2. music
  3. 153363-74445

Best Sounding Bruckner Recordings

There is a Mahler for Audiophiles thread here, but I am not sure if there is one for Bruckner.  IMO these are the two Composers that benefit the most from high quality sound.  Both Composers relied extensively upon spatial effects.  Bruckner, with his Organist background, was conscious of reverberation effects, and tended to treat the entire Orchestra as one vast Organ.  Mahler had many spatial effects built into his Symphonies.
  I listen to many historical recordings, but I find that these two composers suffer the most when sonically compromised.  I have no problem enjoying a Toscanini Beethoven Symphony, as the majesty of the music and the playing overcome sonic limitations.  However, listening to the Horenstein Bruckner Seventh from 1927 is a real trial.  Even the best restorations make it sound like it was recorded in a phone booth, and the towering beauty of the piece is missing.
  Now, with Bruckner, we have the problem of all of those multiple editions.  I am going to confess straight out that I have no expertise here .  And given that this is an audiophile site, I will concede readily that the best sounding Bruckner recordings may not necessarily be the ultimate in recorded performance.  However, I am looking for comments about great sounding Bruckner recordings that are also good performances 
mahler123
lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
5,396 posts
 
The boxed set I own is with the New Philharmonia/ Philharmonia released in 2012 on EMI. I see on Qobuz these are now branded Warner. The performances range from 1960 to 1970, so very late period Klemperer.

lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
5,396 posts
 
I’m now listening to Klemperer with the WDR Koln on Qobuz, #4, 7, 8. These are from the 1950s and are superior performances; lively  but still rather reserved. They could do with some remastering, but so far I’m enjoying #4.

lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
5,396 posts
 
Oops, they were remastered and Amazon lists different orchestras than Qobuz. (In mono).
edgewear
543 posts
 
Klemperer’s approach to conducting has been called ’objective’. His aim was not to give his personal - ’subjective’ - interpretation, but to let the music speak for itself. This can make his recordings somewhat detached, impenetrable and even ’anti-sentimental’ at first, but in my opinion it’s an approach that has withstood the test of time better than most. Except for his final years, when the exceedingly slow tempi produced some very strange and disappointing results (try Mahler #7).
mahler123 OP
3,062 posts
 
  I know that Klemperer was dismissive of Walter and his emoting (Klemperer is reported to have described his Mahler as “too Jewish”), but when I think of an “objective “ Conductor Pierre Boulez comes to mind.  Klemperer seems to have had some interior fence that would prevent him from going full heart on sleeve.  I think with Bruckner, however, hitting the big moments for all that they are worth is my prefered approach.  AB admired Wagner, who certainly doesn’t encourage restraint.  And the long repetitive build ups in Bruckner are for me intended as a prelude to showing us the dizzying heights.
More to discover