David Harbin wrote:

>I can't stand Schubert's 9th "The Great".  It goes on and on and the
>jolly tunes are irritating, failing to organically change or grow over
>the symphony's tortuous length.  Not even Furtwangler/BPO can save this
>symphony for me.

I can sympathize with this.  When I was much younger (and much more
impatient) I thought the same thing about Schubert's Ninth, his op.
161 string quartet (G Maj.), AND most of Bruckbruckbrucknernerner.

Gradually, something happened to change my mind.  Perhaps it was that
later on I had more free time, and I also developed a taste for lengthy
novels and long articles in the New York Review of Books.  I fell in
love with words!  George Eliot and other fine writers wrote perfectly
logical sentences, but they were very long and somewhat convoluted.  It
took a different kind of concentration to learn to parse them.  Suddenly,
after much applied concentration, not only did they make good sense to
me, but they were vivid and exciting to read.

The same thing happened with Bruckner and Schubert (and it is no accident
that I pair them ...  the seeds of Schubert are found in Bruckner.) Yes,
things are repeated, but there is a tremendous emotional impact and
logical structure that is revealed in the length.  I may not always be
in the mood for such a rich meal, but there are other times when I
specifically crave that experience.

And yes, the performance matters!  It takes a lot of tooting and scraping
to pull off a good performance, so a fine orchestra (and energetic string
players) are required.

Mimi Ezust