# Let's Smash Bruckner



## Severius! (May 6, 2006)

In recent years, classical composers have become targets for the most outlandish theories, all of them of an incendiary nature. The source of this abuse is academia, which has replaced responsibility and common sense with radical outrageousness. Once such joker is Benjamin Korstvedt. “Fanfare” magazine recently reviewed his edition of Bruckner’s 4th. I responded with a letter, which challenged their uncritical and erroneous approval of the its legitmacy. They refused to print it. Given the importance of the issues involved, I’m posting it on the net.


March 29, 2006
Dear Editor:

Is Robert McColley the most gullible person in the world? At issue is the authenticity of the Schalk/Lowe version of Bruckner’s mighty 4th Symphony (Fanfare, Vol. 29, #4). It seems McColley’s read Benjamin Korstvedt’s article, “The First Published Edition of Anton Bruckner’s Forth Symphony: Collaboration and Authenticity” (19th Century Music, Vol. XX, No. 1) which seeks to prove that that version’s the real deal – Bruckner’s signed, sealed & delivered final word on the piece.

As it happens, anyone with one whit of familiarity with the details of the composer’s life and work would have no problem shooting Iraqi road-side-bomb-sized holes in Korstvedt’s dubious little theory; in fact, his big article and current claim to fame grew out of his grad school theses, and that gives us a clue about its true colors.

If you’ve had a peek at academia and its activities over the last couple of generations, you know that the Publish or Perish dictum pretty much rules the lives of our wonderful university professors. Among its many perverse and toxic effects have been to foster an environment where you can pretty much make up anything you want and get it published, as long as you do it in a professional manner. Want to call George Washington a homosexual? Think Queen Victoria was really a man? Dwight Eisenhower drank blood? No problem. Marshal a tight argument, trot out some evidence, and away you go.

Getting the Schalk/Lowe version of Bruckner’s Forth accepted as authentic Bruckner would really catapult Benny’s career, which’s why he launched the whole idea in the first place.

So, what proof does Korstvedt present? Not a hell of a lot. Mostly, he pours scorn on anyone who’s rejected Schalk/Lowe’s hatchet job as a mere arrangement of Bruckner’s real score; including Schalk’s wife Lili, who was actually there and knew what was going on. As for Robert Haas – forget about it – he’s right up there with the greatest murdering tyrant scum of history.

When he’s not being nasty, he dredges up some musicological and biographical facts, and then concludes that simply mentioning them means his arguments are true. Finally, he even contradicts his own data; as, for example, when he tries to establish a time-line for the beginning of work on the Schalk/Lowe arrangement, a crucial part of Korstvedt’s premise.

The entire matter isn’t lacking a kind of ironic humor. McColley had me ROTFLMAO, as they say these days, with his remark that Bruckner was, contrary to common opinion, a brawling badass; took no jive from anyone – ready to beat the crap outta anyone messin’ with his scores.

Yeah, right. In fact, as Bruckner Remembered (Stephen Johnson) demonstrates, the composer was indeed far from the ridiculously obsequious figure he’s generally regarded as being; but, like it or not, that element was present in his behavior and personality. In reality, he was as complex an individual as any other human being, and perhaps more so than most. Unfortunately, our habit of reducing historical figures to a single convenient dimension violates their humanity and obscures any true understanding of their work.

But, Hulk Hogan Bruckner? Bruiser Bruckner? Again, McColley bases his gullible notions on one of Korstvedt’s weaker little pronouncements. This one appeared in Benny’s Bruckner: Symphony No. 8 book, where, to support his goofy theories that the corrupt first editions of Bruckner’s works really weren’t corrupt, Korstvedt serves up an anecdote; and then, in typical fashion (you have to read Korstvedt’s articles to really appreciate how reflexively he does this), he puts his own flim-flam spin on it.

What actually happened was that Bruckner shook a fist when talking about other folks messing with his scores. That’s it. This - and only this - is the foundation of the entire Anton ‘The Killer’ Bruckner argument.

You could take that same anecdote and come to entirely an different conclusion; one truer to the facts; namely, that it was yet another tragic moment in the aging composer’s life, which exhibited all to clearly his impotence in dealing with his cadre of meddling admirers, all of whom had their own agendas, that didn’t necessarily include Bruckner’s best interests.

Instead of mining the little anecdote for the light it might shed on the composer’s inner thoughts – the implication that Bruckner was quite angry with the evil cabal of admirers swarming around him, while simultaneously dealing with his a private hell of cognitive dissonance because of his inability to dominate matters in his life – Korstvedt merely takes it as just another bit of flotsam to use for his own career advancement.

No doubt, Korstvedt (and McColley) might disagree with all of this. We could wrangle all day about these things, but here’s the bottom line. You don’t have to be a scholar to do it. You don’t have to be an expert. All you need is solid familiarity with Bruckner’s music and your little ol’ golden ears. When it comes to deciding the authenticity of any of the discredited first editions, all you have to do is listen. Yup, just LISTEN to the music. And, then, ask yourself whether it sounds like Bruckner’s work or not.

In case of the Schalk/Lowe arrangement of the 4th, Korstvedt’s entire house of cards comes crashing down hard when put to this simple test. That score doesn’t sound like any of the prior versions of the work. It doesn’t sound like any versions of ANY of Bruckner’s symphonic compositions. What does it sound like? It sounds EXACTLY like another not-by-Bruckner hatchet job – the Schalk arrangement of the 5th. And, by exactly, I mean ZACTLY - right down to the smallest, prissy woodwind doubling, which’s exactly how Robert Simpson described it: “triplets rippling prettily up and down…Bruckner cannot have committed such a crime”. No, but that didn’t stop Korstvedt.

Sincerely,
Neward Thelman


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Wow and only 1 post too .


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

"Killer Bruckner" I enjoyed that one


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Korstvedt's controversial work on the Bruckner editions:
https://www.abruckner.com/Data/articles/articlesenglish/korstvedtbenjaminb2/korstvedt_bruckner_editions_revolution_revisited.pdf


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Wasn't Haas "up there with the greatest murdering tyrant scum of history"?

"... Haas's attachment to the Nazi party. Haas was a member of the Nazi party and did not hesitate to use the language of Naziism to garner approval for his work. He portrayed Bruckner as being a pure and simple country soul who had been corrupted by "cosmopolitan" and Jewish forces. This proved Haas's undoing, as after World War II he was removed from the Bruckner project and replaced by the more scholarly, if less inventive, Leopold Nowak who went on to produce new editions of all Bruckner's symphonies." - Wikipedia

But, I agree, this doesn't mean Haas is necessarily a bad musicologist. 

"Georg Tintner has described Haas as "brilliant" and calls Haas's edition of Bruckner's Eighth Symphony "the best" of all available versions... Herbert von Karajan, Bernard Haitink, Daniel Barenboim, Takashi Asahina and Günter Wand continued to prefer Haas's editions, even after the Nowak editions became available."

Tintner, famously, had to flee the Nazis, so he's not holding Haas' politics against him.


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Korstvedt's controversial work on the Bruckner editions:
> https://www.abruckner.com/Data/articles/articlesenglish/korstvedtbenjaminb2/korstvedt_bruckner_editions_revolution_revisited.pdf


This is excellent to read and just what a site like this should see more often. I'm not a fan of Bruckner but I like to read interesting scholarship on composers. Thanks.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Wow and only 1 post too .


Well, the only thing he could say after that is


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Severius! said:


> Sincerely,
> Neward Thelman





EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Wow and only 1 post too.


Well, actually:



Neward Thelman said:


> I've been banned 5 times in a row for detailing the intelligence of classical music listeners.


:lol:


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

With so many versions and edition, Bruckner just becomes bewildering. There's so much other music to love and enjoy that I can't get bogged down in learning every nuance and difference in these versions. So, I just stick with the "traditional" versions that I got to know 50 years ago and not worry about it. Mostly Nowak, and some Haas. But my first 5th was the Knappertsbusch 5th which used the Schalk version. Karajan, Jochum, Wand...that's enough until some superb blu ray set comes along.


----------



## hoodjem (Feb 23, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> With so many versions and edition, Bruckner just becomes bewildering. There's so much other music to love and enjoy that I can't get bogged down in learning every nuance and difference in these versions. So, I just stick with the "traditional" versions that I got to know 50 years ago and not worry about it. Mostly Nowak, and some Haas.


Yep. Moi aussi.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

hoodjem said:


> Yep. Moi aussi.


Aha, one speaks French.
Last reply was 2 years ago


----------

