My first concert wirth Haitink was in 1985 with Bruckners 3rd. I love his Vienna recording, with that coda of the scherzo, which is a wonderful recording. Some years later Harnoncourt performed the 3rd in Amsterdam - i think it was his first Bruckner ever, also the 1877 version, with that coda. The recording Dave recommend is the live recording of this performance. I was in the concert shocked by the different approach (in my ears), but when i relisten it on cd it is really very interesting. My favorite though is a live recording I attended in Amsterdam as well, of the 1889 version, conducted by Kurt Sanderling in the early nineties. Part of the live recording boxes of the Royal Concertgebouw. Slow, well build and real hard core Bruckner.
DAVID! (Yes I used all caps with the hope to catch your attention.) The Westphalia/Naxos is a stunner!! Who knew I needed a 22nd version of Brrrrrruckner Third. I like to think that Bruckner was himself amazed by the sheer size of his creations. It's as is he was losing control. That's what I felt with this version. Immaculately played and recording. My new fav.
Thanks for a very enlightening chat. I have the Tintner recording of the 1873 edition, which I like but, as you pointed out, it's a bit long. I came to the third symphony by way of Szell's recording of the 1889 version on LP, which at the time I thought was excellent (that particular recording supposedly incorporates some additional minor tweaks from 1890). I got Karajan's early digital recording of the 1889 version, which is OK, and then proceeded to acquire the really good Haitink/VPO and Jochum/Dresden performances of the 1877 edition. I also have the Nagano recording of the 1873 edition, an excellent performance, extremely well recorded. I'm surprised by your mention of the Solti; I'm somewhat soured on his approach to the late symphonies (his tempo choices in the Eighth cause me to alternately rant and bang my head against the nearest brick wall), but I will probably check out his Third.I have Solti's very good Bruckner 1.
1873(4): I like Gerd Schaller (Philharmonie Festiva) and Herbert Blomstedt (Berliner). I fell asleep listening to the 86 minute version of 1873 from Remy Ballot.... 1877: I love the Johannes Wildner 1877 with the 1876 Adagio. I create my own playlist with the 1876 Adagio substituted in!
The climax in the development seems to go on twice as long in the Tintner version. Everything is just huger, vaster in that one. I kind of like the insane gigantism of it. :D To have been in the audience for this the first time must've been like hearing Beethoven's Eroica the first time: mind blown.
Excellent analysis about each of the versions. I have the Naxos recording because there are both 1877 and 1889 and I always settle with the 1877 version. Thanks for an enjoyable video.
I have the Kubelik studio recording of the Oeser edition, that is without the coda to the Scherzo. I also like how old Hans Knappertsbusch conducted this symphony, using an edition not played saepe today (Hmm, sounds like an understatement). His recording in Vienna for Decca, reissued by Testament, is pretty compelling, at least for me.
I just got the Michael Gielen Bruckner cycle and he does perform the 3rd symphony, 1877 version beautifully. The sonics are fabulous. The rest of the box I will reserve judgment on. But the 3rd is great.
Bruckner Three Orgasm ;-) What about Celibidache with the Stuttgart Radio Sinfonie Orchester (the father of a friend of mine played violin in this recoring). I love his frenetic yells! It was the 1st Ive heard! I recorded it per synthesizer, but the tapes are lost :-(
Got around to hearing Solti/CSO, and I agree it’s quite good. Typically fabulous playing from the CSO, particularly the brass. One of Sir Georg’s finest.hours in Bruckner.
@@bomcabedal David was honest overall about Solti, who is viewed as a god around here (Chicago) and woe be unto those of us who think he was merely a fine conductor. Thanks to him for sort of agreeing with me. I'll give his version a listen.
@@1brewski2 Personally, I find it rather comforting that after their heyday, everyone's reputation is returned to that of a mere mortal. Same happened to Rattle, and even to Karajan eventually. It's just the cults that are still out to deify their subject of choice.
Until my copy of the Solti / Chicago Bruckner 3 arrived last week, I found the work to be "lightweight" and "developmental". I was basing my view on the two performances I had in my collection -- the Inbal/ Frankfurt and the Szell / Cleveland (which has so-so sonics). Now it sounds every bit a masterpiece. I also picked up the Solti Chicago Bruckner 1 and 2 from the same seller on Discogs yesterday at a very reasonable price who seems to be cleaning out his collection of mostly Chicago recordings.
Thanks for this, some really insightful information. I've grown up on the Tintner version but it does drag sometimes, now I've listening to the Wildner 1877 version, it's definitely better.
Stepping out on a limb hete: my guilty pleasure is Rozhdestvensky's take on the 1877 version, with the acerbic Russian brass giving a crazed edge to this brass-heavy symphony, especially in the finale... The last few minutes of the symphony (but not just that) are really quite something. Not a top recommendation I admit but well worth a listen. (I expect he's done all the other versions too; can't comment on any of those.)
I gave Tintners version a listen a while back and I loved the first movement. It seemed like an endless journey through the cosmos. But I wouldn't treat this as a serious version of the symphony. I'm with you, 1877 seems like the right version to take onboard..
With more recordings of Bruckner's third than I care to admit (all of your recommendations included), Knappertsbusch conducting Vienna impacts me like no other. Certainly not a popular version-or performance-of the symphony. Vanilla, chocolate, red, blue, blonde, brunette... we like what we like.
I heard the 1980 Kubelik Bavarian Radio Symphony Orch. on CBS of the 1877 version and was impressed. Kubelik does not drag like Haitink does and his sweetness how he shapes the end movement is remarkable.
Will you be doing a Bruckner 8? If I missed it, I am sorry. I would live to hear you take on the Nowak and Haas version. I really enjoyed your take on the Mahler 6 issues.
Super video as usual, David. Was a bit surprised that there was no mention of Chailly’s 80s performance with the RSO Berlin, of the 1889 version. To my ears it’s fantastic & the same band as the terrific 7th he did. Have you heard it?
There's a fair number of composers that messed up their works in post though. Sibelius with the 5th, or Atterberg with his 7th symphony, to name two examples.
The two versions i know are pretty fast compared to Solti, so i'll give it a try to get more "Zen" , but don't think i'll manage. Actually I only got bit by bit into Bruckner because of the first CD I had almost 20 years ago , Kent Nagano's Third 1873. Didn't think much of it, first two movements - as compositions - dragging on. Only when i read your review on Classics Today (10/10 reference recording) somewhat later i gave Bruckner another chance and rented the Michael Gielen 1877 (didn't feel like spending more money on this composer). Following years collected ( from the city music library) all the symphonies one by one, and only bought the Skrowaczewski box a few years ago.
Thoughts on Marthe's recording? His is sort of a composite version, combining what he considered to be the best features of each. I'm bracing myself, lol.
@@gingeropera7491 I still think the 1889 version is the only really truly listenable one. The original is intolerable; the 1877 revision is an improvement but it's still pretty rough, and the finale is still ridiculously stop and start. But Marthe's version is an interesting listen every so often.
"Bruckner was no exception." I think he was in this case. You don't mention the disastrous first performance of the 1876/77 revision, Bruckner's crippling lack of self-confidence and his sometimes mistaken willingness to submit to the cuts and alterations proposed by friends. See "The Essence of Bruckner" by Robert Simpson, who in his analysis deems the revisions "ill-considered". However, he does "with some trepidation" suggest a mixing of versions.😊
If you’re interested in a well recorded version without the brass dominating the piece, definitely check out the 2018 MDG release from Zehetmair and the Musikkollegium Winterthur. I listened to every recording on Spotify and this one really stuck out with a string forward, fast, and snappy sound. Some people may say it lacks the Bruckner majesty with the brass soaring into the heavens, but I found it easier to focus on the melodies and the counterpoint in this version, and really enjoyed it. Beautiful sound engineering also.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Ha, shows how much I know, lol. It’s still one of the few performances I can find, though, without the brass coming in like a freight train - I found it a welcome compliment to all the bombast, if nothing else.
After spending a lot of time down this particular rabbit hole, I emerged with Kubelik's 1970 live recording of the 1877/78 Oeser version (on Audite) as my favourite one, for various reasons: First of all, it has the preferred 1877 form without the annoying and unnecessary Scherzo coda. Beyond that, it is a lively, not too grandiose interpretation with well-judged tempi that treats the symphony as sitting right between the early, Schubertian, and the later, "truly" Brucknerian ones. The BRSO plays idiomatic and with verve, and the sound is astonishingly good for the recording's age. Sure, there are a few glitches like the wonky trumpets in the Adagio or the slightly thin woodwinds in the Scherzo, but these for me are easily outweighed by one of the few really satisfying codas of the Finale,: The polka strings don't submerge the (yes, grandiose) choral brass - and Kubelik keeps enough momentum through to the very end so it doesn't feel like a soft landing. Would value your view of the recording, @David!
I'm sorry, but I find it pretty ordinary and a bit under-characterized, but I think you describe it fairly and well. Perhaps we just like different things!
I do not know the live recording you describe but I have the 1985 studio recording of Kubelik with the BRSO and I consider it the best 3rd I have (and I have many). Your description suits well also the 1985 recording; shortly, it is the most fluent and homogeneous 3rd I heard, it flows naturally without the bumping you hear in other records. And I agreed with Dave that the 1877 version is the best of the three
There is now a new Christian Thielemann on Sony with Vienna Phil. I really like it. Not sure which version he is using. The 8th was the first one they released in the series and it was just boring. Almost like he told them "mf is as loud as I want anywhere".
I've done my own playlist, 1st movement (1889), 2nd movement (1877), scherzo (1889), finale (1877). Nothing wrong with that, as it all came from Bruckner's pen..
Dave, I have the Sinopoli/Dresden version of Bruckner Symphony #3, and I love it. What do you think of his versions of Bruckner Symphonies 5 and 7, also done with the Staatskapelle Dresden?
Sorry, but the only version of Bruckner 3 makes any structural sense to me is the original. Tintner was absolutely right in this decision and his version is better than any other I've heard to date. A rare case in Bruckner of an open and shut case. If you have to have a bastardised version, Sanderling is as good as any but i don't see the point. I would love to hear from DH what the weaknesses of the original are supposed to be.
This is not the place to have that discussion. I understand that the original is the only version that makes structural sense to you. I feel differently.
@@DavesClassicalGuide you're right but on the other hand, it's not really possible to discuss best recordings of Bruckner symphonies without taking the versions into account. Anyway, I don't want to labour the point -- I've always found your discussions interesting and more often than not, you hit the nail on the head.
hi i thought the original was magnificent, the first movement , i could hardly believe it when i heard it, i dont know anything about crochets or quavers but that is greatness.
From what I’ve gathered, the Buckner “Cult” is subset of Bruckner fans who believe that every version of each symphony is worthy of performance and broader listenership. Many of them base their judgments of one version against another on spirituality qualities and the “misunderstood genius” of Bruckner rather than musical merit, and are militant in their beliefs. I cannot confirm the inclusion of Bruckner scholars in the cult, but I can see how scholarship can be misinterpreted by normal listeners, and thus inspire cultishness.
I just really like Bruckner's music. At the current time, he is my favorite composer in terms of listening hours- he has been on repeatedly for the past month, and I have purchased around 20 different recordings based on Dave's recommendations. . In 2023, Shostakovich, Haydn, and Rautavaara also were in this spot. What I refuse to do is pay attention to the different versions (Haas, Nowak, whatever), becuse it sounds way too neurotic to be honest. I just listen to what I like and what Dave recommends.
My first concert wirth Haitink was in 1985 with Bruckners 3rd. I love his Vienna recording, with that coda of the scherzo, which is a wonderful recording. Some years later Harnoncourt performed the 3rd in Amsterdam - i think it was his first Bruckner ever, also the 1877 version, with that coda. The recording Dave recommend is the live recording of this performance. I was in the concert shocked by the different approach (in my ears), but when i relisten it on cd it is really very interesting. My favorite though is a live recording I attended in Amsterdam as well, of the 1889 version, conducted by Kurt Sanderling in the early nineties. Part of the live recording boxes of the Royal Concertgebouw. Slow, well build and real hard core Bruckner.
Fabulous talk, David. Many thanks for your insights and opinions on this gaggle of editions.
Great video! Very informative! I've learned something new! Thank you
Solti and Chicago are amazing.
DAVID! (Yes I used all caps with the hope to catch your attention.) The Westphalia/Naxos is a stunner!! Who knew I needed a 22nd version of Brrrrrruckner Third. I like to think that Bruckner was himself amazed by the sheer size of his creations. It's as is he was losing control. That's what I felt with this version. Immaculately played and recording. My new fav.
Thanks for a very enlightening chat. I have the Tintner recording of the 1873 edition, which I like but, as you pointed out, it's a bit long. I came to the third symphony by way of Szell's recording of the 1889 version on LP, which at the time I thought was excellent (that particular recording supposedly incorporates some additional minor tweaks from 1890). I got Karajan's early digital recording of the 1889 version, which is OK, and then proceeded to acquire the really good Haitink/VPO and Jochum/Dresden performances of the 1877 edition. I also have the Nagano recording of the 1873 edition, an excellent performance, extremely well recorded. I'm surprised by your mention of the Solti; I'm somewhat soured on his approach to the late symphonies (his tempo choices in the Eighth cause me to alternately rant and bang my head against the nearest brick wall), but I will probably check out his Third.I have Solti's very good Bruckner 1.
1873(4): I like Gerd Schaller (Philharmonie Festiva) and Herbert Blomstedt (Berliner). I fell asleep listening to the 86 minute version of 1873 from Remy Ballot....
1877: I love the Johannes Wildner 1877 with the 1876 Adagio. I create my own playlist with the 1876 Adagio substituted in!
The climax in the development seems to go on twice as long in the Tintner version. Everything is just huger, vaster in that one. I kind of like the insane gigantism of it. :D To have been in the audience for this the first time must've been like hearing Beethoven's Eroica the first time: mind blown.
Excellent analysis about each of the versions. I have the Naxos recording because there are both 1877 and 1889 and I always settle with the 1877 version. Thanks for an enjoyable video.
Solti's Bruckner 1 totally sold me on early Bruckner. I've never warmed to the 3rd in any version so far though.
I have the Kubelik studio recording of the Oeser edition, that is without the coda to the Scherzo. I also like how old Hans Knappertsbusch conducted this symphony, using an edition not played saepe today (Hmm, sounds like an understatement). His recording in Vienna for Decca, reissued by Testament, is pretty compelling, at least for me.
I just got the Michael Gielen Bruckner cycle and he does perform the 3rd symphony, 1877 version beautifully. The sonics are fabulous. The rest of the box I will reserve judgment on. But the 3rd is great.
Bruckner Three Orgasm ;-) What about Celibidache with the Stuttgart Radio Sinfonie Orchester (the father of a friend of mine played violin in this recoring). I love his frenetic yells! It was the 1st Ive heard! I recorded it per synthesizer, but the tapes are lost :-(
Got around to hearing Solti/CSO, and I agree it’s quite good. Typically fabulous playing from the CSO, particularly the brass. One of Sir Georg’s finest.hours in Bruckner.
I agree. Just made me think how Solti, who was EVERYWHERE at some point, has disappeared almost entirely.
@@bomcabedal David was honest overall about Solti, who is viewed as a god around here (Chicago) and woe be unto those of us who think he was merely a fine conductor. Thanks to him for sort of agreeing with me. I'll give his version a listen.
@@1brewski2 Personally, I find it rather comforting that after their heyday, everyone's reputation is returned to that of a mere mortal. Same happened to Rattle, and even to Karajan eventually. It's just the cults that are still out to deify their subject of choice.
Until my copy of the Solti / Chicago Bruckner 3 arrived last week, I found the work to be "lightweight" and "developmental". I was basing my view on the two performances I had in my collection -- the Inbal/ Frankfurt and the Szell / Cleveland (which has so-so sonics). Now it sounds every bit a masterpiece. I also picked up the Solti Chicago Bruckner 1 and 2 from the same seller on Discogs yesterday at a very reasonable price who seems to be cleaning out his collection of mostly Chicago recordings.
Thanks for this, some really insightful information. I've grown up on the Tintner version but it does drag sometimes, now I've listening to the Wildner 1877 version, it's definitely better.
Stepping out on a limb hete: my guilty pleasure is Rozhdestvensky's take on the 1877 version, with the acerbic Russian brass giving a crazed edge to this brass-heavy symphony, especially in the finale... The last few minutes of the symphony (but not just that) are really quite something. Not a top recommendation I admit but well worth a listen. (I expect he's done all the other versions too; can't comment on any of those.)
Interesting that the top recommendations are from the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. They were a German oriented orchestra, so it's home territory.
I gave Tintners version a listen a while back and I loved the first movement. It seemed like an endless journey through the cosmos. But I wouldn't treat this as a serious version of the symphony. I'm with you, 1877 seems like the right version to take onboard..
With more recordings of Bruckner's third than I care to admit (all of your recommendations included), Knappertsbusch conducting Vienna impacts me like no other. Certainly not a popular version-or performance-of the symphony. Vanilla, chocolate, red, blue, blonde, brunette... we like what we like.
I heard the 1980 Kubelik Bavarian Radio Symphony Orch. on CBS of the 1877 version and was impressed. Kubelik does not drag like Haitink does and his sweetness how he shapes the end movement is remarkable.
I agree. This was the first Bruckner symphony I heard and made me fall in love with him.
1873: Tintner - Royal Scottish National Orchestra - 1998
1877 (Oeser): Haitink - Concertgebouw - 1963
1877 (Nowak): Haitink - VPO - 1988
1889 (Rattig): Knappertsbusch - VPO - 1954
1889 (Nowak): Bohm - VPO - 1970
Can you put an explanation why these are your favourites? I am interested
Will you be doing a Bruckner 8? If I missed it, I am sorry. I would live to hear you take on the Nowak and Haas version. I really enjoyed your take on the Mahler 6 issues.
Of course. I will do them all, even symphony No. -0000
I've got the Sinopoli, Harnoncourt and Barenboim/Chicago. That should do.
Super video as usual, David.
Was a bit surprised that there was no mention of Chailly’s 80s performance with the RSO Berlin, of the 1889 version. To my ears it’s fantastic & the same band as the terrific 7th he did. Have you heard it?
Of course.
There's a fair number of composers that messed up their works in post though. Sibelius with the 5th, or Atterberg with his 7th symphony, to name two examples.
The two versions i know are pretty fast compared to Solti, so i'll give it a try to get more "Zen" , but don't think i'll manage.
Actually I only got bit by bit into Bruckner because of the first CD I had almost 20 years ago , Kent Nagano's Third 1873.
Didn't think much of it, first two movements - as compositions - dragging on. Only when i read your review on Classics Today (10/10 reference recording)
somewhat later i gave Bruckner another chance and rented the Michael Gielen 1877 (didn't feel like spending more money on this composer).
Following years collected ( from the city music library) all the symphonies one by one, and only bought the Skrowaczewski box a few years ago.
Always thought Solti nailed it!
Thoughts on Marthe's recording? His is sort of a composite version, combining what he considered to be the best features of each. I'm bracing myself, lol.
@@gingeropera7491 I still think the 1889 version is the only really truly listenable one. The original is intolerable; the 1877 revision is an improvement but it's still pretty rough, and the finale is still ridiculously stop and start. But Marthe's version is an interesting listen every so often.
For 1889 I'd add Chailly and Jansons (in Munich)!
I think Jansons in particular nails the finale.
"Bruckner was no exception." I think he was in this case. You don't mention the disastrous first performance of the 1876/77 revision, Bruckner's crippling lack of self-confidence and his sometimes mistaken willingness to submit to the cuts and alterations proposed by friends. See "The Essence of Bruckner" by Robert Simpson, who in his analysis deems the revisions "ill-considered". However, he does "with some trepidation" suggest a mixing of versions.😊
My favorite 1877 version is Sinopoli and I’m dying to know which of the other Sinopoli Bruckner symphonies are bad.
Not bad exactly, but 4, 5, and 7 aren't special. 9 is bad. Eight is pretty good. As you say, 3 is terrific.
If you’re interested in a well recorded version without the brass dominating the piece, definitely check out the 2018 MDG release from Zehetmair and the Musikkollegium Winterthur. I listened to every recording on Spotify and this one really stuck out with a string forward, fast, and snappy sound. Some people may say it lacks the Bruckner majesty with the brass soaring into the heavens, but I found it easier to focus on the melodies and the counterpoint in this version, and really enjoyed it. Beautiful sound engineering also.
It's a terrible performance: www.classicstoday.com/review/bruckner-from-switzerland-handicapped-and-below-par/?search=1
@@DavesClassicalGuide
Ha, shows how much I know, lol. It’s still one of the few performances I can find, though, without the brass coming in like a freight train - I found it a welcome compliment to all the bombast, if nothing else.
After spending a lot of time down this particular rabbit hole, I emerged with Kubelik's 1970 live recording of the 1877/78 Oeser version (on Audite) as my favourite one, for various reasons: First of all, it has the preferred 1877 form without the annoying and unnecessary Scherzo coda. Beyond that, it is a lively, not too grandiose interpretation with well-judged tempi that treats the symphony as sitting right between the early, Schubertian, and the later, "truly" Brucknerian ones. The BRSO plays idiomatic and with verve, and the sound is astonishingly good for the recording's age. Sure, there are a few glitches like the wonky trumpets in the Adagio or the slightly thin woodwinds in the Scherzo, but these for me are easily outweighed by one of the few really satisfying codas of the Finale,: The polka strings don't submerge the (yes, grandiose) choral brass - and Kubelik keeps enough momentum through to the very end so it doesn't feel like a soft landing. Would value your view of the recording, @David!
I'm sorry, but I find it pretty ordinary and a bit under-characterized, but I think you describe it fairly and well. Perhaps we just like different things!
I do not know the live recording you describe but I have the 1985 studio recording of Kubelik with the BRSO and I consider it the best 3rd I have (and I have many). Your description suits well also the 1985 recording; shortly, it is the most fluent and homogeneous 3rd I heard, it flows naturally without the bumping you hear in other records. And I agreed with Dave that the 1877 version is the best of the three
There is now a new Christian Thielemann on Sony with Vienna Phil. I really like it. Not sure which version he is using. The 8th was the first one they released in the series and it was just boring. Almost like he told them "mf is as loud as I want anywhere".
Would you recommend doing the first three movements of 1889 version and the finale of 1877?
Nothing wrong in principle, but unnecessary I think. Just do 1877.
I've done my own playlist, 1st movement (1889), 2nd movement (1877), scherzo (1889), finale (1877). Nothing wrong with that, as it all came from Bruckner's pen..
Could you give us an analysis or opinion on rautavaaras music?:-)
I've made some videos about him.
Dave, I have the Sinopoli/Dresden version of Bruckner Symphony #3, and I love it. What do you think of his versions of Bruckner Symphonies 5 and 7, also done with the Staatskapelle Dresden?
Feel free to check out my reviews on ClassicsToday.com.
FYI, Richard Osborne reviewed the Solti recording, your favorite, in the April 1994 issue of Gramophone. He hated it! What gives?
Ask him.
In other words regarding B3, less is more.
Sorry, but the only version of Bruckner 3 makes any structural sense to me is the original. Tintner was absolutely right in this decision and his version is better than any other I've heard to date. A rare case in Bruckner of an open and shut case. If you have to have a bastardised version, Sanderling is as good as any but i don't see the point. I would love to hear from DH what the weaknesses of the original are supposed to be.
This is not the place to have that discussion. I understand that the original is the only version that makes structural sense to you. I feel differently.
@@DavesClassicalGuide you're right but on the other hand, it's not really possible to discuss best recordings of Bruckner symphonies without taking the versions into account. Anyway, I don't want to labour the point -- I've always found your discussions interesting and more often than not, you hit the nail on the head.
hi i thought the original was magnificent, the first movement , i could hardly believe it when i heard it, i dont know anything about crochets or quavers but that is greatness.
Karajan and Kna - who else matters?
Dave just rent the veil; Kna and Herbie were nowhere to be seen.
Many others matter! Wand. Jochum. Bohm.
I don't get the Bruckner cult. From whence did it stem? Why did it form? It makes literally no sense.
Is it a cult? Isn't it just people who like the music? The difficulty being as DH explains so well, is all the different versions of 'the music'.
From what I’ve gathered, the Buckner “Cult” is subset of Bruckner fans who believe that every version of each symphony is worthy of performance and broader listenership. Many of them base their judgments of one version against another on spirituality qualities and the “misunderstood genius” of Bruckner rather than musical merit, and are militant in their beliefs.
I cannot confirm the inclusion of Bruckner scholars in the cult, but I can see how scholarship can be misinterpreted by normal listeners, and thus inspire cultishness.
@@willr3891 Thanks for your response. I follow what your saying here.
I just really like Bruckner's music. At the current time, he is my favorite composer in terms of listening hours- he has been on repeatedly for the past month, and I have purchased around 20 different recordings based on Dave's recommendations. . In 2023, Shostakovich, Haydn, and Rautavaara also were in this spot. What I refuse to do is pay attention to the different versions (Haas, Nowak, whatever), becuse it sounds way too neurotic to be honest. I just listen to what I like and what Dave recommends.
@@eddihaskell That sounds very good to me.