Intonation,
Balance, Size and Seating of the Orchestra
At Bruckner's times, the intonation in the orchestra was quite different
- not the muddy adoption of the >compromised< intonation of the
modern piano, but largely a pure intonation (fifths and thirds),
as it was available in Berlin, due to the influence of Joseph
Joachim and his pupils, almost until ca 1940. Only the pure, >naturally
harmonic< intonation would bring all the colours of Bruckner's
harmony, so full of enharmonics and chromaticism. The fabric of
contemporary woodwind instruments tests the case: Before 1900
- as, for instance, preserved in collections in Vienna - they
had keyholes bored in a different intonation. For this reason,
ourday's contemporary orchestras which still use those old instruments
achieve better results in Bruckner (such as the Orchestra of
the Age of Enlightenment or the Orchestre des Champs-Élysées),
because even modern-trained string players automatically adopt
their playing to what they hear from the woodwind and brass. On
the opposite, modern woodwind and brass instruments have our typical >compromised< intonation; this, together with some peculiar bad
habits of string intonation routine, like sharpening sharps and
flatening flats, brings bad results for Bruckner - there should
be an audible difference between, let's say, F sharp or G flat
major. The conductor should at least be aware of such shortcomings.
The knowledge on contemporary instruments may already answer important
questions regarding the balance. The brass instruments were at
about a third smaller, and at about half as loud as today. The
large F-Trumpet, handmade Horns and Trombones of that time produce
a much more pungent, full, and rich sound, even if not so horribly
powerful like ourday's batteries. Also woodwind instruments were
much more colourful those days. With modern, large brass instruments,
the conductor should in any case always double woodwind instruments
to improve the balance, and care for at least 8 Basses, 8 Celli,
and 10 Violas. For Bruckner's four-part-writing of harmony, it
is essential to make audible particularly the inner voices, Alto
and Tenor. (The outer parts are audible anyway!) The brass should
never outpower the woodwind. Not ourday's monstrous Horns and
Trombones, of which one only can destroy an entire orchestral
balance, but the woodwinds should dominate the wind sound even
in the loudest fortissimo! Bruckner referred
in his scores to the practice of the Wiener Philharmoniker,
including a string orchestra of ca. 12-12-10-8-8. It was common
already to double the woodwinds with such a number of strings.
Traditionally, in Vienna the two Violin groups were placed on
the left and right side of the rostrum, the Double Basses (four-stringed)
in one row behind the orchestra. (Note that every concert
orchestra of the 19th Century before 1912 disposed
the Violins antiphonally!) Celli were sitting left behind the
first, Violas right behind the second Violins. However, it might
be helpful to reverse this and place the Violas left behind the
first Violins, so that they can reflect their sound directly to
the audience instead of to the rear wall. Furthermore, the second
Violins feel much more comfortable with Celli behind them. In
so doing, the Tenor part, so important in Bruckner's voice leading
and design, will be better audible, which contributes significantly
to the spaciality of sound. Hence it might be possible as well
to place the Horns to the left behind the Violas, Trumpets, Trombones
and Tuba to the right, behind Celli. This would make the sound
of the brass less heavy. In this context it is interesting to
learn that already in the old Gewandhaus in Leipzig, the Violas
stood (!) behind the second Violins, which, however, stood to
the left from the conductor, and the first stood to his right,
with Celli sitting behind them. Only after the move into the new
Gewandhaus in 1874 this practice was given up, and Violin and
Viola players were allowed to sit down in concert.
—
Recommended: Daniel J. Koury, Orchestral Performance Practices
in the 19th Century: Size, Proportions, and Seating. UMI
Research Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1986, ISBN 0-8357-1649-X
. Jutta Stüber: Die Intonation des Geigers, Köln 1989.
Instruments
As explained above,
many of ourday's balance problems result in the changes of instrument
manufacture during the 20th century. On >period instruments< such
problems usually don't occur. Hence, one should generally consider
the specific instruments for which Bruckner wrote: He was used
to hearing spun gut strings, played with almost no vibrato, but
sometimes with portamento, in more distinct intonation and in
a >pure tone<: the habit to cover bad intonation with large vibrato
only occurred after 1923, following the fatal suggestions by Carl
Flesch in his Violin School. The Viennese Flutes had a distinct,
wooden, but thin sound. Quite new, from ca 1875, were the Viennese
Oboes (but in fact of German origin), with their pear-like mouthpiece,
sounding quite similar to a Baroque Oboe d'amore; Clarinets and
Bassoons of a particular Viennese fabric were common there until
ca. 1900 - note in particular the Viennese Bassoon, sometimes
even with a metallic sound cup, and a sharp, reedy sound. The
famous Viennese Horns were handmade, more narrow bored, like all
other brass instruments of that time, about one third smaller,
and produced much less volume than today's brass. The smaller
Bass-Tuba and larger Doublebass-Tuba were of a particular Viennese
manufacture as well. Trumpets in D and C, but in particular the
blazing, double-lengthed F-Trumpet and light, narrow bored Trombones
were also common. Bruckner wrote for Trombones in the old-fashioned
style, but the two upper parts were played on the same instrument,
usually a Tenorbasstrombone in E flat. As Ken Shifrin pointed
out in his dissertation, a real Alto Trombone is required only
in Bruckner's early works before 1868; however, it is possible
to play the f-minor Symphony and the g-minor Ouverture with an
Alto Trombone.
—
Recommended: Dieter Michael Backes, Die Instrumentation und
ihre Entwicklung in Anton Bruckners Symphonien, Dissertation,
Studio-Verlag Mainz, 1997; Musikinstrumente und Musizierpraxis
zur Zeit Gustav Mahlers, Report of the Symposium of the
International Gustav Mahler Society, ed. Reinhold Kubik; Böhlau
Verlag Wien, 2007.
Music-Theoretical
Background and Style
Only in 2001, the
eminent scholar Wolfgang Grandjean published the first comprehensive
study of Bruckners music-theoretical background, which is of inevitable
importance for the style of performing his symphonies. He showed
that Bruckner understood himself (as could have been expected
already from his outstanding academic career) as an old-fashioned
theorist, who gave living examples of his >scientific< thinking
in his compositions. Of main concern to him were metrics, syntax,
rhythm and form. Grandjean showed how Bruckner gradually developed
a personal >system< of metrical theory in his works, which also
largely explains his revisions and >regulations< of earlier works
between 1876 and 1878 (N° I, II, III, IV). Most of Bruckners famous
>metrical numbers<, which are an integral part of his autographs,
were unfortunately not included in the score editions, because
they were considered to be of no practical use (with the exception
of my new critical edition of IX). However, they are by no means
the fruit of >numeromania<, but in fact an acribic instance of
controlling the weightening and structure of bar periods, in particular
the disposition of heavy and light bars, main and intermediate
harmony. The interested conductor may find most of them in the
Critical Reports; I strongly recommend to transfer these metrical
numbers into the personal conducting scores, because they are
indispensable for analyzing the music, its phrasing, tempi, and
weightening. By the way - a big misunderstanding of his instrumentation
style occured by the assumption that it may be inspired by Organ
registration and sound. But in fact, Bruckner did not write Organ
symphonies for good reason: only the orchestra would allow him
to bring out precisely this weightening, as indicated by his numerous
accents. Different as in most romantic and late-romantic music,
Bruckner's periods are dominated by the principle of the >emphasised
beginning<, in opposition to Riemann's >principle of answering<.
Bruckner's music swings in a pendulum of heavy and light bars,
organised in superior, or >super-bar units< of at least two bars.
Singular heavy or light bars, as in the Riemann system, usually
don't occur in Bruckner's music.
The analysis of these
macro-structures is very important for the musical interpretation,
because the metrical syntax dominates those accents given by Bruckner;
very often he does not give accents, even if a heavy bar has to
be emphasised - see, for instance, IX/1., b. 167ff: No accents
at all, but certainly the first and third bar need to be emphasised,
because the music swings in two bars. Or IX/2., first twelve bars:
The music swings in paired bars, starting with a rest, emphasising
b. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11. Furthermore, the two-bar-pairs are grouped
in four-bar super-bars. The metrical numbers are given as 1-2,
1-2, 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8. This means: similarly strong emphasis of
b. 3 and 5, then in the eight-bar period two possibilities: a)
first note of b. 5 and 9 each strongest of the four-bar phrase,
or b) first note of b. 7 and 11 each strongest, due to the fabric
of the phrase, and in particular respecting the first tutti period
(b. 43-50) with the resolution into the tonic on the seventh bar
of the period (b. 49). Both solutions would make audible the idea
of 2, 2, 4(=2x2) + 4(=2x2) bars. However, totally wrong, but most
often heard is the following >interpretation< of b. 1-12: Accent
on the first quaver of Oboe and Clarinets, but no weight at all
on b. 3, 5, 7, and a crescendo to b. 8, accentuating the final
note of the phrase (which, in Bruckner's own thinking, is in any
case a >weak< bar, a >swing-back-bar< of a bar-pair). On the other
hand, take the main theme of IX/1., b. 63ff: Bruckner gives
^-accents on b. 63, 65, 67/1&2, 69 and 70. However, the
period structure swings in super-bars of two, organising a harmonical
schedule of 4+2+2. Hence, b. 63, 67, and 69 need a heavier emphasis
than 65. Bruckner himself underlined this by giving a >
in the Timpani, b. 63 and 69.
—
Recommended: Wolfgang Grandjean, Metrik und Form bei Bruckner,
Hans Schneider, Tutzing, 2001,
ISBN 3-7952-1055-0
Dynamics
Bruckner's use of dynamic indications is much limited, similar as earlier
in the works by Mozart or Haydn. In his symphonies he uses ppp,
pp, p, mf, f, ff, fff, but not, for instance, mp,
or ffff. The fff is limited to the
real peaks of movements, to the most important moments. Local
climaxes usually receive only a ff. Earlier scholars,
for instance Manfred Wagner, found that the earlier symphonies
often used terraced dynamics. Even if indeed sometimes terraced
dynamics occur (in particular if connected with changes of register
or colour), this is due to a misunderstanding and unfortunately
also a wrong editorial practice: Since Bruckner added dynamics
only in the late phase of nuancing, very often he put cresc.
or dim. advice only in some lines of the score (usually
under the string, brass, and woodwind system blocks). Even worse,
often he marked (in particular before 1878) intermediate dynamics
within a cresc. poco a poco, but not behind those marking
further cresc. Quite often his crescendo passages, in
particular in his early scores, may look like this: pp
cresc. poco a poco -mf -
f - ff, but in fact with the intention
of pp cresc. poco a poco - mf cresc.
sempre - f cresc. - ff ! Only rarely he wished a sudden ff or fff.
This must be carefully observed by the conductor, and if necessary,
supplemented. Even in his later scores, this happens sometime.
Another important aspect of dynamics is that normally Bruckner
did not write different dynamics for different instruments in
a tutti, as for instance, to achieve a better balance, marking
strings f, woodwinds ff, but brass only mf. He obviously wished to leave balancing to
the descretion of the players and the conductor. Only occasionally
he indicated passages with »Solo« or »hervortretend« if he wished
a particular instrument to be more prominent. In his earlier
scores we even find sometimes verbal instructions, as »stark
hervortretend« etc. But later he reduced these kind of instructions
very much. On the opposite, his early conductors and pupils
edited his scores in a way that just this differenciated dynamics
was added, in particular by Schalk and Löwe, who were also conductors
and not only editors. Unfortunately, in doing so, they mindered
the chances for flexibility which Bruckner himself had offered.
Such a limitation,
as given by Bruckner himself, makes sense indeed, because his
scores then don't look alltoo sprinkled with indications, and
one should not forget that this is very clever indeed if you
wish your pieces to be widely performed: Every orchestra of
that time had its own traditions, size, seating and instruments,
in a much larger variety as in our days. Some would double woodwinds
throughout, others not; some would have louder brass, others
softer; some a large, some a small string section; some would
play in a small, some in a large concert hall. Instead of marking
everything down to the tiniest detail, Bruckner decided to give
some essentials and trusted in the understanding of the conductor.
He could, however, not foresee that most of ourday's jetset-maestri
would simply have no time to prepare things so properly and
thoroughfully as his music would require.
Articulation
Bruckner's articulation
is largely determined by the metrical structure of his periods
and phrases. Again like Mozart or Haydn, he needed amazingly
little playing indications and without doubt assumed the conductor
would have a certain basic knowledge on the music-theoretical
parameters. We should not forget that at his times most of the
conductors had a broad musical education and were very often
composers themselves. We should also bear in mind that the music-making
was most likely much clearer shaped, without those >endless
melodies< of our days, today topped with much vibrato-sauce.
Basically the sound was much more speech-like in phrasing, as
only rediscovered by the historically informed practice in the
1970ies, for instance by Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Roger Norrington.
This is clearly proven by the earliest recordings of orchestral
music, such as the famous Beethoven V under Nikisch. (For Bruckner
conductors of special interest: Beethoven, N° VI and VIII, Vienna
Philharmonic, Franz Schalk, 1928, and Bruckner, N° VII, Berlin
Philharmonic Orchestra, Jascha Horenstein, 1928.) Of importance for
the weightening are basically two kinds of accents: the heavier
^ (= »Keil«), usually indicating a strong attack, then
softer sustaining, and separating notes from eachother, often
to be found on longer notes, and mostly at the beginning of
a bar (unfortunately Bruckner did not use fz or
rfz, and only rarely sf), and the
lighter > (=»Druck«), emphasising important notes
in phrases, and being of a more cantabile, bell-like character
of sound. Sometimes, in particular in N° V, Bruckner combines
this > with a ' (=»Strich«), to indicate they should
be played better separated, but not with the weight of a ^.
Furthermore it is incredibly important for the conductor to
learn that weightening is not only based on notated accents!
Following the findings of Grandjean, the common accents may
be seen only as >internal<. On the other hand, it may well be
that the beginning of a bar needs a special emphasis apart from
notated (or even not given) accents, in particular where Bruckner's
music follows the >arsis-thesis< -pendulum, as shown in the
beginning.
It seems that Bruckner refined his practice of notating such >nuances< only
in the years between 1876 and 1878, when he was much devoted
to developing a systematic of metrics, initiated by the composition
of N° V. Strangely, after completing a first version of it,
he decided to revise all valid earlier symphonies before giving
N° V her final shape in 1878. For this reason, those works composed
before 1876 (namely symphonies in f minor from 1863, N° I in
c minor, 1865-8, in d minor, 1869, N° II in c minor, 1872/3,
N° III in d minor, 1873, and N° IV in E flat major, 1874) bear
much less articulations and almost no bowing indications. On
the other hand, N° V sometimes exaggerates the necessary, perhaps
because Bruckner tried to express his ideas as clear as possible,
even if sometimes with apparently inconsistent, overdone indications,
including also some particular, at first sight perhaps ood looking features, for
instance in V/1., main theme, b. 55ff: The > is given
here, because Bruckner wished it to be played not weak (as it
should be would be there no accent). But it should certainly
not be louder as the weight-note at the beginning of the bar,
as sometimes heard.
On the other hand,
the articulation of the main theme of the Finale suggests that
Bruckner wrote accents over all notes which should be emphasised,
see V/4., b. 31ff: This would mean the first note of b. 34 should
not be emphasised, but instead the usually weak four in b. 32,
as indicated by >. Generally Bruckners phrasing and
articulation is in much respect not >romantic<, but >baroque<:
The first note under a slur should be strong, the final note
of a slurred passage always weak, as much as final notes of
phrases, if not indicated different. Very often Bruckner indicates
slurs which include repeated notes. Unfortunately, he gives
an explaining tenuto line only rarely (in particular in N° IX);
conductors should carefully check such passages; I recommend
if necessary to insert tenuti by hand into the parts to make
sure players would give a clear articulation and not tied notes.
Sometimes Bruckner
also writes slurs above two notes which could be misunderstood
as ties, in particular in syncopated situations, for instance,
VI/2., b. 9ff, Horn, where we see only from the Viola part that
these notes should be perhaps played portato, and not tied. (This
is the more difficult to decide because Bruckner sometimes may
indeed mean tied notes even when he avoided to write a dotted
note.) Hence, such passages must be read very carefully. Sometimes
Bruckner indicated a verbal »legato« and did not give precise
slurs. This is particularly often the case in his earlier scores
written on oblong paper, with little space only between the staves
for long slurs. The Bruckner-Gesamtausgabe (= BGA) rarely
added editorial slurs in brackets here; the conductor should better
carefully add slurs in such cases. Spiccato playing for strings
is occasionally indicated with small wedges, and sometimes, for
writing convenience, also with a ' in the manuscripts. In the
strings, he also often indicated upbows and downbows, sometimes
together with accents. Since Bruckner was a Violin player himself,
these indications should be strictly observed by the players,
even if they seem to be uncomfortable. Very rarely he used the
>Bogen-Vibrato< (dots under a slur, for instance in VII/2.), but
of course staccato and tenuto.
Tempi
A crucial question in the performing practice of Bruckner's symphonies is
the choice of the tempo, because his tempo indications refer to
his music-theoretical thinking, rarely understood by conductors.
Bruckner's technique to give an entire symphony a motivic integrity,
including such features as the return of themes from earlier movements
later in the symphony, requires a refined analysis of tempo relationships,
in particular because such motivic connections are basically made
audible to the listener by a distinct rhythm. A good example of
this technique is N° VIII, in which the rhythm of the main theme
of the first movement returns in the closing period of the exposition
of the Finale, and in the same tempo. Hence, much less as in works
by other composers, the choice of the >correct< tempo is limited
here; Bruckner allowed much less freedom or decisions out of personal
taste. Unfortunately the first print editions, which included
numerous alterations of playing indications by their editors,
established a performing tradition often against Bruckner's own
indications. Since these scores were at least performed until
the BGA was established in 1932 (with IX and V), the particular,
personal interpretations of early Bruckner conductors and editors
such as Franz Schalk and Ferdinand Löwe set the guideline of what
is known as the >Bruckner interpretation< even to this
day. Eminent Bruckner conductors, such as Jochum, Karajan and
Klemperer, never questioned this tradition, despite the publication
of the often contradicting Critical Scores. One can only suggest
to the conductor not to trust in any >playing tradition< at all,
but study the scores in detail and come to own conclusions, based
on profound analytical insight.
Generally, Bruckner's tempo indication is related to the real meter of the
harmonic progression, the >pulse< of harmony. This explains why
Bruckner gives »sehr langsam« to V/2. in alla breve and quaver
triplets, but also to VII/2., which is 4/4, due to the smaller
note values, but the pulse related to the harmony proceeding in
minims as well. In his Scherzo movements, the indication »schnell«
refers to the crotchets, which move rather quick, hence, even
if taken in whole bars the music seems to be rather slow. Also,
generally spoken, due to the motivic connections between movements,
there is usually a particular proportion between the tempi of
different movements. Very often the tempo for the first and last
movement has to be choosen identical. The slow movement may offer
two options: The minims of the first movement correspond to the
quavers of the Andante movement, or the the quavers of the first
movement may correspond to triplet crotchets of the Adagio movement.
(Main correspondences are 1:2 or 2:3.) Likewise to the Scherzo:
Very often the triplet quavers of the Adagio correspond with the
3/4 crotchets of the Scherzo. Bruckner was aware of such correspondences
and used them intentionally, following the ancient Tactus-principle.
This is proven, for instance, by a letter to Wilhelm Tappert in
Berlin, dated 6. 12. 1876, preparing a performance of N° IV, in
which Bruckner gives some specifications about the tempo change
from Andante to Adagio in the second movement, explicitely writing:
»Die Achtel wie früher die Viertel« (»quavers as earlier crotchets«;
Facsimile: Bruckner, Briefe I, BGA, Vol. XXIV/1, p. 165).
Hence, the conductor must closely study the connections and correspondences
between the movements, to choose the correct tempo. Sometimes
Bruckner's movements have more than one tempo, sometimes two,
sometimes even three. In this case there are likewise strict metrical
correspondences to be observed. Bruckner may even set such a clever
feature as in VI/1. or VIII/4., in which the initial tempo of
the main theme is, however, not the main tempo of the entire
movement. Bruckner did not give metronome markings, with one significant
exception - VIII/4. Already in the sketches (!) he marked the
first tempo »Feierlich, nicht schnell« (>Solemn, but not fast<)
as minims = 69, and the second »langsamer« as minims = 60. This
latter tempo, for the second and third theme, seems to be the
basic pulse of the entire symphony, because (as mentioned earlier)
in the closing group of the exposition the rhythm from the main
theme of the first movement returns. The first movement has no
metronome marking, but the similarities between the second and
the third theme of it and the finale as well as this rhythmic
connection make clear that minim = 60 is also the tempo of the
first movement - in particular since Bruckner referred to its
end with the picture of a >death-clock<: »Somebody expires on
his death-bed, but the clock at the wall continues to beat: tic-tac,
tic-tac« (his own words), hence, one beat per second, or minim
= 60. Bruckner marked this first movement »Allegro moderato« in
alla breve; so we can assume that his later, moderate allegro
first movements should often be taken close to minims = ca. 58
to 63, making only a slight difference between movements in 2/2
or 4/4. Also within a movement, the Tempi don't allow for much change. In particular
at angles between sections the pulse must be strictly kept, if
not designed otherwise, in particular when the closing period
is developed from rhythmical material of the main theme, or when
it is rhythmically prepared at the end of the song period, as,
for instance, in V/1., which must have only one tempo, »Allegro«,
opposed to the »Adagio« of the introduction. The development of
the movement proves that the crotchets of the Adagio have to correspond
with the minims of the Allegro. Bruckner usually counts on a firm
basic speed. Only occasionally he allows for a local ritardando
(using the word normally if followed by the preceeding tempo)
or a ritenuto (mostly used if followed by a new tempo). In his
earlier symphonies, in particular the initial versions of N° II
and III, he also gave »rubato« sometimes, in later revisions replaced
by »rit.« or slower indications. Hence he understood the word
>rubato< as a local deviation from the basic speed, due to the
wish of the conductor. It furthermore seems as if Bruckner in
his earlier work phase (until ca. 1876) generally felt a faster
basic pulse of ca. minims = 69-72 for his first movements, and
only from N° V onwards we find his typical moderate allegro of
ca. 58-63. The quicker pulse only re-appeared in the first movement
of N° VI and the Finale of N° VIII (but only as a kind of >framing
tempo<).
Conductors may feel uncomfortable with the idea that so much of the tempo
choice is determinated by the compositional fabric - however,
this is also the case in most of the Vienna classical composers!
Perhaps Bruckner is only a bit more strict than, for instance,
Brahms, due to the more profound theoretical aspects of his composing.
On the other hand, the conductor must be aware of that an arbitrary
choice of a tempo, due to personal taste, may significantly change
the clearness of the formal disposition, and then achieve perhaps
the opposite effect: Bruckner's huge works are best comprehensive
if the entire fabric can unfold and all affects and contrasts
are presented as close to the text as possible.
—
Recommended: Bruckner Interpretation, report of the Linz
Bruckner Symposium 1982, ed. Linz 1983; Harry Halbreich, >Verlangt
Bruckner ein einheitliches Tempo?<, in Bruckner-Jahrbuch
1981, p. 191-204, Linz 1983; Hans Swarowsky, Wahrung
der Gestalt, Manfred Huss, ed.; Universal Edition 1979;
ISBN 3-7024-0138-5
Conducting
Bruckner: Style of Playing
Regarding the string
playing, the style of that time required a vibrato which was expressedly
treated as an ornament to colour and highlight phrases of particular
expression. A non-vibrato was the start to develop a tone, and
the end of a phrase in any case. However, note Bruckner's own
indications in particular passages, where he gives »gezogen« or
»breit gezogen«, as opposed to »ausdrucksvoll« or »innig«. Note
that he also gives tenuto on repeated crotchets or minims in strings,
with perhaps the same meaning. I can't help to feel that with
»gezogen« he wanted to indicate a non vibrato playing by all means
(that is, to use the bow only and move it in a controlled manner),
as perhaps a reaction towards an already increasing general vibrato
at that time, or to indicate that notes should not be played with
a >messa di voce< ( < >). »Ausdrucksvoll« would then allow
for more vibrato. Note, for instance, IX/1., b. 115: Violas and
Doublebasses have »gezogen«, Celli »ausdrucksvoll«; both Violins
play ornamental counterpoints. Such writing in multiple counterpoint
in four parts requires much differentiation. The Celli come through
only here if they play their line indeed expressive, and with
vibrato; otherwise it could not be indentified by the listener
as the leading line; Violas and Basses shall provide a >neutral<
bass; the Violins would certainly play not expressive, that is,
no permanent vibrato, and second Violins developing the long note
at the beginning from a non vibrato. One should also not overlook
that Bruckner, as an organist, was used to the effect of the >Tremulant<
and >Vox coelestis< registers. Sometimes he used a real tremolo
in similar orchestral textures, but sometimes such passages seem
almost to cry for a dense vibrato, note, for instance, N° V, first
movement, b. 247-58. One should perhaps better not dogmatically
insist in a non vibrato throughout, because this robs the music
an important method for more differentiation in the realisation
of sounds. On the opposite, a discrete vibrato seems to be required
sometimes, quite as much as in particular places (even if very
rarely) a dense, intense vibrato, but certainly never the fat
vibrato-sauce which is common in our days. One should also be
aware of the typical string portamento of that time, as evident
even from recordings up to the late 1920ies. For instance, the
Trio of N° VII seems to cry for much portamento. Regarding the general
style of playing Bruckner, I had some very interesting talks with
Daniel Harding in Stockholm, where he performed Bruckner's Ninth.
He spoke about the typical >Bruckner mode< into which every orchestra
falls, however >historically informed< they might play other composers:
This can be described as »playing Bruckner always sostenuto, always
monumentalising each tiny little detail to an absurd extent, with
no sense for declamation, speech-like phrasing and drama.« He
also talked about that with Ken Ward, editor of The Bruckner
Journal (Vol. 12, N° 1, March 2008, p. 41ff), of which I quote
some lines in the following - observations which seem to be a
fitting conclusion of this essay.
»I think Bruckner
[.] works very, very well [.] the less you interfere with it.
But then, to find that balance where you still get the right
level of sensitivity and subtlety is extremely difficult. [.]
The hard thing for a conductor, clearly, is to do with shape.
You're dealing with enormous structures, and there are things
where you can lose your way very, very early and very, very
dramatically, and the whole thing can collapse around you. But
as with all great composers, the real challenge is that it's
never just one thing: perhaps we have this very clichèd idea
of Bruckner - [.] the >Cathedrals of Sound<, and the idea of
the music being >composed at the Organ<: Of course the large
scale and the impressive and the enormous side of Bruckner is
important, but just one aspect of the many sides. I don't like,
generally, when music becomes soup, and for me a lot of the
long-term tension in Bruckner comes from [.] gesture, and it's
built up from gesture, and that's both harmonic and rhythmic
- so you can have long stretches where the harmony is moving
very, very slowly, and the thing that makes that relate, that
holds it together or builds the tension or slowly releases the
tension, is to do with repetition, to do with the rhythmical
tension that's inside. If you don't concentrate on making those
things audible, then in the worst case you can end up with [.]
a 45 second D minor chord. It's the inner life inside that is
very important. Young musicians are always told to >make the
music sing<, which is of course important - it should sing.
But there is also a lot of speech in music, and I think a clear
pronunciation is important in Bruckner. [.]«
»I hope I'm
not misremembering this because I remember reading it when I
was a teenager, but somebody asked Barenboim what he's learnt
from Furtwängler, and he said that Furtwängler had taught him
that you build up very big lines from very, very small elements.
And I think sometimes in our quest for the Holy Grail, which
is the long line, we forget some fundamentals about how you
really build up a proper long line. I remember Sir Simon Rattle
when he first went to conduct the Vienna Philharmonic (there's
an orchestra that's famous for it's long line!) he said what's
fascinating is to see how they build that up from having an
incredible control over small articulation. The thing is, composers
don't write things generally by accident, and if you've got
a detail in a score that's hard to hear, that's not an excuse
for not hearing it! [.]«
»There's something
Bach-like in the kind of perfection of the music on the page
with Bruckner. Of course I can think of exceptions, and an exception
is the very beginning of the third movement of the Ninth Symphony
where he's deliberately having the musicians strain at the limits
of what's possible and he wants you to feel that tension. But
I would say in quite a lot of Bruckner you really want to try
to realise the music as it is on the page, and being aware of
what's technically difficult often doesn't help. [.] Sometimes
he writes things for the Violins which are ferociously difficult,
but they have to sound just as easy as if you suddenly play
this note down here and then this very high note on an Organ.
Whereas other composer are using the technical difficulties,
I think in Bruckner a lot of the time you have to hide
them. And the easiest way to hide them is to give people time
to do them, and of course then the thing for the conductor,
you want to find a way of keeping the shape, of keeping the
skeleton of the thing in a rigorous way - because you can have
wonderful moments along the way, but if you focus properly on
>here you're going<, the feeling when you get there is much
greater. And that's a very hard thing to do.«
»For musicians,
Bruckner is one of those composers who occupies such a special
place that we have this instinct built-in that we have to suddenly
play his music in a way that we wouldn't play anything else.
And orchestras who know how how to phrase in the most wonderful
way suddenly get Bruckner and play every single note completely
equally! There are moments in Bruckner where clearly the way
he's writing accents or the way he bows things, he wants something
to be the cliché >like it is on the Organ<, so everything is
equal. But there is other stuff, there's Austrian folk music,
there's choral music, and inflection and phrasing, and that
what Ben Cohrs was talking about with Bruckner - the pendulum
swing, which is very, very important, and the weighting and
the articulating of large phrases through having a clear hierarchy
of what's important, even the smallest sense of phrasing. There
has been a tradition of making Bruckner monumental down to the
smallest detail, and that has something to do with the question
of security, because it's a much, much less frightening and
exposing way to play for the orchestral musician. There is nothing
that requires greater control over your instrument than phrasing,
because then you're talking about the absolute subtleties of
light and shade. And you know we're not talking about musical
traditions that go back more than 50 years, which is a very
short space of time, so I don't think it's something that we
have to treat as a holy. I think it had a lot to do with fear
and to do with finding a way of playing which is beyond reproach:
You play exactly the full length of the note that's written
on the page, sostenuto, no change in infection, and nobody can
say you've done something wrong! It sounds like I am exaggerating,
but in a way I am not. The wonderful thing in music is to try
and understand what it means, not what it looks like, and for
me listening to somebody like Harnoncourt conducting Bruckner
[.] is such a revelation for me in terms of, you know, >wow,
it's awesome music!< It's not just huge and impressive,
but for the orchestral musicians it is much more difficult to
play that way than it is to play in the monumental way.«