When you think about it, it's odd that we've had to wait
so long to hear Bruckner's popular Romantic Symphony
as he first wrote it. (see footnote) Differences
in minor details between editions of the symphonies suffice
to spawn reams of critical and scholarly exegesis. Despite
all this conductors apparently deemed the original score of
the Romantic unworthy of consideration. Even its publication
as part of the Leopold Nowak edition had no avail . Since
the "revisions" amount to a wholesale rewrite, this
original version holds interest not merely for clichéd academic
reasons - "an insight into the composer's creative process"
and so forth - but as a satisfying symphonic construction
in its own right.
Predictably, some changes are clearly intended to correct
poorly-judged balances, as at bar 413 in the first movement,
where two unison flutes playing the theme simply can't hold
their own against the variegated brass activity. Elsewhere
we find the composer changing the sound and the sense of other
passages that work perfectly well as they stand, clarifying
textures, groping towards his distinctive, mature style.
The first movement sounds recognizable enough to begin
with. Before long, however, small differences from the later
version - a filled-in woodwind harmony here, some fresh counterpoint
there - cumulatively contribute to the creation of an unfamiliar
sound-world. The additional activity gives the movement a
fluid contour very different from the stark, granitic edges
of its final form. The more or less continuous flow reminded
me of César Franck's symphony. Among the few passages that
didn't survive the revisions, a spacious string chorale, introducing
the development, is striking.
At the start of the second movement, the string accompaniment,
sparse yet clearly rhythmic in the revision, sounds markedly
busier here, especially as Dennis Russell Davies interprets
the Andante, quasi allegretto designation - identical
to that in the later version - rather briskly. The agitated
undercurrent this adds to the suggested march rhythm pervades
this movement, not even letting up at the close as it normally
would. Beginning at bar 191, an open, widely-spaced texture,
most uncharacteristic of this composer, provokes an eerie
anticipation.
Next comes a standard-issue one-in-a-bar Scherzo similar
to Bruckner's others, rushing string figures and all, though
the soft, peremptory horn fanfare that launches it hints at
the bracing "hunting horn" movement to come. The
Trio sounds like simplicity itself, though the nervous
edge of light violin tremolos belies the theme's bucolic serenity.
We occasionally hear familiar motifs in the Finale,
but they are developed in unfamiliar ways: this movement,
too, would be substantially rewritten. It's easier to assimilate
the structure of this earlier form, because of the immediately
recognizable, ear-catching motifs, but it misses the irresistible
surge that emerges in the best performances of the revision.
Dennis Russell Davies has been indulging his intrepid side
in the recording studio: first the Hans Rott E major Symphony
for the CPO label, and now this. He sets judicious tempi -
save perhaps for the brisk Andante previously cited
- and keeps things moving in good order, a few questionable
agogics aside, while characterizing the individual episodes.
Under his direction, the Linz orchestra makes a rich, cushioned
tutti sound that never loses definition. The oboes
tend to dominate the woodwind choir, producing an appropriate
organlike color. The warm, well-balanced horns, on the other
hand, are too frequently homogenized into textural filler
where they should cut a stronger profile. The sound makes
a suitably full-bodied impact, though the opening soft tremolos
are lost in the ambience - wasn't digital recording supposed
to cure this? A touch of congestion invades the Finale's
first climax.
Stephen
Francis Vasta
Footnote
I realize that this review of the Davies recording of the
1874 edition of Bruckner's Fourth appeared several years ago
but I just stumbled on it today (July09),
and was surprised to see the line "When you think about
it, it's odd that we've had to wait so long to hear Bruckner's
popular Romantic Symphony as he first wrote it. "
In fact, of course, we didn't have to wait so long: by the
time this review appeared in April 2006 (indeed, even before
the recording was made in 2003), the 1874 version of the Fourth
Symphony had already been recorded by Woess (31 years before
the review), Inbal (a quarter of a century or so before the
review--a much admired recording, reissued often), Lopez-Cobos,
Rozhdestvensky... And, of course, there have been lots of
recordings since then.
I realize that none of us can know all the recordings out
there, but this is not simply a matter of missing some obscure
corners of the discography. It's a serious distortion of history.
Peter J. Rabinowitz
Contributing Editor, Fanfare
