|
Schubert
died at 31, the youngest age of any of the great composers.
Although one can only imagine what he might have created had
he been granted the lifespan of Beethoven (57) or Bach (65),
it is difficult to conceive his creating a work surpassing
either this Symphony #9 or the Quintet in C. Four perfectly
balanced movements, the symphony is a miraculous fusion of
classical form and Schubertian lyricism. Often criticized
for his finales, in the final movement, Schubert produces
a finale of Olympic power and beauty. There have been criticisms
of the symphony's "heavenly length". A most unlikely
defender, Igor Stravinsky, has said, "I may nod occasionally,
but when I awake, I am always in heaven."
Bruno
Walter has recorded the Schubert 9th five times: (1) LSO,
1938; (2) NBC Sym, 1940; (3) New York Phil, 1946; (4) Stockholm,
1950; (5) Col Sym, 1959. I have heard all but (2) and believe
that the one under review and the New York Philharmonic are
the best, although all I've heard are worthy of the masterpiece.
It has been suggested that in reviewing this recording I also
compare it with a modern conventional recording and a modern
original instruments recording. I've chosen Karl Bohm's 1963
recording with the Berlin Philharmonic as the conventional
recording and Roger Norrington's recording with the London
Classical Players as the original instruments recording.
1st
movement: Nobody plays the opening horn call with the
romantic mystery I want. Walter comes closest. His whole approach
is moderate and more classical than I expected. Good excitement
leading to exposition and the dynamic second theme. Very pointed
and fast recapitulation leading to light coda. Magnificent,
fiery ending. Bohm is far more Romantic, slower, heaver-all
the way. Finds fantasy and inner voices, but an awful lot
of big brass and fortes. Prefer Walter. Norrington's prelude
is an aesthetic abomination: fast, expressionless, robotic.
I want to stop and give the CD to my garbageman, but duty
calls. The first movement improves but is absurdly fast and
expressionless and we have to suffer the repeat of the exposition!
The recap and coda begin to sound a little better - I am getting
brainwashed.
2nd
movement: Walter: taut, reined-in, but extremely beautiful.
Does not make the huge Furtwangler luftpause at the 2-note
climax. Bohm: Very powerful and dramatic. Neck and neck with
Walter. Norrington is martial rather than lyrical, not overly
fast. It sounds like a review march for Empress Maria Theresa's
private regiment.
3rd
movement: Walter very rhythmically strong first part.
The trio is heartbreakingly lilting, but no sentimentality
or slowing down. Bohm's scherzo is slow, heavy and pointed,
a trifle elephantine, but still very musical. Norrington's
scherzo is excellent-light, good speed, well-sprung until
we come to the trio which is fast and expressionless - where
did this man study music? And of course the endless repeats.
4th
movement: Walter's finest movement: Light, fast, an utterly
brilliant playing of the moto perpetuo second subject, shattering
power in the coda. Bohm not at his best: too much legato,
heavy accents, brass and more brass. Norrington: repeats,
but why? Deadpan, souless phrasing, robotic interpretation.
One longs for the end.
Walter
is clearly superior to Bohm by virtue of his classicism and
his lyricism. The reproduction is utterly splendid. As for
Norrington, I don't think I dare put it in my garbage. I have
to find a special waste dump for aesthetically toxic material.
Reviewer:
Bill Rosen |
