Posted by Mike Mukl on June 14, 19102 at 23:58:51:

In Reply to: Wand & Kubelik recordings, etc. posted by Warren Malach on May 28, 19102 at 18:33:39:

Finally, some thing of value, rather than what seems to be norm on this site, i.e.: "oooo, I love Bruckner's music, but is it really true that he actually drank beer and really liked to eat a big dinner and actually liked girls and actually went to look at dead people in funeral homes? Oh, my".

Since U da man of the moment, I'll answer (or comment) on all of your points.

1. 2 volume bio?? WOW!!!! About time. I've read pretty much everthing of value that's available in English (in the USA, anyway), short of all of the old Bruckner Society "Chord and Dischord" journals from the 1930s, and there really isn't that much material. Mahler, and other composers, on the other hand, have reams and reams of material published about them. Thanks a mill for the heads up.

2. Kubelik s. His Columbia (now Sony) 3rd reveals no insights, nor anything special at all. There are loads of better performances. Who's cares what Schoenzeler said; after all, he also said that Haitink represented the "purest style" of Bruckner conducting, and that was in regard to the ultra-wimpy 60s recordings, not the later digital 90s ones where good ol Haitinky goosed things up a bit.

3. Wand's recorded enough Bruckner. How many cycles do you need? That said, his first cycle has an outstanding 6th, full of insights, and his second recording of the 6th, while not quite at the same level, nevertheless has the inimitable spontaneity that Wand was capable of when at his best. Lot's of
people like Wand, especially those who feel burdened by the spritual aspects of the composer's music, which Wand manages to neutralize to a large degree, without, however, violating the spirit of the music. Any music of genius and lasting value may be played in an endless variety of ways - that's one the things that makes it great - and Wand's emphasis on symphonic structure together with his uncanny improvisatory feel, is completely valid. Personally, I prefer getting ALL of the aspects of the composer's style in balance and front and center; hence, I prefer Karajan by and large.

4. The reverberation of the first Wand cycle recording is excellent.

5. Eichhorn. Well, he's no Wand, much less a Furtwangler or a Karajan. Still, he's far superior to the usual sissies like Chailly and (1960s) Haitink (actually, Haitink's 1990's digital Bruckner isn't that bad - the 3rd is pretty good).
And, he was willing to give us obscure versions of the early works. The orchestra has a nice sonority,
tho it lacks the precision and virtuosity of top flight outfits, which I don't miss hardly at all when I'm listening to one of their recordings, so right is their sound. Nice recordings, too.

6. America Record Guide is worthless. The editor is
a homoual with a really gay slant on many topics (especially Bruckner, for some reason, whom editor Vroon refers too as "sweet" -- Brucker is "sweet"!!), as well as an annoyingly lisping, gay writing style. Nothing they've ever written about Bruckner is of any value, since (like many gay folk) they do little more than spew some superficial nonsence and drivel about their silly grasp of the "sweet" composer.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup