Posted by Richard on December 16, 2000 at 01:48:50:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Bruckner and the Art of Interpretation posted by Aubrey Foard on December 15, 2000 at 23:23:13:
True they're not literally orchestral transcriptions of works originally conceived for the organ, but the organ was Bruckner's home base, his primary frame of reference. With experience, his orchestration improved, but his concept of orchestration was unique and totally misunderstood by officious pupils who convinced the timid savant to permit them to grossly recompose his 4th and 5th symphonies. Compare the Knappertsbusch (Decca) or Botstein (Telarc) 5th in the Schalk Edition to - say Karajan, Jochum, or Klemperer - who play from Haas or Novak editions, virtually identical renderings of Bruckner's original manuscsript. The Schalk sounds like a hack's idea of an orchestral transcription of organ music. Bruckner's originals don't try to imitate the organ. They evoke the organ. Look at his scores, and his separation of brass, woodwind, and string sections "evoke" the ranking and voicing of the organ. Even his sparing use of timpani. Aside from the occasional rhythmic figure, his favorite use is (again) the "evocation" of the sustained pedal note. His orchestral writing became more idiomatic in his later works, but the basic approach remained the same. He never strove for the homogenized blended orchestral sound of his contemporaries.
The best Bruckner interpretors have known how to do justice to both the tart clarity of the scoring with the need for big broad tenuto but unforced playing from all sections of the orchestra.