Bruch: Symphonies Concerto for 2 Pianos

This recording of these symphonies is just as good as the now OOP Gewandhaus version, but at a much better price. They're also combined with the Concerto for Two Pianos and some solo piano music which is a nice addition. These symphonies continue the tradition of Schumann & Mendelssohn - moderate size orchestra & memorable melodies. These apparently never made it into the standard repatoire, as the taste for this music had been supplanted by the huge orchestra & big sound of the Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, etc. type symphony and the Liszt / Wagner program music. It's the same fate that overtook the music of Raff, Gade, Ries, etc. A great shame, as these & other composers of the mid 19th century wrote some sublime music that is never heard in the concert hall.

I realized only recently the beauty of Bruch's Symphonies. A chance encounter with the symphonies of Fibich (Fibich: Symphony No. 1 in F major, Op. 17; The Tempest, Op.46 and Zdenek Fibich: Symphonies Nos. 2 & 3) raised the question of what is it that makes it the music of a "minor" composer, as opposed to the "major" ones, whose pantheon (limiting myself to the Romantic symphony in the Austro-German area) includes Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt, Bruckner, Brahms. And the "working hypothesis" was that, as enjoyable as it was, it never gave you the impression that you hadn't heard it before. That sent me back to Bruch's symphonies, which on initial (and obviously superficial) hearing had failed to leave a lasting impression when I acquired Masur's set (recorded between 1983 and 1988) when it came out on CD in the late 1980s (Bruch: The 3 Symphonies, Swedish Dances (Schwedische Tanze)).

Rehearing these symphonies, I now feel like turning my formula around: it may not give you the impression that you haven't heard it before, but it is highly enjoyable nonetheless (for another example, see my review of Robert Volkmann: Complete Orchestral Works). In fact, I've enjoyed them so much that I've purchased the study scores, recently reissued, after possibly more than a century of unavailability, by an enterprising German publisher specialized in rare scores, Musikproduktion Höflich.

Sure, one can hear in the symphonies of Bruch echoes of Schubert (the canter rhythms of the 1st Symphony's finale), Mendelssohn (scherzo of 1, finale of 2), Bruckner (Scherzo of 3), Schumann (the brooding to bouncy 1st movement of the 1st, the sweeping finale of the 3rd), Brahms (slow movement of the 3rd). Composed in 1868, 1870 and 1883/1886, his symphonies were certainly not forward-looking in their own time. But viewed from today, one can enjoy them for what they offer, not reject them for what they don't. Forget the "what does it recall" game: Bruch's Symphonies offer a wealth of melodies, a romantic sweep and turbulence that makes them easily equal to Schumann's or Mendelssohn's.

These recordings by James Conlon, made in 1992 and 1993, come in direct competition with Masur's, which have also been reissued on a budget series, Bruch: The Complete Symphonies. Some factors would make Conlon's preferable. First and foremost, the sonics. Masur's East-German recording sounds muffled, important details in the brass and woodwinds often go blurred. This "impressionist" approach and blunted edges do convey a fine and appropriate brooding mood in the wonderfully atmospheric first movement of the 1st Symphony; with his emphasis on woodwinds, Masur makes the scherzo of the 1st Symphony sound like Berlioz at his merriest, and Conlon, with his blaring brass, like Bizet. Still, there is more presence and bite in Conlon's recordings (even verging on bombast in the finale of the 2nd), and what you see is what you get.

The filler perhaps. Masur's original release came with Bruch's Swedish Dances - his not very convincing attempt to emulate Brahms' Hungarian Dances - and it now sells for less than the budget reissue. The latter replaces the dances by three tidbits for violin and orchestra, complementing the companion reissue of the Violin Concertos (Bruch: The Complete Violin Concertos). The reissue of Conlon has complemented the original set (Bruch: Symphonien 1-3) with the first recording (1973) of the newly rediscovered Concerto for two pianos (a late work from 1915, impressively powerful, entertainingly virtuosic, with interesting Bach references, but also full of Romantic clichés and not very memorable), and a few piano pieces reminiscent of Mendelssohn (op. 12) and Schumann (op. 14).

Then: interpretation. Unfortunately, I find that Colon doesn't really do full justice to the scores. His tempos are often slower, not only to Masur's, but to Bruch's metronome marks as well (the first Symphony bears none, but he wrote very detailed ones, section by section, in the 2nd and 3rd). Masur is usually faithful to these metronomes, in the 3rd (where he is usually bang on the mark) even more than the 2nd (where he varies, marginally). Now, I'm all for the interpreter's liberties with tempo (even if, with such seldom recorded works, there is a value to hearing exactly what the composer intended), as long as they work musically. Both Masur and Conlon take the finale of the 3rd significantly faster than Bruch's metronome - a good decision: with them, it is exhilarating - with Conlon even more, thanks to the added bite afforded by his sonics. Manfred Honeck takes it at Bruch's tempo, and it is sluggish and boring (see BRUCH: Symphony No. 3 / Suite on Russian Themes). When he whips his orchestra, Conlon offers glimpses of what it might have been (as in the 1st Symphony's scherzo).

But elsewhere his slower tempos solemnize and "brucknerize" the music. It can yield acceptable to convincing results in some movements or sections. The slow intro to the 3rd's first movement can take that kind of majestic unfolding, and so does the slow movement of the 2nd (although Conlon's "espress. appassionato" at 6:00 is all but passionate, and at 13:30, compared with Masur's 11:09, the movement may be dragged out too much for its own good). The slow movement of the 3rd Symphony sounds like Bruckner rather than (as with Masur) Brahms.

But there's a trade-off for this grandeur and solemnity and Bruckner reminiscences. Despite his blunted sonics, Masur's more urgent, dynamic and faithful tempos convey more of the symphonies' intense passion and sweep. In conformity with an interpretive approach thas taken hold somewhere in the 20Th Century, Conlon (like Honeck) also slams the breaks when comes the second and lyrical theme in the 1st movement of the 3rd Symphony. It stems the forward motion and unduly sentimentalizes the music. Bruch's metronome indicates an imperceptible slowdown which feels more like a relaxing of tension, and that's what Masur does, keeping the adrenalin running. In the 3rd Symphony's scherzo, Conlon's trudging quarter-note 120 (against Bruch's and Masur's 132) brings interesting Mahlerian overtones but also completely changes the character of the music, and not for the better. With Masur it is full of energetic bonhomie, with Conlon, peasant's clumsiness.

The ideal version would be Masur's interpretation and Conlon's sonics. In this imperfect world I think Masur still gives the better representation of theses works. Richard Hickox sadly died before he could complete the cycle, but interpretively (and at full price) he is very much in Conlon's vein: Bruch: Symphony No 1; Violin Concerto No 3 / London SO and Bruch: Symphony 3/Violin Concerto 2.

Max Bruch is someone that not a lot of people know about. Sure, there's Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Mendelssohn, and Strauss, but Bruch is hardly ever mentioned when it comes to the great German Romantics. Perhaps it's because he wasn't very prolific, or because he refused publicity. But whatever the reason, Bruch is now regarded as an underrated Romantic composer. His works are similar to Brahms: they showcase conservative melodies and structures, as well as some deep lyricism. His 3 symphonies can be clear examples as you will see on this 2-Disc set from EMI Classics. All three are very melodic and lyrical, with some mild Beethoven-like dissonances that can be found in a few moments of the second and third symphonies. This isn't your usual progressive style that Wagner had created; this is Romantic music that has some Classical touches in the orchestrations. I admire all three of Bruch's symphonies. The music may not be perfect, but I love the Romantic Classical sound. The slow movements can be quite meditative, while the scherzos can sound very catchy. It's lovely music that I can listen to straight through. You also get an added bonus: included on this EMI set are three piano works. The Concerto for Two Pianos & Orchestra will easily please those who love piano concertos (it did for me). Then, there are the two Klavierstucke's for solo piano. Bruch may not have been like Chopin when it comes to piano music, but he still manages to succeed with his conservative melodic style.

James Conlon conducts the Gurzenich-Orchester Koln (Cologne Gurzenich Orchestra) for the symphonies, while the late Antal Dorati conducts the London Symphony Orchestra, with Nathan Twining and Martin Berkofsky on the pianos. Everyone does a stunningly good job on all six compositions (especially Conlon with his no-nonsense attitude). And the sound quality is superb; kudos to the producers for using the appropriate equipment. All in all, if you love Brahms, then you'll probably love Bruch as well. You'll be satisfied with this 2-Disc set once you pop them in your boombox, or stereo system, or whatever.

Grade: A