Many years ago I heard
Walter’s "Unfinished" with
the original 78s played on a smallish
gramophone and was struck how well it
sounded. Rose-tinted spectacles? The
sound here is imperfectly focused with
some unpleasantly strident tuttis. Have
Living Era tried to find too much range
in it? But never mind, if I didn’t have
those memories I would have accepted
this as reasonable for the time. Interestingly,
there is little apparent difference
between Vienna and London, not only
in the sound quality but in the characteristics
and standard of the orchestral playing
– tribute to Walter’s ability to get
not just good discipline but the style
and sound he wanted from an orchestra.
Walter’s Schubert contains
a few surprises, more of them good than
not. The first movement of the "Unfinished"
is remarkably tough, with powerful climaxes
and little inclination to dawdle in
second subject territory, loving though
the playing is. The second movement
is more problematic. The opening two
bars, with their pizzicato basses, are
so incredibly slow that one wonders
if he’ll ever reach the end, but then
the next two bars are taken at a quite
flowing tempo, then slow again for the
next pizzicato bars, and so on. It seems
that Walter is working out on the spur
of the moment the tempo which suits
him best, and this lack of structural
discipline seriously detracts from his
often revelatory exploration of inner
lines and textures. By the recapitulation
he has settled into a tempo and the
sensible thing would have been to go
back and start again. As it is, we are
left with a flawed vision of his deeply
felt, if unduly valedictory (Schubert
didn’t know the symphony was
going to end here) interpretation of
this movement.
The first movement
of the "Great" C major also
has an unsettling moment. After the
usual (unmarked) accelerando at the
end of the introduction, the first subject
enters at an absurdly pompous slow tempo,
speeds up for the wind answer and then
settles down into a quite swift, lightly
dancing tempo which, rather surprisingly
for those days, is maintained through
the second subject. The coda is also
remarkably straight. There is a drop
in tempo at the beginning of the exposition;
this would have been a new side and
it looks as though Walter had some difficulty
in picking up exactly the same tempo
as before after a forced halt (remember,
in those days everything was recorded
in four-minute takes). The second movement
seem to me pretty well ideal in its
unforced, relaxed yet forward-moving
pacing. The Scherzo is extremely interesting
for its continual subtle adjustments
to the pace; ultimately I prefer this
movement to have the symphonic drive
which Boult (for example) gave it, but
the gentle Viennese charm
of Walter has its own attractions. Walter’s
finale is lively and fresh without attempting
the sort of incandescence which Toscanini
achieved here and which Ančerl
and Boult also essay.
Ultimately, I think
these performances give us an interesting
peep into the past rather than unmatchable
classics. Walter’s interpretations of
these symphonies can obviously be heard
in more recent sound, so this is not
quite the essential resuscitation it
looks. There is a good note by David
Patmore.
Christopher Howell
Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (no.8), London
Symphony Orchestra (no.9)/Bruno Walter 
