid stuff included an just doesn’t sound as good as the final version. But why do you like the first version more?
I mean seriously, the end of the first movement is just so stupid and comes out of nowhere, i have no idea why Bruckner wrote that.. but it’s just my opinion, maybe it’s because iam used to the revised version.
YES
So glad he revised it.
So glad Haas made a combined version because I find both equally as good, maybe I even prefer this one.
@@rafexrafexowski4754 We have to disagree on this one. Haas' proclivity to create unsanctioned hybrid versions (he did the same with the 2nd Symphony) is a nuisance.
Bruckner was making it difficult enough with all of his different versions, the last thing his body of work needs is editors who start cherry picking their favourite parts from each version.
Bruckner was the master of the scherzo
Sehr gut gespierd.
È una vera fortuna oggi per noi poter ascoltare e confrontare con Bruckner due se non tre versioni dei suoi capolavori sinfonici. Ma immagino le sofferenze e le pene che questo grande compositore dovette passare sulla propria pelle per essere "accettato" dai critici e dal pubblico.
Abbiamo però scoperto che il suo caso non fu poi così "isolato" come si è fatto credere per anni, poiché negli ultimi decenni abbiamo scoperto che anche Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann e Brahms avevano spesso concepito le loro bellissime Sinfonie (e non solo) in maniera un po' diversa da come le abbiamo sempre udite.
Ciò ci fa comprendere come la loro perfezione fu spesso frutto di ripensamenti, magari dettati dal timore di non piacere o di subire critiche feroci da coloro che Saint-Saens e Mahler raffigurarono come animali dalle lunghe orecchie.
Gosh i actually prefer this one than the revised versions
The revised Version ist just "Bruckner gor dummies".
私はこの第一稿が一番好きです。
58:32
59:01
1:05:40
1:03:56
1:06:45
1:13:09
what are the differences with the other version?
1:13:00
Please do the revised version with the Bernard Haitink recording
@@billyh4068You wouldn't say the same if someone had revised you
I literally did not recognize the 1st movement.
I just love the critics who really do not understand Bruckner at all. They prefer a creative person to bow down to the critics and kiss their uncreative feet. I'll take this over a so-called 'polished' version any day. The revised versions were done to appease the very loud and trashy critics of Vienna who were just awful human beings.
In many ways I like this original better than the revision. In particular, the ascending scales at 11:47 and 16:33 are clear and strong here, while the revision sounds garbled by comparison.
Yet the revision is more progressive harmonically, foreshadowing the Ninth.
Agree this is a poor performance. Eliahu Inbal is someone i want to like, but he's just too fast for this music, especially at the Finale's beginning. (But only Celibidache follows Bruckner's written "Feierlich, *nicht* schnell" (my emphasis)).
1:00:16 Strings part wrong note😬
Which part exactly? I don't hear it.
01:04:46 Z
x0.75 for finale
The revised version is so much better
I couldn't disagree with you more.
As an example, go to the 2:50 mark, about bar 79. The notes of the horn call were changed and they sound terrible in the revised version.
"Levi was reluctant to hurt the composer's feelings, so he sent a friend to break the news to Bruckner." How am I supposed to understand that, a conductor tells an already celebrated composer, "sorry, my friend, but this symphony is just too long / too badly composed"? Don't really get behind this ...
Better this way than Hanslick telling him...
It's too fast :(
13:11 this ending to the 1st movement is one of the most trashy endings by a composer. EVER. I am so glad Bruckner revised it because the new ending he made was so much more effective and meaningful, as compared to this noisy, vulgar piece of trash.
I wouldn't call it trashy, but you're right. It doesn't match the energy and atmosphere of the movement and secondly, it sounds like a Bruckner-Scherzo because of the repeated figures (brass and especially strings) what builds an unnecessary redundance with the second movement.
The ending to the movement is triumphant, not trashy, and your criticism is way over the top.
Yawn. One fanfare after another. Tiresome.Can't stomach Bruckner. Bye.
Byeeeeeee .. mind how you go now!
awful performance, so fast. Not bruckner