|
1 CD -
4509-98405-2 - (p) 1995
|
|
Anton
Bruckner (1824-1896) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Symphony No. 3 in D minor
"Wagner" |
|
54' 35" |
|
Version 1877, Leopold Nowak
Edition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- I. Gemäßigt, mehr bewegt,
misterioso |
19' 29" |
|
1
|
- II. Andante: Bewegt,
feierlich, quasi Adagio |
13' 26" |
|
2
|
- III. Scherzo: Ziemlich schnell |
7' 02" |
|
3
|
- IV. Finale: Allegro |
14' 37" |
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
Royal
Concertgebouw Orchestra |
|
Nikolaus
Harnoncourt
|
|
Luogo
e data di registrazione
|
Het
Concertgebouw, Amsterdam (Olanda) -
dicembre 1994 |
Registrazione
live / studio
|
live |
Producer
/ Engineer
|
Wolfgang
Mohr / Helmut Mühle / Michael Brammann
|
Prima Edizione CD
|
Teldec
- 4509-98405-2 - (1 cd) - 54' 35" - (p)
1995 - DDD |
Prima
Edizione LP
|
-
|
|
"Anton
Bruckner: an antenna pointing
into 20th century"
|
Nikolaus Harnoncourt in
conversation with Walter Dobner
According to one 19th-century
revieuw of the Third Symphony,
"Bruckner has his moments -
flashes of imagination of a kind
found only with great men of
genius - but they are soon
past". I don't suppose you share
this view, Herr Harnoncourt?
Not for a moment. But nor do I
share the view of contemporary
critics of Beethoven’s Second
Symphony. None the less. there's
some truth in the suggestion that
a transcendent genius like
Bruckner - or
any other great composer for that
matter - positively invites
disapproval and criticism. You
can’t expect people to agree
completely with such music. The
whole meaning of a work is
revealed only by
contradiction. It’s only when you
ask what happens between
these flashes of genius that you
may find a lot happening that may
not appear so brilliant after all.
There was a
time when I myself saw Bruckner in
this light. I felt I was returning
home from a Bruckner
symphony with a relatively small
number of very important
discoveries. But the symphonies
were too great for that. Today I've changed my
mind completely. since I now
understand much better what this
music is all about.
Can you say in a few words what
you mean by that?
The experience I had with Bruckner
was similar to the one I had with
Beethoven. I initially had great
problems with the finale of both
the Ninth Symphony and Fidelio.
They struck me as too distended
and, in
consequence, an
seriously lacking in substance.
Only later did it become clear to
me that I was approaching this
music with the wrong standard. In
the case of the Missa solemnis
I suddenly saw that it was simply
absurd to judge Beethoven by
Mozart's standards. Beethoven
makes other demands, asks other
questions and so he got other
answers. As soon as I set aside my
"Mozart"
yardstick and found one that
seemed to me better suited to
Beethoven, I suddenly discovered a
whole new approach to his works.
Exactly the same thing happened
with Bruckner.
The more I got to know Brahms, the
more precious Bruckner became. It
was presumably
the great effort and seriousness
of Brahms's
writing that produced such
wonderful results after years of
polishing and honing and that led
me to his antithetical opposite,
Bruckner, bringing
him closer and closer to me.
Is
Bruckner not also so
difficult to understand
because there are so many
different links? Although
his music speaks the
language of the 19th
century, it is also deeply
indebted on a formal level
to the Classical 18th
century, to say nothing of
the gestures - and mysticism
- of the Middle Ages.
Curiously enough,
Bruckner strikes me - far more than
any other composer of his
generation - as someone with an
antenna pointing into the 20th
century.
When people claim that it was
Mahler who laid the foundations
of the Second Viennese School. I
have to say that this seems to
me to have
been even more true of Bruckner
- not that I would want to
disagree vdth any of the
criteria you've listed. Those
aspects that go back to the
Middle Ages are presumably tied
up in some way with Bruckner’s
markedly rustic character. But I
dont think its possible to
approach his works from a
biographical standpoint. If you
were to start out from
Bruckner's personality, you’d
expect to find extreme
conservatism in his works. But
his visions really can’t be squared with
his simplicity as a person. In
this respect he is unique as a
genius.
But is it
really possible to draw a
total distinction between
Bruckner as a person and
Bruckner as a composer?
Shouldn't the thematic
triality of his symphonic
movements be seen not only
as a symbol of the Trinity
but also as evidence of
Bruckner's personal faith?
What are your thoughts on
this and on the theory that
only a believer can
interpret Bruckner?
I don't think faith comes
into it. Anyone who performs
Bruckner needs to be familiar
with Austrian music, with
Schubert, with peasant music and
the whole ländler
thing. I wouldn't dare try to
find evidence of Brukner’s religious
beliefs in the symbols of his
music.
It may well be that these signs
of personal belief do exist, but
biographers,
exegetes and musicologists who
explain this only on the basis
of the works, without
the composer's say-so, are
guilty, I believe, of venturing
into a highly dangerous and
highly speculative area. For me,
Bruckner's symphonies are
couched in a language of musical
sounds that is his very own,
personal language. That his
personality was very strongly
influenced by his faith is
sufficiently well attested.
Whether his music would sound
different without this
pronounced religious influence,
I dont think any of us can say.
But I think it's far too simple
as an explanation to derive this
thematic
triality from the Trinity.
The "musician
of God" is only one of many
Brucknerian clichés.
Bruckner is also sometimes
regarded as a typically
Austrian composer. It's
argued that he takes his
place in a line beginning
with Schubert and leading
to Mahler and, finally, to
Schoenberg.
I'd describe only
highly concrete details of his
music as typically Austrian:
for example, the Trios in his
Scherzos and a few melodic
idem that I
associate with Bruckner's
rustic origins or with
elements of Austrian folk
music. With Schubert, it`s
totally different - he could
only be Austrian, his music
speaks Viennese dialect. The
line of development that
starts out with Schubert
certainly leads in Bruckner's general
direction. but it actuallv
goes, rather, to Johann
Strauss; that's
pure unadulterated
Austrian music for you.
There seems to me a very clear
line of
development from Bruckner
to the Second Viennese School,
especially to Alban Berg,
rather less so to Schoenberg,
although Schoenberg often
transcribed Strauss. I'm
happy to leave out Mahler - he's
really not conceivable without
Bruckner. I
regard Bruckner’s music as
absolute. The autobiographical
element in his music isn't all
that marked. Unlike Mahler, who
uses Bruckner's vocabulary,
Bruckner does not retell his
own life in a superficial way.
I see a basic difference
between a composer who sees
himself an the agent of his
talent and one who uses the
vocabulary of a composer like
Bruckner in order to tell us
all about his private
sufferings.
Herr Harnoncourt, you say
that Mahler is
inconceivable without
Bruckner. Is Bruckner
conceivable without
Wagner?
Certainly, The links between
Bruckner and Wagner must have
been in the air at the time.
You can already hear Wagner
and Tchaikovsky in a number of
Mendelssohn's works - I'm
thinking of Die erste
Walpurgisnacht and Die
schöne
Melusine. Virtually
the whole of the 19th century
is contained in these works.
One has the feeling that if
Mendelssohn had had a normal
lifespan, Wagner would have
been inhibited by such
proximity. I
don't
think there is anything in Wagner’s
musical language that wasn't already'
part of the spirit of the
times. Wagner had to exist in
the l9th century, Bruclsner
had to exist as a writer of symphonies,
not as a music dramatist.
The fact that Bruckner revered
Wagner I
see as a sign of his modesty.
Herr Harnoncourt, you're
beginning your exploration
of the world of Bruckner's
symphonies with his Third
Symphony, of which there are
three different versions.
Why did you pft for the
second version?
The final version
was ruled out for me on
account of its excessive cuts
and excisions that almost
destroy the work’s organic
unity. For me, it’s a
makeshift solution designed to
keep the symphony in the
running, as it were. The first
version is very complex and
rambling, with a lot of
Wagnerian quotations. I could
well imagine conducting this
first version after extensive
preparation. I see
the second version as the
result of Bruckner's wrestling
with the first one. Also, I think
that the coda to the Scherzo
provides a very
interesting and convincing
ending here. I think
Bruckner knew perfectly well
how he imagined his works
would sound and that he set
this down quite
clearly. He said, "My work
is in the score." But although
he worked on the score, he did
not - so to speak - prepare it
in bite-sized rnorsels. The
versions that various friends
and conductors forced out of
him were concessions to these
friends and to audiences,
prompted bv the wrsh to be
performed at all.
And which edition of this
symphony did you decide to
use for your own
performance?
I'm
conducting thc second
version in Nowak’s edition,
since it's the one I find
most convincing. You must
never forget that fashion
plays an important part here,
too. Now that we’re familiar
with Nowak's versions, we know
how he arrived at his
findings. The sources are
arailable. Of course, one
could now try reaching one's
own conclusions and results on
the strength of the sources. That's
the prerogative of eyerv
generation. I
trusted Nowak more than I
normally trust editors and
haven’t reexarnined every
question on the basis of the
sources in order to make my
own decisions, but compared
the various findings of the
individual editions. I also
consulted an edition from the
Concertgebouw Orchestra, with
whom I made this recording,
since I also wanted to learn
more about this orchestras
tradition.
Not
only the Royal Amsterdam
Concertgebouw Orchestra
can look back on a long
tradition of performing
Bruckner, so, too, can the
Vienna Symphony Orchestra,
with whom you began your
career as a musician.
They, too, have
considerable experience of
playing Brucjner's works.
To what extent was this
knowledge of the
performing tradition of
use to you during your
present involvement with
Bruckner, or did you feel
inhibited by it?
These experiences were
of great use to me and
certainly didn't
inhibit me. The older I get,
the more natural Bruckner's
musical language seems to
me. I feel at home here, it's
the element in
which I
live and breathe. I can recall
some very great performances
of Bruckner while I was a
cellist with the Vienna
Symphony Orchestra: I'm thinking in
particular of Karaian during
the 1950s. I'd
be interested
to hear those
performances again and would
like to know whether my
experience at that time -
I'd not
yet
turned thirty - would stand up
to my
present understanding. But
they left an indelible
impression on me. In the case of
the present performance it was
important for me to work with an
orchestra that knows and
understands Bruckner's language.
At the same time, of course, I
had to fight against this
experience at rehearsals,
since there are certain passages
that are interpreted in
identical ways by virtually
every conductor. I'm thinking,
for example, of the decelerandos,
especially in the slow movement
of the Third Symphony: the
answers in the orchestra are
almost always taken twice as
slowly as the questions. There
isn't the
slightest indication in the
score that this is how these
passages should be taken. And
yet orchestras are used to
playing them like this. But when
a composer like Bruckner writes
even the tiniest change of tempo
into the score and when he
prescribes even the least
expressive nuance by means of
footnotes and explanations, I'm tempted to
agree with him and inclined to
clear away all this ballast.
Translation:
Stewart
Spencer
|
|
Nikolaus
Harnoncourt (1929-2016)
|
|
|
|