Are the differences between the versions only a matter of orchestration or were passages rewritten/added/removed? I imagine the earlier version is better. Most of Bruckner's revisions were a waste of time (8th Symphony excepted).
@@nickbamber268 The only currently available recording of the 1866 version is a concert performance by Hans-Christoph Rademann with the RIAS Choir (23 June 2013), a recording of which is saved in the Bruckner archive (CD - Charter Oak COR-1904). The 1882 version is 26 bars longer. The approximately 150 differences among the two versions are described in detail at the end of the score of the 1882 version. The differences concern both phrasing and accompaniment, mainly during the Credo and the Benedictus. Most of these changes are barely audible without comparing the scores of the two versions. However, some changes are more obvious, as other phrasing and instrumentation of the middle section of the Credo, as e.g. the postlude of "et sepultus est" by the woodwinds instead of the brass, and three additional "sanctus" by the female voices in unison in the middle section of the Sanctus.
@@anbruck1 My pocket score published by Philharmonia is of the 1866 version and edited by Josef Voss. I will have to do some work and compare this recording with my score. Thanks for the information.
Sehr eindrucksvoll die Wechsel in der Dynamik, z.B. 18:00
An excellent performance of the 1882 version of Bruckner's Mass in E minor.
However, the balance between orchestra and choir is not optimal, because the choir is in some instances overwhelmed by the brass instruments.
Are the differences between the versions only a matter of orchestration or were passages rewritten/added/removed? I imagine the earlier version is better. Most of Bruckner's revisions were a waste of time (8th Symphony excepted).
@@nickbamber268 The only currently available recording of the 1866 version is a concert performance by Hans-Christoph Rademann with the RIAS Choir (23 June 2013), a recording of which is saved in the Bruckner archive (CD - Charter Oak COR-1904). The 1882 version is 26 bars longer. The approximately 150 differences among the two versions are described in detail at the end of the score of the 1882 version. The differences concern both phrasing and accompaniment, mainly during the Credo and the Benedictus. Most of these changes are barely audible without comparing the scores of the two versions. However, some changes are more obvious, as other phrasing and instrumentation of the middle section of the Credo, as e.g. the postlude of "et sepultus est" by the woodwinds instead of the brass, and three additional "sanctus" by the female voices in unison in the middle section of the Sanctus.
@@anbruck1 My pocket score published by Philharmonia is of the 1866 version and edited by Josef Voss. I will have to do some work and compare this recording with my score. Thanks for the information.
16:36 Gänsehaut 🤍
Pure indulgence
完美的作品，铜管与人声能配合的如此之美
Me encanta ♥️
¡Bravo Ángela!, qué gran experiencia 👍🏻
Sublime
Beautiful music, performance, and recording.
귀한 곡인데 고맙습니다
ブルックナーのミサ曲と云えば第3番ヘ短調が有名ですが、それより規模が小さめとは言え、第2番も洗練された名曲だと改めて気付かさせてくれた演奏です、有り難うございます。
Bravi tutti! Sind die Stravinsky Aufzeichnungen auch schon fertig? Würde mich brennend interessieren 😅!
Grazie mille!
Sind in Vorbereitung und folgen demnächst 😊