Bruckner and His Editors

[richardfinegold]

I really don't know much about the different Editions and the various Editors and changes made to his Symphonies. I understand that some of changes can be pretty significant. My understanding is that Bruckner was somewhat insecure about himself and his creations and actively sought out advice.
One imagines that if some Editors visited Beethoven and suggested that he make similar changes, they would have left his rooms wearing his chamber pot on their heads. Brahms was notoriously self critical, destroying many pieces even when Clara Schumann and Joachim begged him not to. Brahms was exceeded in self criticism by Paul Dukas, who destroyed virtually everything he wrote and published only 7 works.
My question is this: Are there any Bruckner Symphonies where the changes of his Editors made clear , significant , and by general consensus , improvements in the work? Or do most of the changes by different Editors tend to nibble around the fringes without affecting the main course substantially?

[Thropplenoggin]

Great thread, Richard. I'll be following with interest, especially after Jayne's praise for the unadulterated 1873 version of Symphony No. 3.

[jayne lee wilson]

As starting-point, have a good read of this -

http://www.bruckner.webs.com/versions.html#sym8

...scroll up for a very good intro essay and all the other symphonies' details.

.....and get hold of The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner where the chapters "Bruckner Editions: The Revolution Revisited" and "Conductors and Bruckner" are especially insightful.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-Companion-Bruckner-Companions-Music-ebook/dp/B00AA8JTO0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473887976&sr=8-1&keywords=cambridge+bruckner

It really would be impossible to summarise whether a given editor improved a given symphony independently. Bruckner did of course revise his works voluntarily, so the suggestions made by various friends, conductors and editors during his lifetime were a collaborative process at the very least. In some cases (eg. the 1889 3rd Finale) the revision was actually based on someone else's rewrite of the whole movement (!), in this case Franz Schalk. But even here (which some of us consider to be the very worst example of the musical damage done to the original structures) Bruckner didn't accept all of his changes, and never destroyed earlier versions of any symphony, bequeathing them to the Vienna National Library in perpetuity. Maybe he really did think that their time would come. Thanks to younger conductors and many recordings, maybe it has.

The most frequently-discussed editorial interventions are those of Robert Haas of course, with regard to No.2 and No.8. He restored his own selection of excised short passages back to later revisions, in the case of No.2 bringing back quotes and thematic references in the original 1st and last movements from 1872 into the 1877 revision (but still leaving the scherzo placed 3rd).
I think the 2nd does make better musical sense with the cuts restored (call that a clear editorial improvement if you like!), BUT - as both 1872 (with all the cyclical quotes in the outer movements) and 1877 are authenticated versions of Bruckner's own, it surely is best to listen to them separately, as two excellent versions of the same work, rather than what is usually referred to as "1872/1877 Mixed Edition, Ed. Haas". Any devoted Brucknerian will want to hear them all of course! Current personal preference? 1872 Carraghan, with Scherzo coming 2nd (vide Blomstedt, Young, Tintner etc).
(Haas was of course a devoted Brucknerian, subtle in his emendation, and intuitively sensitive to Bruckner's intentions. But this editorial approach can seem to give a green light to various later conductors to make less well-advised emendations and mixed versions of their own. So - stick to the authentic Bruckner Versions as detailed on the websites, and of course at abruckner.com itself.)


Preferences for versions will always be subjective, so I'm afraid the only way to find out is to listen, but if you plunge into the earliest versions of 2,3 and 4 you'll be on a fascinating and compelling journey of discovery.
I've often mentioned my love, and belief in the musical superiority of, of the 1873 3rd. Recently I've been listening to the 1874 4th again, which has often sounded like a mere draft of the familiar 1878-80 one. It still can sound like that to me sometimes (against the unshiftable grid of familiarity), but if you get to know it well, the original scherzo in particular is a bolder, more imaginative and fantastical piece than the "hunting" one. The finale has some amazing moments too. The whole earlier 4th is more daring, startling and forward-looking but, as with the 3rd, the revisions simplified and regularised rhythmic and melodic shapes, undoubtedly making the well-known later versions catchier and more memorable, but a some loss to originality and inventiveness. (In the 3rd's case, I would add, serious loss to symphonic coherence).

Another good place to read detailed considerations of the revisions is the Oehms website ...

http://www.oehmsclassics.de/artikel.aspx?voeid=2566&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

..
...all the excellent notes to Simone Young's cycle, all downloadable for free...

[richardfinegold]

Thanks Jayne. I will peruse the links provided.
Your discussion revolves around 2-4, but wasn't there also revisionism in the later Symphones?
I have the Simone Young SACD of 9 so I am off to read those notes now.
I am listening to Haitink conduct the Bavarian aRadio Orchestra now on ClassicsOnline in the 5th...superb recording, playing, and interp.

[jayne lee wilson]

No significant revisions to 5, 6, 7 or 9.

With 8 - as per No.2. In his 1890 edition Haas restored a few short passages from the 1887 original version to the finale and adagio. But it gets a little trickier here, because 8/1887 is a very distinct version, which might not have been so extensively revised or recomposed if Levi had not rejected it.

So there are two authentic, very different scores, Nowak 1887 and Nowak 1890.
(1887 has an ff ending to the first movement, completely different trio, SIX cymbal clashes at the adagio climax and many other striking differences...).
Stick to them for a more straightforward Brucknerian life, but...

The trouble is that, in the adagio, the short, quiet passage Haas restored just before the main 1890 climax really does seem to prepare better for it. Otherwise you hear a quasi-climax, and then the start of the dramatic anticipation of, and ascent to the main one after barely any pause, rammed up abruptly against each other, with the loss of structural subtlety through thematic reference. This does appear to be an ill-advised cut for 1890, whether influenced by Bruckner's friends etc. or not. I think it's also the main reason why so many conductors choose "1890 ed. Haas" as their performing version, since other differences between Nowak 1890 or Haas 1890 (in the finale) feel musically less significant (though with a similar, more expansive and long-preparatory feel).
Calling Haas 1890 a "mixed version, 1887/90" is strictly accurate but a little misleading as the differences from the Nowak edition (the 1890 Bruckner autograph) are slight. It's "1890, with brief additional passages chosen by the editor from 1887"...

[Thropplenoggin]

Wonderfully informative posts, Jayne. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Given the posting time of the latter, I take it this is your cure for insomnia? Or are the nuances of Haas vs Novak keeping you up at night?

I've been enjoying the 1873 version you so strongly recommended, and will now seek out versions of the 1874 version of the 4th.

[Once Was 4]

Hmmm - some very erudite and thought-provoking comments.

I remember a couple of years back at the Proms when orchestras performed 'original versions' of Bruckner's 4th and 8th symphonies. No 8 had what I could only describe as 'big holes' in the music - not pregnant pauses. As for the No 4 it reminded me of a cartoon drawn by the composer, conductor and trumpeter the late Arthur Butterworth (who could not stand the music of Bruckner and said that one of his reasons for leaving the Halle orchestra was the amount of Mahler that they were playing!). This represented Bruckner 4 as a rickety steam train stopping at every signal.

At one stage in my career I worked for a conductor who delighted in performing 'original versions' which usually proved why the music had been revised. However we did the original Mussorgsky 'Boris Godunov' and (with a different conductor) Schumann 4th Symphony and, in both these examples, the originals proved to be better than the normally played versions (to me at least - but who am I!?)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I remember a couple of years back at the Proms when orchestras performed 'original versions' of Bruckner's 4th and 8th symphonies. No 8 had what I could only describe as 'big holes' in the music - not pregnant pauses.

The Minnesota Orchestra conducted by Osmo Vanska? Those were performances not so much of the "original versions" as of the first published editions - these were "Readers' Digest Condensed Symphonies" editions, overseen and approved by Bruckner as a "way in" for contemporary audiences to get to know the most important features of the symphonies before - he hoped - these became familiar and the "uncut" versions would be used. Benjamin Korstvedt, the (modern) editor of these first publications, believes that Bruckner's did not intend these "condensed" versions to be completely discarded - I think, for the reasons you mention, the performances demonstrate that they should be kept on the shelves! (Consulted only for the insights into Bruckner's ideas of tempo flexibility they uniquely offer - for which they are invaluable.)

The image of Bruckner as a timid individual reliant on the views and opinions of others to sway him to make injudicious mutilations of his scores originates with the rise of the Nazis (and the propagation of this myth was one of Haas' foulest actions - that and getting anyone who disagreed with his editorial decisions sacked). In fact, Bruckner's comments to his assistants of these early publications demonstrate that he was fully committed to getting them published, and that he as frequently excised the cuts that they suggested as he accepted their suggestions. Bruckner - greatly respected as organist, teacher in the most estimable Music establishments of the time, and as composer of choral Music (Brahms and Hanslick both revered the Masses) - was also a shrewd businessman (the correspondence with his various employers "discussing" his salary and expenses show us someone whose mind was as attuned to double entry bookkeeping as it was to double invertible counterpoint!) and these first publications had the double intention of getting his Music known, and getting money from them.

... the late Arthur Butterworth ... said that one of his reasons for leaving the Halle orchestra was the amount of Mahler that they were playing!

One of the many regrets I have about my acquaintance with Arthur was that it never reached the sort of familiarity where I could ask him why, if he disliked Mahler so much, he nicked the scherzo of latter's Seventh Symphony for his own First.

[kea]

With original versions I almost always find that the music is more characteristic of the composer's personality at the time, even if less polished, and end up preferring them on that basis. I do make an exception for Bruckner's 8th, although in all fairness the revision in that case appeared much closer to the time of the work's conception than did his revisions of e.g. 1-4. With the 4th, the original dates from 1874 and the typically heard revision from 1878-1880—after the 5th symphony and string quintet, and therefore at a point when Bruckner was more experienced and had changed his conception of symphonic forms, and this shows (with new symphonic form grafted onto material which had been "seeking" one but not found it—although this does make the 1880 version more settled and less problematic, it also then removes this "in search of..." quality). With the 3rd, the original dates from 1873, and the typically heard revision from 1889, with five symphonies and most of his major choral works in between. Bruckner was almost literally a different composer by that time. At least with the 8th, he worked on very little other than revisions of the 8th (and his earlier symphonies) from 1887 to 1890 and the final version can be seen as part of the same creative process—it certainly "feels" more like it anyway.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I agree, kea - these are works whose argument needs and repays the extra time that the first versions allow them: increasingly, I find that the "polish" of the later amendments provides extra "punctuation" at the cost of the deletion of essential text.

I also think that - for all the later version is an even greater achievement - the 1887 first version of the Eighth remains one of the finest Symphonies written in the 19th Century, and deserves its place alongside the 1890 revision. The conclusion of the First Movement - the way the climactic chord rather than overwhelming the Music with a swamp of sound from which it cannot recover is repeated in a series of body blows, staggering the narrative, but allowing it to rise defiantly - and the completely different Trio of the Second Movement; these are valid alternative ideas and I love to hear them every so often.

In fact, that's really what I feel generally about Bruckner's revisions - less a search for "the definitive" version than a revelling in the fifteen or so rather wonderful Symphonies that result from them.

[vinteuil]

I

In fact, that's really what I feel generally about Bruckner's revisions - less a search for "the definitive" version than a revelling in the fifteen or so rather wonderful Symphonies that result from them.

Yes

In the same way that we can enjoy Wordsworth's Prelude in the two-book form of 1798/1799; four-book 1804; thirteen book 1805; fourteen-book 1850. None of them is the 'definitive' version (tho' the various versions give much joy for rival scholars to battle over... ) - we as subsequent readers can glean something from all of them.

[richardfinegold]

The Minnesota Orchestra conducted by Osmo Vanska? Those were performances not so much of the "original versions" as of the first published editions - these were "Readers' Digest Condensed Symphonies" editions, overseen and approved by Bruckner as a "way in" for contemporary audiences to get to know the most important features of the symphonies before - he hoped - these became familiar and the "uncut" versions would be used. Benjamin Korstvedt, the (modern) editor of these first publications, believes that Bruckner's did not intend these "condensed" versions to be completely discarded - I think, for the reasons you mention, the performances demonstrate that they should be kept on the shelves! (Consulted only for the insights into Bruckner's ideas of tempo flexibility they uniquely offer - for which they are invaluable.)

The image of Bruckner as a timid individual reliant on the views and opinions of others to sway him to make injudicious mutilations of his scores originates with the rise of the Nazis (and the propagation of this myth was one of Haas' foulest actions - that and getting anyone who disagreed with his editorial decisions sacked). In fact, Bruckner's comments to his assistants of these early publications demonstrate that he was fully committed to getting them published, and that he as frequently excised the cuts that they suggested as he accepted their suggestions. Bruckner - greatly respected as organist, teacher in the most estimable Music establishments of the time, and as composer of choral Music (Brahms and Hanslick both revered the Masses) - was also a shrewd businessman (the correspondence with his various employers "discussing" his salary and expenses show us someone whose mind was as attuned to double entry bookkeeping as it was to double invertible counterpoint!) and these first publications had the double intention of getting his Music known, and getting money from them.



One of the many regrets I have about my acquaintance with Arthur was that it never reached the sort of familiarity where I could ask him why, if he disliked Mahler so much, he nicked the scherzo of latter's Seventh Symphony for his own First.

Thanks for the informative post, Ferney. I have a couple of follow up questions, or remarks.
First, I wasn't aware that Bruckner had prepared 'Readers Digest' versions of his Symphonies, more or less dumbing down his music to entice the uninitiated and then hoping that they would ultimately embrace the unedited versions. In all the reviews that I have read that discuss editions of Bruckner Symphonies, that is the first time that I have encountered that notion. I am not challanging you on this, but isn't it a rather curious way for a Composer to approach things? Think of Beethoven becoming apoplectic when his Publisher suggested that he omit the Grosse Fuge from one of his Quartets and pnd writing a simpler finale for that Quartet and publishing the G.F. as a seperate work. Beethoven complied but he wasn't shy about letting people know how he felt about it
Secondly, your comment that Brahms and Hanslick 'revered' his Masses strikes me as hard to pass by as well. I've read the Stafford Biography of Brahms, which devotes a sizeable number of pages to Hanslick, and I don't recall that Brahms or Hanslick
would have revered anything by Bruckner. What is your source for this?

[jayne lee wilson]

The Minnesota Orchestra conducted by Osmo Vanska? Those were performances not so much of the "original versions" as of the first published editions - these were "Readers' Digest Condensed Symphonies" editions, overseen and approved by Bruckner as a "way in" for contemporary audiences to get to know the most important features of the symphonies before - he hoped - these became familiar and the "uncut" versions would be used. Benjamin Korstvedt, the (modern) editor of these first publications, believes that Bruckner's did not intend these "condensed" versions to be completely discarded - I think, for the reasons you mention, the performances demonstrate that they should be kept on the shelves! (Consulted only for the insights into Bruckner's ideas of tempo flexibility they uniquely offer - for which they are invaluable.)

The image of Bruckner as a timid individual reliant on the views and opinions of others to sway him to make injudicious mutilations of his scores originates with the rise of the Nazis (and the propagation of this myth was one of Haas' foulest actions - that and getting anyone who disagreed with his editorial decisions sacked). In fact, Bruckner's comments to his assistants of these early publications demonstrate that he was fully committed to getting them published, and that he as frequently excised the cuts that they suggested as he accepted their suggestions. Bruckner - greatly respected as organist, teacher in the most estimable Music establishments of the time, and as composer of choral Music (Brahms and Hanslick both revered the Masses) - was also a shrewd businessman (the correspondence with his various employers "discussing" his salary and expenses show us someone whose mind was as attuned to double entry bookkeeping as it was to double invertible counterpoint!) and these first publications had the double intention of getting his Music known, and getting money from them.



One of the many regrets I have about my acquaintance with Arthur was that it never reached the sort of familiarity where I could ask him why, if he disliked Mahler so much, he nicked the scherzo of latter's Seventh Symphony for his own First.

One or two misunderstandings here.

The first published editions of No. 4 (1888, ed.Korstvedt) and No.8 (1892, ed. Haslinger-Schlesinger-Lienau) are not textually "condensed" to any real extent.
Only very brief cuts were made to the 1892 8th (some bars were even restored in the finale), it is closely similar to 1890 in most respects of form, length and proportion. Yes, there are (usually quite subtle) changes to orchestration, largely concerned with balance in densely-scored passages; and many more dynamic, tempo and expression markings are added. But the experience of listening to it feels very similar to 1890, whether Nowak or Haas. According to Berky (abruckner.com) this 1892 Bruckner-approved publication is the one featured on all of Knappertbusch's released performances and several of Furtwangler's too (WF more often used his own mixed adaptation of Haas - but see note here - https://www.abruckner.com/Data/Docum...rt_1954_B8.htm).
(The well-known 8/01/1949 Titania-Palast Knappertbusch Archipel CD is a good-sounding, well-reviewed example.)

In the again authentic 1888 4th, the only formal changes are the rather startling truncation of the scherzo sections (including a recomposed transition to the trio); and the removal of one tutti passage in the finale. Length and proportion are very similar to 1878-80. Again, the experience of listening to, say, the Vanska/Minneapolis recording is otherwise close to the familiar 1878-80 version. But anyone who knows that well will of course notice some harmonic changes, and various (usually subtle) reorchestrations, and additional dynamic, expression and tempo inflections. (Much of the latter may occur in many sensitively-conducted performances anyway of course!).

The booklet note by Korstvedt himself to the excellent Vanska recording of 4/1888 gives many of the details to listen for (including a muted violin accompanying the flute solo at the start of the first movement recap, and pp cymbals in the finale coda...!).
And BIS will even let you read it for free....

http://www.eclassical.com/shop/art96/BIS-1746-SA_booklet.pdf-de0873.pdf

[vinteuil]

Simone Young's cycle...

... now available at an absurd bargain price

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01J4RIKR4

.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I wasn't aware that Bruckner had prepared 'Readers Digest' versions of his Symphonies, more or less dumbing down his music to entice the uninitiated and then hoping that they would ultimately embrace the unedited versions. In all the reviews that I have read that discuss editions of Bruckner Symphonies, that is the first time that I have encountered that notion. I am not challanging you on this, but isn't it a rather curious way for a Composer to approach things?

You are quite right to challenge - and jlw has corrected my misunderstanding of the Proms performance source, so I shall have to reread my "sources" on the general situation with regard to my understanding of the other first published editions. These sources include those mentioned by jlw in her first post:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-Companion-Bruckner-Companions-Music-ebook/dp/B00AA8JTO0/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bruckners-Symphonies-Analysis-Reception-Cultural/dp/0521081858

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bruckner-Symphony-Cambridge-Music-Handbooks/dp/0521635373

Secondly, your comment that Brahms and Hanslick 'revered' his Masses strikes me as hard to pass by as well. I've read the Stafford Biography of Brahms, which devotes a sizeable number of pages to Hanslick, and I don't recall that Brahms or Hanslick would have revered anything by Bruckner. What is your source for this?

Biographies of Bruckner (I'll now have to hunt out which ones) which quoted highly favourable remarks (you are right - "revered" is too generous) about the E minor and F minor Masses from the two. I haven't read the Swafford biography, but doesn't it mention Brahms' closer friendship with Bruckner later in life, and his attendance at the latter's funeral? It was specifically the Symphonies that both regarded as "swindles" - a sort-of betrayal of the economic close-knit Tonal architecture that they regarded as essential to the foremost of Musical genres.