Bruckner 8 Rattle and LSO - Barbican Thursday and Radio Three

[waldo]

Didn't Deryck Cooke refer to the 1890 revision as Bruckner-Schalk?

Yes, he did. But I think his view was based on assumptions which have been overturned by more recently scholarship. That whole picture of Bruckner as diffident and easily influenced etc looks more and more unlikely in view of the facts which have now emerged. As such, the justification for overturning Bruckner's OWN DECISIONS looks less and less compelling. Haas, it should be remembered, presented his editorial fabrications in a particularly ugly manner. In his view, Bruckner was merely a simple German from the country who was manipulated and exploited by "Jews and friends of Jews" (Schalk and Lowe etc). It was therefore necessary to remove the Jewish influence in order to get at the true German music underneath. For Haas, this search for German music was all part of the musicology: it must have guided what would otherwise be utterly mystifying decisions concerning what to cut and what to add. Hardly surprising, therefore, that Karajan - another opportunistic Nazi - would favour the Haas edition!
It is a great pity, however, that Haas should continue to exert such an influence over eminent conductors long after his corrupt editorial practices had been exposed......

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Problem is many of Bruckner's later revisions were urged upon him against his earlier/better judgement.

The real problem is that, in spite of there being no evidence of such an assertion, it is still widely circulated. And if the "earlier" judgement is the "better" one, then most recordings of the second, third and eighth Symphonies perpetrate "later/worse judgements".

The so-called Haas insertions are essentially restoring certain passages that Bruckner had crossed out.

Something of an oversimplification. What Haas attempted was a "best of both" edition - producing the only published edition of a Bruckner Symphony which never had any approval (with/without his "better judgement") from the composer himself.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Oh - and Tintner used 1887 Nowak, not Haas.

[Bryn]

I'm about to give the 1888 (ed. Carragan) a spin (Philharmonie Festiva, Gerd Schaller).

[Beef Oven!]

Yes, he did. But I think his view was based on assumptions which have been overturned by more recently scholarship. That whole picture of Bruckner as diffident and easily influenced etc looks more and more unlikely in view of the facts which have now emerged. As such, the justification for overturning Bruckner's OWN DECISIONS looks less and less compelling. Haas, it should be remembered, presented his editorial fabrications in a particularly ugly manner. In his view, Bruckner was merely a simple German from the country who was manipulated and exploited by "Jews and friends of Jews" (Schalk and Lowe etc). It was therefore necessary to remove the Jewish influence in order to get at the true German music underneath. For Haas, this search for German music was all part of the musicology: it must have guided what would otherwise be utterly mystifying decisions concerning what to cut and what to add. Hardly surprising, therefore, that Karajan - another opportunistic Nazi - would favour the Haas edition!
It is a great pity, however, that Haas should continue to exert such an influence over eminent conductors long after his corrupt editorial practices had been exposed......

Godwin's law. I think you've let yourself down with this post.

[Beef Oven!]

I'm about to give the 1888 (ed. Carragan) a spin (Philharmonie Festiva, Gerd Schaller).

I have heard good things about that recording.

Having listened through Karajan's VPO earlier, I'm now going to spin my beloved Georg Tintner Bruckner 8 on Naxos. 1887 version ed. Novak.

[Bryn]

Godwin's law. I think you've let yourself down with this post.

The Karajan comment might have been a little (though only a little) wide of the mark, but the circumstances and sponsorship of Haas's pick and mix efforts are more difficult to dispute.

[Beef Oven!]

The Karajan comment might have been a little (though only a little) wide of the mark, but the circumstances and sponsorship of Haas's pick and mix efforts are more difficult to dispute.

That's not the issue Bryn. Haas' reasons are besides the point. The discussion is about the what, not the why. Those references are gratuitous. The Karajan comment is not 'only a little wide of the mark' - it's out of order, Karajan was not a Nazi. I can't see why such an otherwise interesting discussion has to take such a turn into politics.

[Bryn]

I have heard good things about that recording.

Having listened through Karajan's VPO earlier, I'm now going to spin my beloved Georg Tintner Bruckner 8 on Naxos. 1887 version ed. Novak.

I too am fond of the first version, whether under Tintner, Dennis Russell Davies, Simone Young or Kent Nagano ... .

[Beef Oven!]

I too am fond of the first version, whether under Tintner, Dennis Russell Davies, Simone Young or Kent Nagano ... .

I only know the Tintner ...........

[waldo]

The Karajan comment might have been a little (though only a little) wide of the mark, but the circumstances and sponsorship of Haas's pick and mix efforts are more difficult to dispute.

Indeed. Haas's commitment to Nazi ideology was absolutely central to his methods and approach when it came to editing Bruckner: one reason, among others, why he was particularly sensitive to the (apparent) role Jews played in the composition of the symphonies. You can't really discuss Haas without mentioning it - as numerous musicologists do. Here's Benjamin Korstvedt in Chapter 1 of the Cambridge Music Handbook on Bruckner's 8th:

In the 1930s the landscape of Bruckner interpretation changed fundamentally. During this decade, the first modern collected edition of Bruckner’s works, edited by Robert Haas, set out to present the world, for the first time, with the “pure” and “true” texts of Bruckner’s music. Haas’s version of the Eighth Symphony (1939) differed radically fromthe previously available editions, and was based on questionable philology (see Appendix A). Also, in the Third Reich Anton Bruckner’s image
and his symphonies were appropriated as symbols ofthe Nazi ideal of German art and as a result the völkisch tendencies that had long colored
the support Bruckner received in some quarters magnified terribly. In 1939, for example, Haas willfully described the Eighth in terms of contemporary
cultural politics. He claimed the symphony as the “transfiguration” ofthe “deutscher Michel-Mythos,” and suggested that this
myth was finally reaching historical reality with the emergence of the “idea of greater Germany [der großdeutschen Idee].” Haas concluded that
this aspiration was embodied by the fact that the “restored score [i.e., his edition] could ring out as a greeting from Ostmark [the Nazi term for
Austria] precisely in this year”: a transparently political statement a year after the annexation of Austria (and weeks after the occupation of Haas’s
native Czechoslovakia). After the War, when the ideological complicity of the fascist (and the earlier proto-fascist) Bruckner tradition seemed all too clear, commentators
properly recoiled from the legacy of Nazi-era Bruckner criticism..........."

[Bryn]

That's not the issue Bryn. Haas' reasons are besides the point. The discussion is about the what, not the why. Those references are gratuitous. The Karajan comment is not 'only a little wide of the mark' - it's out of order, Karajan was not a Nazi. I can't see why such an otherwise interesting discussion has to take such a turn into politics.

Well, Karajan's party membership may have been foolish careerism rather than a statement of political commitment, but Haas's editorial decisions do have a distinct whiff of antisemitism about them.

[waldo]

The Karajan comment is not 'only a little wide of the mark' - it's out of order, Karajan was not a Nazi. I can't see why such an otherwise interesting discussion has to take such a turn into politics.

As said above, the Nazi connection plays a prominent role in Bruckner scholarship. It is commonplace to discuss such things, especially when referring to Haas. It isn't merely the case that he was a Nazi, but rather the fact that the Nazi ideology shaped his approach to fundamental editorial decisions. He believed that the differences between the 1877 and 1890 versions were accounted for by the fact that the Jews had manipulated Bruckner into making un-German alterations to the symphony. I have no wish to pick a fight over this, Beef Oven, but these are the facts. I didn't bring them in because I wanted to turn the debate to politics; they just happen to be part of the debate already. Not my fault.

As for Karajan, I am more the prepared to bow to your expertise here. Numerous credible sources attest to the fact that he was a member of the Nazi Party, but if you say he wasn't a Nazi...........

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed. Haas's commitment to Nazi ideology was absolutely central to his methods and approach when it came to editing Bruckner: one reason, among others, why he was particularly sensitive to the (apparent) role Jews played in the composition of the symphonies. You can't really discuss Haas without mentioning it

Waldo, we weren't discussing Haas. We were discussing the different editions of B8 and which ones, if any, made any sense to the resultant music. I thought you meant that the Haas had been discredited musicologically, rather than because we don't like the political views he held (the latter is very easy). And I don't see how the methods (not entirely sure what you mean) can be shaped by his politics (I can see that one's approach could be).

Maybe I should just get right on and spin that Tintner disc!

I'm wondering whether there is any musical reason not to use the Haas version.

[Beef Oven!]

Well, Karajan's party membership may have been foolish careerism rather than a statement of political commitment, but Haas's editorial decisions do have a distinct whiff of antisemitism about them.

Don't be naughty Bryn, you know Herbie never got that far!