BBC: Edinburgh Internat'l Festival. Cleveland Orchestra, Franz Welser-Most. Bruckner Eighth (original 1887 version). 17.08.10.

This is the first encounter I recall of original 1887 version of the Bruckner Eighth Symphony with an American orchestra. Only six recordings exist by American bands of the standard 1890 version – two of them Cleveland under Szell and Dohnanyi. On close scrutiny, there is much to be gained by revisiting this version of the Eighth even with its greater eccentricities and it having been judged as inferior during Bruckner’s time.

This is music of more elaborate, brighter character than its altogether more obviously brooding revision three years later. It is here more confident in its heroic stance, and also hardly ever wary of extent to which it takes certain things - occasionally to great lengths. It is also more clearly, with certain turns of phrase, especially while approaching cadences, more reminding of the Seventh - the original Eighth’s ties to it altogether closer than the revision lets us hear. The greater fervor, more confident striving toward certain goals (and making at least one – achievement of huge cadence in C Major – twice prematurely) also indicates a closer bond with the Seventh one has always assumed contrasts altogether very much with the Eighth.

With his Clevelanders, Franz Welser-Most certainly might indeed be best suited to the original version of this piece. His remarks of finding a kinship between the music of Bruckner and John Adams perhaps makes anachronistic some emphasis, such as bright projection of overt qualities this music has to offer, such as comes naturally to Cleveland - here even while achieved to somewhat detached effect. Repetitiveness of certain figuration in a fidgety way - getting achievement of climax to a line or cadence timed just right, I suppose - does carry some appeal to it, given what influence on the music of John Adams this music must have had long by now.

Franz Welser-Most’s sense of shape to a still steeply arched first movement was intact, but loosely achieved. A slightly rushed start to this movement hesitated to assume definite profile until loud full brass entrance with opening statement for it. Strings were warm with second subject, with there being greater fervor, patience in shaping it possible. Jagged character of third theme group got realized well, if resulting in some choppy playing – and with rushing towards cadences, making all sound very bright, but lacking in a certain amount of fire to infuse it from within and carry forward what qualities this music borrows from its predecessor. Voiced very well, the diaphanous quality of woodwind section descant over inverted second theme in the Development was distinctive, but worked into making too insistently paced a traversal of sequence of restating first theme in the brass. Very bright cadence on G Major replaces our hearing broad, repetitive descending line repeated on solo flute over ‘Annunciation’ in darkly placed back trumpets. Pointing of ‘Annunciation’ on trumpets here - with more swirling about than in 1890, insufficiently prepared here, became weightless, streamlined.

Good focus got restored for second theme reprise, but highly plaintive and less heavily scored, but all the same fully achieved ‘Annunciation’ at last sounded here curiously on verge of expressionistic with so much uncertainty for effectively preparing it. Tug underneath final achievement of C Major to close the first movement also got undercut, helping leave one with the uneasy perspective of there being lack of depth to what had transpired thus far.

Supple play was made of the scherzo, although with strings sounding a bit precariously thin at its outset. Pointing of here apparent ricochet of upbeats between different brass was confident, but seemingly devoid of firming up shape of what in still more determined fashion – tremolo lines in the strings – really unify and carry this music forward. Diaphanous quality to string playing carrying forward began to detach from the enveloping in mystery of this music itself.

The ‘deutscher Michel’ folk-like character of figure spinning over and over again, but more frequently in 1887 to complete shape thereof than in 1890 is the more bucolically gawky for achieving such. Such quality also got partly missed here – for contentment with brightly virtuosic achievement of so much figuration by especially Cleveland strings and brass itself. Simplicity of the trio section here though was mostly well observed. Absorption however into the almost Gallic diaphanous quality (even without harps – not to get added until 1890) of textures at crest of striving, ascending lines replaced full achievement of line ascending its way into them.

The Adagio, Welser-Most’s most satisfactory movement here, started off with good measured pace – if with curious buzz from violins on their opening broad line. Harmonic change within descending lines to emanate from the opening to this got somewhat smoothed out, but with more circumspect shaping of it all, better avoiding Mantovani effect over harps, in full, tighter reprise of opening statement here. A fully achieved sense of repose took over for long expanse to follow, opening with ardently shaped second theme. Bruckner’s formally expected ending rhetoric to later reprise of first theme - where in 1890 very brief segue is made instead to second theme, matched well sense of being, without compromise of line, well settled into well stretched out peaceful oasis here – even if without quite fully achieved sense of what got us there. Cleveland strings made lovely cantabile of varied second theme transition into next, flowing sextuplet building reprise of the first theme.

Dramatic shaping of the more elaborate, winding (than 1890) trajectory to follow was mostly convincing, if a little distracting a certain involvement, absorption elsewhere with the sound Cleveland was showing they could produce for its own value alone – resulting in gratuitous smoothing out of some harmonic progressions therein. Written in anticipation of harmonic progression to guide opening of the finale, that the Georg Tintner makes on Naxos sound as though almost lifted from the Seventh, got also missed for what lovely sound could get produced – but all eventually working towards focused view overall of lengthier conclusion to the Adagio.

Instability behind guiding impetus to drive forward much of the finale of the Bruckner Eighth Symphony became a critical issue here. Welser-Most had his strings enter from ever so slightly behind the beat for an overall streamlined perspective to the driving opening - all causing momentary uncertainty for the brass in how to enter once or twice. Welser-Most then added extra dose of stringendo to reaching up with line through refrain to initially despondent and flat-line sounding second subject here. His pulling back for immediate start-over of the refrain, very well replaced in 1890, made an already awkward moment in Bruckner sound as through making alert for there to be immediately handy a bottle of Dramamine. Welser-Most then applied good weight to the third subject group, through smooth transition, extended coda – third subject derived accompaniment in strings now more prudently accented before beat with repeat-pitch grace notes or illusion thereof. Weighting down of broad string figuration under brass in loud re-affirmation of E-Flat Minor was stodgy.

Dragging of the beat continued to persist until in the Development loud repeated descending inversion of the first theme in the brass, which Welser-Most then rushed –making this listener even more furtively want to press for a bottle of Dramamine. Tentative retransition was then made over repeat-note triplets to carry line forward – with Welser-Most first allowing too much slack, then muscling string figuration toward starting the Recapitulation to compensate. Erratic also was Welser-Most’s bending of descending brass lines off the crest to this to something bordering on jazzy or salsa in effect. Solo horn ending section by making portamento throughout single pitch clearly indicated already troubled intonation from the brass - until re-gathering of poise to recapitulate the second theme.

After well marked change of cadence most unique to this original or 1887 version, Welser-Most regained control of line to follow into the coda section, until brass made strange bend, almost yawn out of reprise of the main theme of the first movement. Brief change to tonal center a whole tone above – D Minor – offered tempting opportunity to expressively shape descant lines in the violins, yet transition to this got smoothed out to where it no longer offered any semblance of profile. With proportions of three-fourths to eighty percent of the finale to this mostly somewhat awry – indicative of conductor having taken on some of what is here for granted – robbed then was cumulatively well extended cadence and C Major chord of feeling that all must remain there for so long.

While one should be grateful for even this chance to hear 1887 performed – for insights it provides into the genesis of this masterpiece, one might have expected better of Cleveland - their virtuosity so clearly evident - than especially their haphazard taking on of the finale. This music can not compensate for any inability to grasp form that even here with its self-consciously lengthy anchoring of cadences and of transitions between sections, still makes very compelling blueprint for all of what was eventually to come.

There is also to account for here the brighter tone, the more overt fervor of the 1887 version, with as so well subtly pointed out by Georg Tintner a tug toward being able to hear allusions this symphony makes to its immediate predecessor. With all this beautifully intact, the last three symphonies of Bruckner ultimately indeed do become one great opus in a sense, unrivalled by anything else. Welser-Most, with the shallow, two-dimensional perspective with which he offered much of the 1887 version, that in return denied him security this way – missed making anything out of such links. Thank heavens, for such insights this version offers, it still exists, that even with a little greater formal clarity the revision offers, in its even challenging the Sixth as what Bruckner openly considered his most daring or adventurous. Even with what further horizons the Ninth opens out, nothing Bruckner wrote could deserve this status more than his Eighth.

In provocatively, jauntily irreverent fashion, the program opened with Cleveland veteran keyboardist Joela Jones playing the Variations on ‘America’ and Postlude in F by Charles Ives. She made utter simplicity of rhetoric out of both works - with their wittily odd turns of phrase, exotic changes of harmony, slithering about. The holding on to several pitches in the latter, usually so misplaced as though not at all to belong well to any chord out of which good cadence can emerge, was conspicuous, as intended.

In-between - for small ensemble of brass, bells, percussion – came the Ives piece From the Steeples to the Mountains, just somewhat in Ivesian fashion taken on haphazardly here. It was so more than in how it is written – as window for some of what was to come with Bruckner on the meatier, weightier second half of this Cleveland Orchestra expo for one out of two evenings at Edinburgh. For a much warmer, fuller take on the 1887 Bruckner Eighth, the Georg Tintner recording, a real bargain, also has always supple but the firmer grip on the architectonics of this than does Welser-Most or especially late-career Gunter Wand (1890 only) for either version.

Cleveland Orchestra: DVD promo on NPR - Franz Welser-Most's Guide Away From Strange Places - Bruckner Ninth Symphony

Here was the presentation of one of the two crowning masterpieces among the Bruckner symphonies that proved fairly much a consolidation of something interpretively that is just simply not quite there yet.

One could admire today a certain tightness of ensemble that Franz Welser-Most was able to draw out of the Cleveland Orchestra on this venture into late Bruckner – replacing what at times has been at times from him kind of an internally shallow-depth linear/rhythmic flaccidity he has now aspired to replace with tighter control, as though to achieve greater musical profundity, interpretative depth this way. He has instead achieved here, especially in something so multi-layered as the Bruckner Ninth, a more gaping hollowness and so much empty bombast.

I debated whether or not I should post this review here; the performance under review dates from Fall 2007 and dvd release from the following year. In addition though to there being the dvd release, the Cleveland Orchestra has picked up a residency at Lincoln Center to do four of the Bruckner symphonies there this summer, paired with a selection of American works to straddle right beside them - plus lectures to help explain it all.

One missed in this Bruckner a certain suppleness of line and thus flexible enough negotiation of the vast architectonics of the Bruckner Ninth Symphony. The vestiges of a strong interpretation of the Bruckner Ninth Symphony are certainly in the employ of Mr.Welser-Most – what he has been able to draw from the cultural feeling he brings to the podium and his experience, including in conducting Bruckner, for a number of years now. It, though certainly preventing disaster in approaching such a summit or valediction as this, is just simply not quite enough.

It seems in taking on this score so directly that Welser-Most was intent on eschewing his concept of performing Bruckner as being too tied to the past, tradition of the past. If so, he was found here to be very self-conscious in the way he has gone about it, even if conspicuously so to only those of us intimately familiar with the work at hand. Christoph von Dohnanyi, when he recorded the same music in Cleveland a little over twenty years ago – his Bruckner conducting debut on disc – he also was tuned into by and large the progressive tendencies of this music. In order to avoid rigidity, any notion thereof, he is also found to employ a very apt degree of rubato at times, such as is placed in highly exemplary fashion and in such a way that avoids eschewing modernism stated therein in full relief – what Dohnanyi would subtly make focus of our attention.

Welser-Most appeared to be trying to take some of what Dohnanyi brings to it another step or two further. He has aspired toward something more strictly classical than Dohnanyi in what sound he requests out of Cleveland, less diaphanous for instance for passages of lyricism therein. What has resulted here are numerous passages, especially in its outer two movements, that move in hard chunks, partitions of sound. What has resulted also makes something a little wonky out of a number of transitions between sections, to at times quite curious effect indeed. It is all even perhaps according to a painstaking literalism, such as Dohnanyi avoids partly out of fear of compromising what he does, and that, as an aside here, Hans Graf took to almost absurd lengths with his Schubert Ninth in Berlin last month.

The first movement of this sounded certainly a little rushed ieven also a little into the incendiary breath that fuels at least somewhat the pulsation that in the best Bruckner Ninths is heard indeed to get under way immediately. By rushing into things, overlooking others, the air of mystery and incendiary impetus to this music can get short-circuited, as it did here. All this was achieved without coarse breaking of the line – comical attempt at Bruckner Nine with Eschenbach and Pittsburgh immediately comes to mind - but the laendler accents to violin consequents to introductory statements by brass only enhanced what sounded here to be certainly the start to a very earthbound journey through this piece. Hard plucked pizzicati from the violins moments later excessively understated the variety of dynamics written in the score and varied placement acoustically vis-à-vis winds and brass that usually make for so much subtlety here. As an aside, Christoph Eschenbach was heard again eleven years later on Bruckner 9, as played by the New York Philharmonic, no natural at playing Bruckner either; it especially being so, he halfway succeeded, if still a little eccentrically, at conducting it.

Especially for how it got played in the Exposition, the Tristan-esque second theme group ambled by almost entirely lacking in any sensuality or hint thereof, even with Cleveland string section certainly still sounding cohesive, solid enough. The third theme group, after transition to it (highly interesting place in the Exposition as such) just going acceptably enough, basically went past as just one faceless chunk or block of sound. What idea really dominates it lacked all shape.

The Development, with oboe's reprise of the Introduction, soon thereafter pressed urgently forward. With the exception of keeping ensemble firmly together, for what strands interweave the oboes from the strings, all came across again as entirely lacking in character. Contrasts got minimized for the rest of the section; rushing downward strings for opening of the Recapitulation sounded impressive, but impressive practically in just their own right alone – as quite detached from the overall musical argument. Transition into the harrowing and here understated real (secondary development) climax in F Minor came a bit untethered; both dynamics and weary tone of descending strings off an immensely terrifying chord got entirely missed, in making transition to where reprise of the second theme is due.

Welser-Most also let the pianissimo markings in the violins to just simply go unnoticed by him for opening of the coda after aptly paced, otherwise unremarkable transition into it. Enharmonic spellings in violin section’s strife in achieving one last harrowing cadence before the coda section might have as well been more conventionally spelled by Bruckner for how so few of them got heard. It may be remarkable to point out such a subtlety as this, but long by this point, it had become remarkable to me how much I was becoming reminded of the late 1970’s DGG late Beethoven by La Salle Quartet – while also technically adept, how very hollow, two-dimensional, interpretatively inept, albeit with clearer goal in mind than here.

Mystery and even the demonic quality to opening and also spinning out of the scherzo went by the sidelines in self-consciously hatcheted, even almost clipped attacks by Cleveland strings through so many pizzicati, then especially through the following chord progressions. Equally vain as heard on 1970’s DGG Berlin PO/Karajan, the allmahlich in Allmahlich Bewegter for overt accelerando instead in both, was so little as to no longer be allmahlich in either (i.e., transition into scherzo recapitulation). With too much swinging lift from strings on phrase endings and flute and clarinet principals - flute most brutally rushed through his arpeggi - the trio of this scherzo went by simply too fast - disproportionately so.

After non-focused, slovenly start to the Adagio, much of it went better than the two earlier movements. Welser-Most was found to be especially cozy with the second theme group, with what bucolic accents it offers therein. Arch over huge crest in the line in first paragraph of the Adagio went surprisingly well, given how things had started for it. Cleveland horns proved the very paragon of warmth in making very long legato out of long phrase endings to transition out of first theme group. Strings, attempting any similar warmth later on, rustically proved almost cross between Elgarian and Ivesian in attempting similarly fine rhetoric – enough to please John Adams (see below)- to have aspired to anything Ivesian. Adams occasionally has made himself self-proclaimed devotee of the music of Charles Ives.

Welser-Most handled transition back to first group with just about enough good spacing, but then pedantically scrupulizing it so and rendering it flat; reprise of the first theme and spinning out from that improved from how such transpired earlier. Welser-Most conducted trumpet led inversion in B Minor of the first theme with allargando offbeat string accents supplementing it in such a routine manner that all placement, purpose for it got lost.

A bit too self-conscious to make anything of the on purpose psychologically negating deterioration, decay that Bruckner imposes upon his material, much of the rest of the Adagio proceeded just about as routinely as possible. It also missed proper perspective for the sublime strands of vainly continuing to develop previous material, even forcing me to check score for dynamics on the long weary descent by the strings over brass making cadence into finally achieving E Major. Such is of course the key of the Seventh Symphony, first theme of this with which the coda to this Adagio closes. Welser-Most framed it lovely enough, but by then - too late.

One might rather hear a Bruckner Ninth that fails with panache. I fail to make it more than a minute into the Adagio when such occurs – place where I tuned out on Eschenbach/Pittsburgh so long ago. Still, if the better can be the enemy of the good, so perhaps can the failure with panache be the enemy of the mediocre – the truly mediocre such as this. I just so happen to love the Adagio too much, but have to ask, where was the love here? Where was also the courage of the Cleveland Orchestra and Welser-Most’s convictions in not programming for this broadcast of the Bruckner – not to mention the dvd producers who shortchange us in truly same odd way - John Adams's Guide to Strange Places? Neither has included John Adams’s twenty-minute guide on with the Bruckner Ninth, played alongside it at the Musikverein at end of October, 2007. After all, Welser-Most in statement previewing his Lincoln Center Bruckner this summer has called John Adams the musical grandson of the Austrian master. Indeed, Welser-Most really may have achieved something, in having provided us such sanitized Bruckner.

In order to further shoot themselves in the foot, Cleveland Orchestra broadcast producers pulled out of archive a 2003 Sibelius Fourth with again Welser-Most and Cleveland, that is in places quite a terse statement as this piece is or can be indeed. Welser-Most at the time certainly allowed less room for error than in the Bruckner here. He and his forces were found here more supple, expressive - all of the Scherzo to the Sibelius and wonky accent or two aside, much of the finale closing it too that went very well indeed.

The first movement proved in Welser-Most’s pacing of it only intermittently prolix and diffuse, but not enough to detract attention from overall line – in part too making something diaphanously, gently impressionistic out of the mysterious tremoli that take over during the Development. The tragic slow movement was good, but lacking sufficient space to envelope a few lines therein sufficiently, if as proved perhaps apt preview for the Bruckner. Welser-Most is hardly known as more to the manner born for doing Sibelius than Bruckner, but no matter. Such has been just as it has seemed as of late.

As for recommending a dvd of the Bruckner Ninth, there is Karajan/VPO on DGG also from the Musikverein paired with his Linz cathedral also VPO Bruckner Eighth - the august Austrian maestro at the height of his powers. As guide away from strange places – with as someone buying on Amazon commented, hard chunks of sound hurled at Messieanesque birdsong in the flutes therein for the unheard Adams on this broadcast (for which I had to refer to the Robertson/St Louis on Nonesuch) – this Bruckner Ninth in all quite narrow perspective filled the bill indeed - and as the work of musical, spiritual mentor, or whatever, to John Adams indeed. John Adams should indeed be very proud. After all, this is the new music director (replacing a considerably finer and quite vastly underrated Brucknerian in Seiji Ozawa – whose Bruckner at times has been better than his Mahler) of the Vienna State Opera conducting Bruckner.

Here was however a Bruckner Ninth, to contradict Nikolaus Harnoncourt, never but barely touched by any portion of asteroid, space junk, or by matter anywhere outside of Earth’s atmosphere at all – ‘moon rock’ that Harnoncourt said imaginatively enough to have found the piece – ‘moon rock’ that the more senior Austrian master certainly himself would have found Harnoncourt’s interpretation of his Ninth Symphony.

DSO Berlin: Hans Graf conducts Barber and Schubert - Andreas Grunkorn, cello. Is it real, Graf, or click-track?

In 1988, the Houston Symphony brought Michael Gielen for a very special honoring of the eightieth birthday of the now still living 101 year old Elliott Carter, pairing his 1961 Piano Concerto (Ursula Oppens) with the Schubert Ninth Symphony. It was Christoph Eschenbach’s first season - Eschenbach who almost exactly three years later conducted Schubert Ninth in much fussier manner than did Gielen, with less formal clarity, balances and execution than Gielen had spiritedly, unobtrusively achieved here. Late 1980’s was just about time Ingo Metzmacher finished apprenticing in Frankfurt under Gielen.

The Houston Symphony has never since sounded better than on the occasion of Gielen’s only visit here. I can not recall them again sounding as good as they did on the bright, crisp late November Sunday he was here – even for once to deny that there is anything to be concealed by the bone-dry acoustics of Jones Hall. It was this good.

[February 21st, 2010: I forgot to note while first posting this that Ferenc Fricsay planned to conduct the Schubert Ninth Symphony in Houston at Music Hall, circa November, 1954, but he then changed second half of the program to Schubert Eighth 'Unfinished' and Beethoven's Leonore Overture #3].

Last Sunday DSO Berlin hosted Houston’s current music director for a program of Samuel Barber and Schubert. Whereas in subtle, internalized ways Carter and Schubert share some affinities for progressivism, they are, by conjecture, more externally similar in terms of their openly deep introspection and slight tendency to bombast.

DSO principal Andreas Grunkorn was soloist for the Barber Cello Concerto, proving supple with the technically difficult part - even more importantly giving this music clear direction and line. There lacked perhaps the last degree of character or personality to his interpretation of the Barber. Whatever inhibition encountered, the blame for it certainly can hardly at all be laid at his feet alone. Hans Graf maintained a deferential accompanying stance to Grunkorn- with coloristic pointing of filigree in woodwind tremolo at several points. The music in the hands of both Grunkorn and Graf managed to reservedly hold up a semblance of - as Virgil Thomson made reference - ‘Brahms-like grandeur’, but in playing out so much, some other elements went missing.

It is odd to report here that Graf’s relatively inflexible approach to the Barber – inability to adequately pick up numerous contrasting elements within - was more something to keenly listen for than it was for the Schubert. The jazzy syncopation, blues bend muted trumpets in the Barber perhaps were apt to be toned down; here it was frequently to extent of all being perfectly staid – even if Barber’s inculcation of some elements in this fine score is stylized. Other than ability to gain a pleasantly supple, if still flaccid ease to handling of such passages in regular meter (as first movement statement of opening theme), this was so. Graf overtly relied upon trumpets, brass for securing downbeats during the first movement a little much.

Key change from cellos and basses, while uncharacteristically playing flat the main siciliana of the second movement, got compromised. Expressively memorable alone was Grunkorn’s eloquent take on brief sequencing of upward arpeggios, midway through - more shape to them than for principal orchestral line above - and then for expansive unaccompanied transition toward close to the Andante moderato. Such fine rhetoric followed brief sequence of trills from the winds conspicuously detached from statement of the main idea.

Graf opened the finale stiffly, leading Grunkorn at first, for sake of coherence to abet opening idea coming across as more ‘academic’, poor man’s Hindemith, than snazzy as it should be. Graf, even for simpler wind concertato stretto, fell into habit of marking time, effect constricting space for Grunkorn to be able to flexibly spin his virtuoso figuration off such stretto. Run up through high register following perilous double stops also got inhibited at the end of the first movement. Some of the writing in this concerto even resembles quite often the soulful rhythmic jauntiness of Medea (ballet) written for Martha Graham at near the same time.

Marking of downbeat to accompanying bluesy second theme in the finale was stilted too, inhibiting what imagination the soloist might invest into it. More important perhaps that the soloist not get in the way of Graf’s ability to keep all well organized, regardless the cost of his having to engage within tight spaces some very tricky cross-rhythms. Grunkorn handled closing virtuoso fireworks with aplomb, even through perilous writing in high register. Where earlier Grunkorn could make some lyricism stand out, he still most certainly did. Graf slipped in managing to well co-ordinate with Grunkon’s line beneath the solo high trumpet stretto descant driving argument forward to the end.

Less eloquent case was made for the Schubert Ninth Symphony that followed. On the plus side, this Schubert Ninth carried some rhythmic vitality through most pacing of it, but mostly which got applied from without instead of found within. Contrasting formal periods, paragraphs of this music got sectionalized to extent of becoming unnaturally compartmentalized from each other. Such was Graf’s insistence on strict downbeats for cause of keeping ensemble together, regardless the cost.

Fully less imaginative among examples of music appreciation instruction came to mind, for all the heavy stress on so much pedantry. For example, so paramount is how well something functions at following ‘textbook sonata form’ that the entire purpose of the music having been conceived in real style of form would get lost. Or what is most de rigeur about music becomes so pedantically explained that all interest in the music itself then is lost. One sensed DSO Berlin getting what to those most in the know is a ‘Norton scores’ approach to the Schubert Ninth. For two years now they have so brilliantly produced in front of them complex beat patterns, securely backed by clear explanation of purpose in getting across with much simplicity so much frequently at stake.

The stentorian reply within oboe solo continuation of the main theme, in motto leading the introduction, was all played at monotonously stilted fortissimo from the brass. Repeated notes, two-three-four, in brass should really be, it seems, equal in weight and as loud as the main theme. Transition into main Allegro of the first movement, while maintaining equilibrium, sounded careful, stiff, with only tentative shape to crescendo to transpire, build excitement through it to follow. Opening theme of the Allegro Schubert need not have marked that the dotted quarters get more weight than alternating eighth notes, that is until he might have had chance to hear Graf at it.. Graf’s making all equal in weight made the dotted quarters sound clipped, even while abstinent from doing ‘period’ Schubert.

Little was made of transition to follow; textures began to clot in the antiphonal stringing out of what follows. Though yielding into a more promising start to the recapitulation was welcome, things returned to continuing down a stiffly predictable path the rest of the way out, with monotony and intermittently less than optimum clarity of ensemble between strings and woodwinds.

The second movement fared little better. Though perfectly moderate marcia pacing of this was apt, accompanying dotted rhythms stood out so pronounced as to jalmost verge on caricature of Wanderer motif to it all. Tutti response to main theme, from the get-go, was stiff, lacking sufficiently varied weight and color. Middle section transpired matter-of-fact each time - even more so true in recapitulating it (while applying detached subito piu mosso - 'suddenly faster' to it) to extent that while still moderately paced, line coursing through it just about entirely died.

Graf reckoned it prudent to render entirely missing contrast between pairs of loud octaves - eventually making for hard-hitting trudge through closing measures of the second movement. Where Graf attempted luftpausen for such through closing passages of this, he denied especially his brass and lower strings space for reaching well below some of the true resonance from which Schubert built unique harmonies and placement thereof. Expressive shaping only occurred where most obvious, such as for extended cellos’ retransition off rigidly engaged dissonant climax two-thirds through. Hatchet-y attacks from strings on heavy chords throughout became consistently unidiomatic.

Just bare minimum in shaping the scherzo’s second theme was reckoned practically sufficient, though with DSO violins infusing such with almost right lift, light step to it. Even through wonderful harmonic changes in the Development, figuration in the strings continued unvaryingly and brass excessively stuck out. The songful trio section lacked shape, coming off brass and winds’ tuning up on chain of repeated octave E’s to get things started reasonably in tune. Graf over-emphatically underlined the brief C Major episode occurring past midway through the Trio.

The finale began stolidly. Strings of DSO Berlin sounded stressed at all valiant effort to remain together on rapidly moving triplet figuration. The music took such a pause before second theme, fortunately with some lift to it, that it seemed to happen as to make some pause to catch a breath. Graf streamlined paraphrase of Ode to Joy while making considerable strain to scrupulize keeping dotted rhythms beneath together. Right before this, intriguing highly chromatic slow emphatic sequence of chord change in lower brass was played so note by note as to have missed what point there is to it at all - quite the same as happened between heavy octave chords in the second movement. Especially the violins of DSO Berlin however had to have then surmised seeing the end to all this in sight. They suddenly became much more cohesive, pliant making with all effort and aplomb something cumulative out of closing a moderate paced, but still heavily belabored Schubert Ninth. So much emphasis on principal trumpet occurred, to keep things aligned well, one might fully expect Graf to put fine principal trumpet of DSO Berlin on front stand with concertmaster Wei Lu next time Graf should return and it be relevant to have it so.

I was only able to catch two closing paragraphs to Schubert’s Overture in D Major, D. 12, written when Franz was fifteen - showing a determined precocity, even in experimenting with form more than he could make effective yet.. Such precocity is further evident by, following opening D Minor intro, chord progression for opening of its Exposition section aping that for first movement of Mozart’s Prague Symphony. The over-scoring of so much, that had to came across wonky in this outing by DSO Berlin, revealed Schubert, individualism of his writing already apparent, his attempt to compose sonata form well beyond yet attained level of maturity. Such is also true with stubborn holding onto the tonic throughout Exposition of both overtures in D Major he wrote at the time (D. 26 the other) - then to recapitulate each second subject in A Major, before each time jerking us quickly back to the tonic just in time to rescue all formal logic.

One may reckon me disloyal, being from where I am, in being so hard on Graf; in my defense, after what Metzmacher has achieved with DSO Berlin, it would be demeaning to them to be writing in otherwise. In Graf’s defense, he has in Houston applied at times some intellectual acumen to his craft, his having come from tradition of sorts; as such he has so casually, even often at times both here and abroad put such aside. It could be he feels inhibited, working with different class of musicians than he is accustomed in southeast Texas – or that he got cold feet and decided that best way to proceed was ‘safety first’; the music here just called for so much more than that.

There was sloppily more kink to Eschenbach’s 1991 Schubert Ninth, but more color, contrast, more drama; it too put one at considerable strain to sit through it. Graf conducted Schubert Ninth here for first in pair of two weekends with which he made his Houston Symphony debut in March of 2000 – in program paired with John Adams’s Century Rolls with Manny Ax. Carmina Burana (Orff), paired with Mozart 'Prague' went the distance toward making Graf music director to succeed Eschenbach. Some of Charles Ward’s comments about the first concert I have just have found after writing so much above, are very interesting. Recall that Adams’s concerto then got programmed with the Schubert brought up that perhaps Graf had in mind even last weekend a way to find a new chic modernity in taking on Schubert - for it to have turned out sounding so two-dimensional as dud this one. It is, after all, music for players and audience respectively that “probably literally, they can play and hear in their sleep.” Yes, Graf’s Schubert Ninth put underneath one’s pillow, ought to work well – if kept at low volume.

Ward (Houston Chronicle) found the HSO Schubert “lithe, flexible, and transparent” for a piece that – in somewhat a moment of anti-Eschenbach rhetoric here (to reflect sentiment in some quarters at the time as is common for anyone taking leave of such hallowed ground) “does not invite grand or grandiose ‘statements’ of conductorial and orchestral achievement.” Oh, how I would love to be a bird on the rafters of the Philharmonie when Ingo gets back into town, and then (let’s say) tells DSO, “Let’s get together next season, guys, and do Schubert Ninth”- for reaction he might receive. The opening horn solo to Charles Ward was so interesting, being just there for Graf to announce “that the piece was commencing.” Yes, exactly. A ‘Norton scores’ Schubert Ninth would precisely say so.

I heard some of the Graf 2000 Schubert Ninth and can not adequately remember it, but for now can not help but quote passage in full, on Graf’s conducting of the Adams.

“Had the performance been up to standards, the listener might have found some humor in [the Adams) as well. As it was, the orchestra seemed to be struggling with the piece's rhythmic foundation. It was still foreign to too many players Monday (third time). Century Rolls needs players to have a sense of rhythm similar to a "click track," that metrical tick-tock a conductor has in his ear to keep an orchestra aligned with a film in live performance. Beats and divisions of beats have to be precise; they can't bend or be even microscopically off.” How good for the Barber if they could have ‘bent.’

Could have Hans Graf returned to re-read the above, when contemplating how to take on the Schubert afresh lately? Though a bit erratically aligned at times, I could indeed sense a click track to the Schubert this go at it. More punishing than what you read here might have been had Deutschland Radio repeated, as broadcast encore, American in Paris conducted by Metzmacher. I was reminded of hearing this last fall by someone medical here yesterday confiding to me that he had just attended Graf conducting equally familiar Gershwin here.