This is the third instalment of Simone Young’s Bruckner cycle
in which, so far at least, she is using original versions of
the scores. Gary Higginson reviewed
her recording of the Third Symphony and last year I welcomed
her account of the Second. I had some difficulties in appraising
this latest release but that is nothing to do with the quality
of the performance or the recording, both of which are excellent.
The difficulty concerns the text. In the case of the Second
Symphony the differences between the original score, recorded
by Miss Young, and the later, revised versions that are more
familiar to collectors boiled down, in essence, to some cuts
and a reordering of the two middle movements. In the case of
the Fourth, however, what we have is something infinitely more
challenging.
Bruckner’s first
version of his Fourth Symphony was finished in 1874 but there
are later versions of the score. Bruckner revised the work between
1878 and 1880 and this 1878/80 version formed the basis for
the edition by Robert Haas, which is perhaps the most commonly
heard edition nowadays. Leopold Nowak’s subsequent edition
is based on the 1886 revision: Simon Rattle is among the conductors
who have recorded Nowak’s edition (see review).
In the booklet note Michael Lewin mentions another revision,
from 1880, but I’m not aware of any recordings of that text.
The 1874 version has been recorded at least once, by Eliahu
Inbal. Patrick Waller made passing, favourable reference to
that recording in our 2005 survey
of Bruckner symphony recordings but I haven’t heard it and this
is my first encounter with the original version of the score.
Like me, I suspect
that most Bruckner collectors will know the piece primarily
through the 1878/80 score – I don’t believe that the differences
between that edition and Nowak’s edition of the 1886 text are,
on the surface at least, all that marked. Frankly, I was amazed
at how great are the differences between the 1874 and 1878/80
texts. In summary the music that you’ll hear on this CD contains
much of the thematic material that we are accustomed to hearing
but in this first version Bruckner presents that material in
a very different and often more elaborate guise. Even if I were
qualified so to do, readers would not want to read paragraphs
of detailed explanation of the textural differences and in any
case, lacking a score of the original version of the Fourth,
I’m simply not equipped to provide such a comparison. You may
legitimately wonder if the notes don’t contain an adequate explanation.
Up to a point they do. Unfortunately, Michael Lewin’s essay
is scholarly and detailed but, at least as translated, it’s
a hard read and it rather relies upon the reader having to hand
a copy of Nowak’s edition of the score.
So my comments are
going to be more general and I think the best thing to say is
that seasoned Brucknerians will find this a fascinating listen
but the more general collector should approach with a degree
of caution simply because they won’t be acquiring a performance
of one of Bruckner’s most popular symphonies in its familiar
guise.
The first movement
is simply marked Allegro – by 1879/80 this has changed
to Bewegt, nicht zu schnell – and it’s interesting to
observe that Miss Young isn’t afraid to take the tempo marking
literally and to push the music forward in a red-blooded but
convincing way. At the opening of this movement we hear thematic
material that’s familiar from the 1878/80 score. However, pretty
soon (from around 2:20) Bruckner’s treatment and development
of the material takes us into unfamiliar territory. The accompanying
orchestral detail, for example, is often more elaborate, even
ornate, than is the case in 1878/80. Arguably the 1878/80 score
is more taut and well organised but there’s a good case to be
made that much of what we hear in this earlier version is very
interesting, especially when played with the conviction of this
performance.
There’s some material
between 5:30 and 6:24 that was completely excised from the revision;
it’s quite dark and grave. As the movement unfolds we hear quite
a bit more music that was cut completely in 1878/80. What’s
especially fascinating is how passages that sound familiar –
or nearly so – from the 1878/80 version come and go – for example
the music between 13:45 and 14:26 largely survived into the
revised score. From 18:44 the build up to the last climax resembles
the corresponding section in the 1878/80 score but the music
here doesn’t sound as assured or grand – and the loud passage
that immediately precedes it sounds to me a little as if Bruckner
was rather feeling his way at this point. The ending is not
as exciting as Bruckner later made it and in particular the
final bars do not feature the great opening horn theme sung
out proudly by the horn section in unison and supported by pillar-like
chords from the rest of the orchestra. The revision of these
bars alone in 1878/80 was a massive improvement on the 1874
first thoughts.
The second movement
also opens with the theme that we recognise from 1878/80 though
the accompaniment is subtly different. The marking, Andante,
quasi allegretto, was unchanged between 1874 and 1878/80.
Simone Young’s tempo is relatively swift, leaning towards the
second half of Bruckner’s instruction. As was the case in the
first movement, though the basic material is the same, there
are significant differences between its treatment in 1874 and
in 1878/80. The big climax near the end of the movement is prefaced
by a significant stretch of unfamiliar music. In this passage
it’s noticeable that from 14:58 onwards Bruckner underpins everything
with repeated, throbbing triplets. It’s only when we get to
16:44 that the music is recognisably the progenitor of the climax
in 1878/80.
The biggest shock
of all so far comes with the scherzo. The first two movements
have been based on material that will be familiar to all who
know the Fourth. However, in making his 1878/80 revision Bruckner
wrote a completely new scherzo, discarding the movement that
Simone Young plays. This 1874 movement has none of the “hunting
horn” material; indeed, the music bears no relation at all to
the scherzo that we all know. It carries the marking Sehr
schnell. Trio. Im gleichen Tempo. At the very outset a short,
pithy motif is played by an unaccompanied solo horn. That’s
the melodic cell on which much of the movement is based and,
actually, it proves to be excellent, pliable material on which
to base a scherzo. The call is answered by a rather strange,
“rushing” passage for the rest of the orchestra and again we’ll
hear variants of that material at various points in the movement.
Michael Lewin suggests that at first hearing the music sounds
“ragged, restless, [and] seems strangely unbalanced and difficult
to come to terms with.” To me it sounds that way even after
more than one hearing but therein lies its interest. It’s quite
strange music and it strikes me as somewhat experimental. The
movement is somewhat disjointed at times and I don’t believe
it’s anything like as tightly organised as the scherzo that
replaced it – the trio section is not as interesting as the
corresponding section in the 1878/80 scherzo. However, the movement
as a whole is a most interesting listen, even if the replacement
movement is much to be preferred.
The finale of the
Fourth clearly caused Bruckner considerable difficulties for
there are no less than three different texts. The one that’s
widely known was composed in 1880 and forms part of the 1878/80
text. However, just to complicate matters there’s a chronologically
intermediate version, the so-called Volksfest movement.
This has been recorded at least once, as a standalone item in
Georg Tintner’s Naxos cycle, where it’s coupled with the “Study
Symphony”, known as Symphony No 00. I see that Tony Duggan reviewed
that CD and commented that in comparison with the 1880 finale,
“the "Volksfest" gets diverted down cul-de-sacs where
the final version is stronger and more focussed.” I agree entirely.
And since, so far as I can judge without access to scores, the
1874 finale is much closer as a text to the Volksfest than
to the 1880 text then Tony’s judgement is valid also in terms
of the movement played by Miss Young.
It’s worth saying
that the tempo marking for the 1880 finale is Bewegt, doch
nicht zu schnell. The 1874 version – and the Volksfest,
for that matter – is simply marked Allegro moderato.
As was the case with the first two movements there are many
passages in the finale that recognisably have the same musical
DNA as the 1880 finale but there are frequent excursions into
unfamiliar territory and quite often these excursions are rather
unproductive. What may catch the ear of listeners more than
anything else is the very end of the finale. The conclusion
to the 1878/80 version is magnificent, combining first mystery
and then majesty in the build up to the final peroration where
the horn call, heard at the very start of the symphony, reaches
its apotheosis, wrapped in tunes of glory. The Volksfest
offers a halfway house. By then Bruckner was nearly there, though
even then he hadn’t broken through to the splendour of the 1880
version By the side of the 1880 text, or even the Volksfest,
the 1874 text is a sad disappointment. Bruckner’s original ending
is a rather prosaic and obvious major key blaze. He was to do
something similar later in his career for in some ways I’m reminded
of his original conclusion to the first movement of the Eighth,
where his second thoughts happily replaced a comparatively crude
fortissimo ending with the masterly, desolate music with
which we are all familiar.
As I indicated at
the outset, in some ways I’ve found this a difficult assignment.
It’s far from easy to evaluate such a different version of a
symphony that one has come to know so well. In particular, it’s
a challenge not to make the assumption, even subconsciously,
that the familiar 1878/80 text is “better” simply because it’s
well known. I do believe that the 1878/80 text is better because
I feel that the material in the first two movements and in the
finale is much more tautly organised and successfully developed
in that later version. I also think that the 1878 scherzo works
better and is much more logical. In the last analysis, the 1878/80
text is structurally much more sound and satisfying, I believe,
and I genuinely think that this view is not just the result
of familiarity with one text over another.
That said, the 1874
version is a fascinating document, not least because it gives
us many revealing insights into the evolution of a masterpiece.
And in many ways it shows Bruckner as a more daring and experimental
composer earlier in his career than we may have believed. The
cause of this early version is advanced enormously through the
splendid advocacy of Simone Young and her players. I take my
hat off to the members of Philharmoniker Hamburg for two reasons.
Firstly, and obviously, because they play so magnificently.
But also I admire them for turning in such a convincing performance
of a score that must have challenged them. Individually and
collectively they must have played Bruckner’s Fourth many times
– but always in the familiar version. I’m sure they found it
fascinating but also rather difficult to play a piece that seems
familiar but which isn’t, in fact, all that familiar. Bear in
mind also that this recording originates from concert performances.
As for Miss Young’s
conducting, all I can say is that she convinced me at every
turn. She seems to be in full command of both her orchestra
and the score. Her credentials as a Bruckner interpreter are
becoming more apparent with each release in this cycle. However,
I‘d very much like to hear her also tackle the 1878/80 text,
perhaps as an appendix to her cycle.
I listened to this
SACD as a conventional CD and I found the sound very satisfying.
It’s clear yet has all the richness and amplitude one could
desire. The notes, as I indicated earlier, are scholarly and
detailed but they’re also rather earnest and they’re not easy
to read. Perhaps the translator is to blame – I don’t know because
I can’t read the German original. However, as this series, based
on original versions, is so important and the textural issues
are so crucial to an appreciation of it I’d urge OEHMS to seek
greater clarity in the notes for future issues.
The 1874 version
of the Fourth is unlikely to be heard often in performance so
Bruckner collectors should seize the opportunity to hear it
in this splendid performance.
John Quinn
Philharmoniker
Hamburg/Simone Young 
