Prom 47: Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra - 23.08.19

[Bryn]

I suppose that some of Haas's editions could be said to be more authorised than those of Nowak or Carragan, in that he authored some of the music, his linking passages, himself.

[jayne lee wilson]

Thank you as ever for your helpful links. My point, though, was simpler and needs no instruction, i.e. there is no need to castigate Haas alone as "unauthorised" simply because you happen to prefer what Novak or - as here - Carragan might have come up with.

In his scholarly devotion and precision at least Professor Carragan has the modesty to accept that Haas's leaps of faith can occasionally bring us closer to the composer himself, in this 2nd Symphony and elsewhere. The problem with scholarly reconstructions in our time is that they too often throw out the baby with the bathwater. In perpetuating certain of Haas's revisions at least as options for performers, Carragan has been mercifully aware of that.

Haas is in fact no more "unauthorised" than Novak, Carragan or any other 20th c. editor of Bruckner, so to reserve the adjective for him is not cricket, though I hope you enjoyed watching that and your garden this afternoon. It was too hot here in London to do anything other than stay inside, lie flat and listen to Tippett piano sonatas!

I wasn't "castigating" Haas (who did much for Bruckner's cause...)... I was referring to this from Griegel -

"The Haas edition is primarily based on the 1877 version with parts of the 1872 version mixed in. (It is unfortunate that Deryck Cooke claimed that "Haas reproduced Bruckner's first [1872] score exactly", as this error is still often repeated.) The Nowak edition is closer to the 1877 version, but since it is based on a reprinting of the Haas edition, it retains the passages from 1872 added by Haas. Carragan's definitive scores supersede all three of the old editions."

Similarly in the other link I gave.....

https://www.unicamp.br/~jmarques/mus/bruckner-e.htm#2

I can't be any clearer, sorry..... gotta go and eat now...

[Master Jacques]

I wasn't "castigating" Haas (who did much for Bruckner's cause...)... I was referring to this from Griegel -

"The Haas edition is primarily based on the 1877 version with parts of the 1872 version mixed in. (It is unfortunate that Deryck Cooke claimed that "Haas reproduced Bruckner's first [1872] score exactly", as this error is still often repeated.) The Nowak edition is closer to the 1877 version, but since it is based on a reprinting of the Haas edition, it retains the passages from 1872 added by Haas. Carragan's definitive scores supersede all three of the old editions."

Griegel over-simplifies, as I am sure you will agree, and is coy about Carragan's ambiguity (encouraged by his mentor Novak) towards Haas's edition of the 2nd Symphony - let alone his openness towards performers keen use some of Haas's materials, which he himself includes. That's why I feel there was no reason to single out Haas with the adjective "inauthentic": it doesn't treat any of these three editors fairly.

I am always wary of musicologists (and others, by the way!) who use that weasel word "definitive", which tends to apply until the next set of emperor's new clothes become fashionable. One never knows what material is going to turn up next.

[Master Jacques]

I suppose that some of Haas's editions could be said to be more authorised than those of Nowak or Carragan, in that he authored some of the music, his linking passages, himself.

Naughty, naughty, Bryn!

[jayne lee wilson]

Griegel over-simplifies, as I am sure you will agree, and is coy about Carragan's ambiguity (encouraged by his mentor Novak) towards Haas's edition of the 2nd Symphony - let alone his openness towards performers keen use some of Haas's materials, which he himself includes. That's why I feel there was no reason to single out Haas with the adjective "inauthentic": it doesn't treat any of these three editors fairly.

I am always wary of musicologists (and others, by the way!) who use that weasel word "definitive", which tends to apply until the next set of emperor's new clothes become fashionable. One never knows what material is going to turn up next.

Carragan isn't really ambiguous about anything - just all-embracing (the labour of love), very precise and very fair-minded.

But OK!
No way around this after all..... an earlier contribution of mine (1/2017) From the Composers' Subforum.....this is my last contribution to this thread, and I hope it clarifies something to someone....

• 
  Marques' summary:
  
  "Symphony no. 2 in C minor
  1872 version (First concept version), composed between October 11, 1871 and September 11, 1872. Critical edition by William Carragan for the Bruckner Society.
  
  
  1873 version (First performance version) prepared for the first performance on October 26, 1873 by the Vienna P.O. under Bruckner. There were many changes in this revision. The order of the inner movements was reversed; in the Adagio, the horn solo at the end was changed to a clarinet solo and a violin solo was added. The repeats were canceled in the Scherzo and Trio, a passage in the Finale was completely rewritten, and a fourth trombone was added in the final few bars to reinforce the bass line. Critical version by William Carragan (still unpublished).
  
  
  1876 version, prepared in 1875-76 and performed on February 20, 1876 also by the Vienna P.O under Bruckner. There weren't many changes this time. In the Finale, some material from the 1872 version, cut in 1873, was restored, the new passage added in 1873 was shortened, the fourth trombone was removed from the final bars and, instead, unison strings were introduced at the very end.
  
  
  1877 version, presents more significant changes. Compared to the 1872 version, there is a cut in the first movement (although this cut might have been made in 1876). There was also a cut made in the Adagio, and the violin solo was removed. The Scherzo was modified slightly, with some bars being repeated at the end of the Scherzo and its reprise. In the Finale, the new passage (which was shortened in 1876) was removed and replaced with yet another passage. The final few bars were changed again, mainly in the trumpet parts. And the last few bars of the first movement were stretched out a bit.
  
  
  Neither Haas (1938) nor Nowak (1965) editions represent pure versions. Contrary to what is still commonly said, Haas doesn't present the original version, but is based primarily on the 1877 version, with some elements of the 1872 version. The Nowak edition is actually a close approximation to the 1877 version as long as the cuts are observed and an error in the trumpet parts at the end of the first movement is fixed. The new definitive edition by William Carragan (1997) removes from the Nowak edition the anomalies that had remained from Haas.
  
  
  1892 version, with slight revisions made by Bruckner between 1891 and 1892. The final bars were stretched out a little bit further, and new trombone parts, similar to the 1877 trumpet parts, were introduced near the very end of the Finale. This last version is used in the First Edition, published in 1892 by Doblinger under the supervision of Hynais and later republished many times. The Doblinger edition was considered inauthentic for a long time, but now it is recognized as being a more accurate realization of the 1877 version than either the Haas or Nowak editions. "
  
  
  ***
  
  My own comments.....(JLW 1/2017)...
  
  ....The 1872 Carragan is of course available now in excellent recordings e.g.. Tintner, Young and Blomstedt (which latter is definitely ***!! There is only one Blomstedt this time unlike the 1873 3rd!).
  1877/Carragan is the most authentic revised version, with far fewer recordings: Barenboim's last two, Janowski (but both add the 1892 ending ); Paavo Jarvi (but he prefers the horn solo to the clarinet in the adagio ) and best of all Venzago, who is apparently guilty of merely one changed note (see Berky). So we'll forgive him that one given the sheer beauty and originality of his recording.
  
  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, restoring the horn solo at the adagio’s end (revisions have clarinet); and restoring the F Minor Mass quotation just before the finale coda - musically very significant, as this F Minor Mass theme is given a beautiful, extended slow treatment just before the development (Venzago is extraordinary here - beyond beauty, beyond praise!). 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 BUT BUT! - as both 1872 (with all the cyclical quotes in the outer movements, horn solo, scherzo 2nd) and 1877 (without the quotes etc., scherzo 3rd) 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).)
  
  But given the difficulty in hearing the pure 1877 Bruckner autograph (let alone 1892), and frequency of conductorial intervention (however small) you could simplify the view by seeing just two versions: 1872 Carragan, authentic, much longer, all cyclical and Mass quotes, scherzo 2nd; 1877 revision, shorter, without quotes/refs, scherzo 3rd - Carragan authentic; but variously editor- or conductor- interpolated with restorations from 1872.
  ***
  
  Bruckner 2 has some unusual structural and other stylistic features, e.g.. the 1st movement exposition on two thematic groups rather than the usual three; but that's a tale for another night...
  
  
  

[edashtav]

I suppose that some of Haas's editions could be said to be more authorised than those of Nowak or Carragan, in that he authored some of the music, his linking passages, himself.

[edashtav]

Thank you Jayne.
Were For3 to introduce Honorary Doctorates, I would sponsor you for one " for your contributions to understanding editions and performances of Anton Bruckner's music".

[cloughie]

Thank you Jayne.
Were For3 to introduce Honorary Doctorates, I would sponsor you for one " for your contributions to understanding editions and performances of Anton Bruckner's music".

I think if Anton were alive today he would be consulting and we would be seeing the Wilson editions.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Getting back to the concert if you wanted a model of how to sustain pulse with rubato I would produce as evidence the beautifully conducted 3rd movt from Brahms 3 by Semyon Bychcov and the WDR just now on Essential Classics. That is what the Adagio lacked on Friday. I don’t know why some conductors can do it and others struggle .Perhaps it’s because he worked with them for 13 years. There’s also a very good interview with him...

[Master Jacques]

1877/Carragan is the most authentic revised version, with far fewer recordings: Barenboim's last two, Janowski (but both add the 1892 ending ); Paavo Jarvi (but he prefers the horn solo to the clarinet in the adagio ) and best of all Venzago, who is apparently guilty of merely one changed note (see Berky). So we'll forgive him that one given the sheer beauty and originality of his recording.

Thank you Jayne, for your full and generally clear exposition of the "Bruckner 2 Problem". Please don't think me mealy-mouthed for singling out this paragraph out of context, but I do so for its pinpoint accuracy. I want to stress that all these conductors base their informed, editorial choices on the often radical changes which Bruckner made or sanctioned during his lifetime. None of these recordings are more, or less, "authentic" than any of the others - they pick and mix as to what seemed to them the most effective solutions at this or that moment in time, and sticking to the letter of Carragan is only another choice amongst many. Nobody needs "forgiveness". Especially as Carragan himself prompts choices and alternatives, some of them dating back to Haas - that's what I meant by "ambiguous", which I do not mean as in any sense a criticism. It is a compliment to his editorial fairness and understanding of the interpretative range possible.

We can all see from your admirable summary, I think, what a total minefield Bruckner scholars are faced with - and unless conductors go about changing the notes completely, none of them are "right" or "wrong", "authentic" or "inauthentic". Bruckner made so many changes because he was unhappy with this or that aspect of the work in the light of practical performances, so to perform a "pure" 1872 or 1877 version - or indeed any of the others - is never going to satisfactorily represent the totality of his thoughts on the work. It also helps to explain, I think, why the 2nd Symphony as a whole can never quite satisfy us in any of its incarnations - just as it never quite satisfied its extraordinary creator.

There can be no right or wrong here. For musicians, it is a matter of making the informed - not dogmatic or "definitive" - choices, which Carragan helps facilitate. And now I've said everything I'm going to say about that!

[gurnemanz]

Thank you Jayne, for your full and generally clear exposition of the "Bruckner 2 Problem". .....And now I've said everything I'm going to say about that!

And thanks to you, Jayne and others for contributions which for enthusiasts like me who lack detailed insight into these matters are most enlightening. The first time I heard a Bruckner symphony in concert was in Leipzig with the Gewandhaus under Masur in the early 70s. It was in the Kongresshalle well before the new Gewandhaus was built. I think it was the Sixth and I went with my now wife, who was born and grew up in Leipzig. I remember sitting in the front row - not my usual preference - and getting bowled over by the sound.

[Keraulophone]

I only have access to the 1887, 1890 [both ed Nowak), & Haas editions so cannot comment on the text of a year later. In all three editions there are but two main tempi - the importance of which the composer emphasizes by giving them Metronome markings - the only time these are used in the score (in these editions). The first is marked minim = 69, the second minim = 60.

Autograph MS 1890:



My heart sinks every time I hear the finale of this gigantic symphony set off at a headlong tempo, as it did on this occasion. It may be that I've become used to the lovingly detailed scenery portrayed by Celibidache (Nos. 3-9, Munich PO), and Karajan's iron grip, but Celi is the closest I have been able to find to Bruckner's marking of minim = 69 in a search of over a dozen versions on Spotify. Nelsons is the fastest I can find. However well played by the wonderful Leipzig GO, at minim = 94 it sounded to my ears like a mad rush, especially after Nelsons's very expansive view of the Adagio. Was this really supposed to be 'Feierlich, nicht schnell' (seriously, not fast) or was it seriously fast? No one else has mentioned this issue, so perhaps it's just me!

Composers may not always be the best exectuants of their own music, but this list of different tempi for the beginning of the finale puts this performance into context:

Klemperer - minim = 63 (painfully slow!)
[Bruckner's marking 69]
Celibidache 72
Giulini 76
Karajan 76/77 (VPO), 80 (BPO)
Chailly 82
Furtwangler 82
Wand 83
Jochum 85
Gielen 85
Mravinsky 86
Gergiev 88
Welser-Most 92
Haitink 93
Nelsons 94

[Alison]

Rehearing the performance it was very much a game of two halves for me.

The pulse was there in movements (I) and (II), some lingering in woodwind passages notwithstanding, and the scherzo in particular seemed well nigh ideal in terms of pace and emphasis.

Pacing doubts quickly crept in at the beginning of (iii) and the performance never recovered.

Rightly or wrongly I feel there is just a bit of the showman in AN and the beginning of the finale would fall under that category for me. It was a pretty resplendent coda but I was disoriented by then.

[Alison]

Getting back to the concert if you wanted a model of how to sustain pulse with rubato I would produce as evidence the beautifully conducted 3rd movt from Brahms 3 by Semyon Bychcov and the WDR just now on Essential Classics. That is what the Adagio lacked on Friday. I don’t know why some conductors can do it and others struggle .Perhaps it’s because he worked with them for 13 years. There’s also a very good interview with him...

Totally agree.

[Tony Halstead]

Autograph MS 1890:



My heart sinks every time I hear the finale of this gigantic symphony set off at a headlong tempo, as it did on this occasion. It may be that I've become used to the lovingly detailed scenery portrayed by Celibidache (Nos. 3-9, Munich PO), and Karajan's iron grip, but Celi is the closest I have been able to find to Bruckner's marking of minim = 69 in a search of over a dozen versions on Spotify. Nelsons is the fastest I can find. However well played by the wonderful Leipzig GO, at minim = 94 it sounded to my ears like a mad rush, especially after Nelsons's very expansive view of the Adagio. Was this really supposed to be 'Feierlich, nicht schnell' (seriously, not fast) or was it seriously fast? No one else has mentioned this issue, so perhaps it's just me!

Composers may not always be the best exectuants of their own music, but this list of different tempi for the beginning of the finale puts this performance into context:

Klemperer - minim = 63 (painfully slow!)
[Bruckner's marking 69]
Celibidache 72
Giulini 76
Karajan 76/77 (VPO), 80 (BPO)
Chailly 82
Furtwangler 82
Wand 83
Jochum 85
Gielen 85
Mravinsky 86
Gergiev 88
Welser-Most 92
Haitink 93
Nelsons 94

Horenstein 92-94
Boulez 94-92