Post by tream June 1, 2010 (1 of 13)
|
|
From the Abruckner.com email:
"May saw the imminent release of Osmo Vanska's recording of the Bruckner Symphony No. 4 with the Minnesota Orchestra. This recording is the first international release of the new Korstvedt edition of the Symphony which follows the published edition of 1888."
Professor Korstvedt seems to be quite an authority on Bruckner. Here's his bio:
http://www.clarku.edu/academiccatalog/facultybio.cfm?id=448
It would be interesting to know some of the reasoning behind this edition, why Vanksa chose to perform it instead of the more typical editions, what are the significant differences, etc. Any Brucknerites out there who can shed some light? Robert, how about you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the differences from Nowak are not going to be noticed by the average listener. However, one difference does indeed -- quite literally -- stand out. The cymbal crash near the opening of the Finale originates with this "first published" edition. Interesting to note that a number of conductors famous for being Haas and Nowak purists reinstated the cymbal crash in their public and recorded performances of the Fourth: Karajan and Jochum, just to mention two....
|
|
|
Post by krisjan June 3, 2010 (4 of 13)
|
|
Received my copy of this today. Hope to get around to listening within a week.
|
|
|
Post by krisjan July 13, 2010 (5 of 13)
|
|
Another view of this one: http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12873
Based on his comments in the text, the actual performance is a 9 or 10 (sound is 10) but it ends up as a 5 because he is insulted by the Korstvedt edition. Well worth having in one's collection as long as you also have other versions of this great work.
|
|
|
Post by fafnir July 13, 2010 (6 of 13)
|
|
In the booklet accompanying the SACD, Korstvedt makes what appears to be a very compelling case for the legitimacy of his edition. According to him, it incorporates many last changes made by Bruckner in his own handwriting. Not being an expert, I have no way of judging for myself the accuracy of his assertions. However, Vanska is great musician and was enthusiastic enough to choose this edition for his recording. Personally, I am satisfied as to it validity. Others, certainly including Hurwitz, obviously feel otherwise.
It is my favorite recording of this symphony. Whether from the occasional differences in orchestration and balances, interpretive care, excellent sound or all three, there is a wealth of detail revealed. However, no massive changes are made to the structure of the work. The performance is as fine, or finer, than any I have ever heard, including Bohm and Walter. No one who loves this work need be put off by Hurwitz's review.
|
|
|
Post by tream July 13, 2010 (7 of 13)
|
|
My copy arrived yesterday. I don't pay attention to what Hurwitz says.
|
|
|
Post by wehecht July 13, 2010 (8 of 13)
|
|
Personally I find Bruckner a tough nut, and it's probably telling that my favorite symphony is the 6th. In other words my tastes in Bruckner are probably somewhat outside the mainstream and I'm certainly no authority on the multiple editions of his scores. Nonetheless I found this disc quite compelling, unusually flowing and coherent with many fewer seams showing than "normal". Lovely sound too.
|
|
|
Post by krisjan July 13, 2010 (9 of 13)
|
|
fafnir said:
However, no massive changes are made to the structure of the work. The performance is as fine, or finer, than any I have ever heard, including Bohm and Walter. No one who loves this work need be put off by Hurwitz's review.
I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "massive". As noted in my review, there are 65 measures cut from the Scherzo movement which I think does change the character of that movement if not the entire work. Other than that, I agree with your sentiments about this SACD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And also what edition you are comparing it to - the first edition (as performed by Simone Young) is radically different to those with the replaced Scherzo and extensively revised Finale!
|
|
