Mario Venzago describes this cycle as "a different Bruckner",
but it's not as different as he seems to think. Some ideas from
the period instrument movement are brought into play, but these
only serve to highlight the conventionality of the "modern"
performance conventions with which they rub shoulders. It's
a fascinating combination though, and the results are deeply
satisfying, even in these earlier works.
So what's new and what's old? Well, Venzago limits the vibrato
from the strings. He also uses a small string section. As a
result, the strings are able to play with exceptional clarity
and intimacy. They are also able to balance the brass in the
climaxes, and perhaps their metal strings are to thank for that.
Venzago sees rubato as a virtue and his tempos, while often
brisk, are always fluid. This allows him to build up to the
climaxes, despite his reduced forces and lack of string vibrato.
Another interesting feature of Venzago's approach is his conviction
that much more of Bruckner's orchestral music is chorale-based
than we think. As a result, he always tries to make the quieter
woodwind ensemble passages sound like male voice choirs, with
round, euphonious timbres and clearly articulated phrasing based
on the players' breathing. Again, this isn't really a radical
departure, but it allows Venzago a slightly different focus
for his interpretations.
Both of these works are usually considered in need of serious
help from the podium. In most recordings, the conductor will
try to justify programming Nos. 0 or 1 by doing everything in
his or her power to make the work in question sound like one
of Bruckner's last three. Venzago rightly sees that approach
as anachronistic. He also strives to present each of the symphonies
as an individual work, and so never stresses any interrelations
between them.
He demonstrates conclusively that neither piece needs apology
or excessive intervention. Schubert is his model in these earlier
symphonies, and the clarity of the textures that Venzago draws
from his reduced orchestra certainly highlights the continuity
between the symphonic languages of the two composers.
Personally, I'm convinced that the Zero Symphony is superior
to the First, but in Venzago's hands it is the First that really
shines. The precision of the textures, the subtle gradation
of articulations and the fluidity of the tempos all come together
to make this a dramatic and thoroughly convincing reading. The
ending of the first movement, for example, is as powerful and
incisive as any on record. The second movement initially seems
constrained, but by loosening his grip in some of the louder
tuttis, Venzago is able effectively to counter any suspicions
of Classical formality. The third movement is given propulsion
and gravitas, not by dynamic extremes, but by the range and
weight of the accents from the woodwind and brass. The finale
attains a truly symphonic scope through the interplay of powerful
orchestral tuttis and chamber-like interludes.
The Zero Symphony, great as it is, doesn't quite have the same
dramatic or rhetorical potential for Venzago to reinvent as
he'd like. It's still a great performance, and earns its place
in the catalogue through the insights that the smaller orchestra
and Schubertian performance practice bring.
It is interesting that these two symphonies have appeared so
early in the cycle. This is only the second instalment, after
a first which coupled Symphonies
4 and 7. The programming on the first release was clearly
based on commercial concerns, but putting these earlier works
on the second seems more like a statement of intent. I suspect
that these will be the most distinctive readings of the whole
cycle, but they augur well for some individual and accomplished
versions of the more famous symphonies later on.
Gavin Dixon
Masterwork Index: Symphonies
0 & 1
Tapiola Sinfonietta/Mario Venzago 