# Overview of the versions of Anton Bruckner's symphonies



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Here is an historical overview of the versions and editions of Anton Bruckner's symphonies. Big and small revisions are included. Sometimes Bruckner changed a symphony on the very same score of an earlier version (I indicate these smaller revision by calling them revised earlier versions in the table). In the case of more extensive revisions Bruckner rewrote the complete score. Sometimes the orchestral parts of performances in Bruckners lifetime differ from the scores. Sometimes Bruckner implemented changes on copies of the original scores. Some versions are authentic, others include changes by others. Some revisions only affect specific movements.

I mention the year a version was first published and the publisher in brackets, and I also mention the editions which published a version for the first time separately in square brackets (the Oeser edition of the 3rd as well because of historical importance). Where possible a recording is linked (often with a time stamp to a notable passage of the version). The color indicates the authenticity mostly according to Benjamin Korstvedt.

black - authentic
dark red - authenticity grey area
red - not authentic
grey - not available
blue - reconstructed
*[bold]* - published editions

_(scroll to the right to see versions of symphonies No. 8 and 9)_

yearSymphony 
No. 00Symphony 
No. 1Symphony 
No. 0Symphony 
No. 2Symphony 
No. 3Symphony 
No. 4Symphony 
No. 5Symphony 
No. 6Symphony 
No. 7Symphony 
No. 8Symphony 
No. 91863original version (Nowak 1973) 18651865 Adagio and Scherzo (Grandjean 1995) 18661866 version (Carragan 1998) 1868first performance version (Röder 2016) 1869original version (Nowak 1968) 18721872 version (Carragan 2005) 1873first performance version (Carragan 1991)1873 version (Nowak 1977) 1874revised 1873 version (Carragan 2011)1874 version (unpublished) 1875revised 1874 version (Nowak 1975) 1876second performance version (Carragan 1991)1876 version (reconstructed by Carragan 2019)supposed performance version (Korstvedt 2021)1876 version (approximately reconstructed by Kawasaki 2008) 1877revised 1866 version (Haas 1935)1877 version (Carragan 2007)first performance version (unpublished) 1878revised first performance version with Scherzo Coda (Nowak 1981)1878 version (Carragan 2014)revised 1876 version (Haas 1935) 1879engraver's model version - *[Rättig]* 18801880 Finale - first performance version (unpublished) 1881revised first perfomance version (Haas 1936)1881 version (Haas 1935) 1883first performance version (unpublished) 1885revised first performance version - *[Gutmann (1885 version with cymbal)]* 1886New York version (Nowak 1953) 18871887 version (unpublished)1887 version (Nowak 1972) 1888revised 1887 version (Gutmann 1889)1888 Adagio (Kawasaki 2004) 18891889 version (Nowak 1959)*[Gutmann (1888 version)]* 1890revised 1889 version - *[Rättig]*1890 version (unpublished)1890 version (Nowak 1955) 18911891 version (Brosche 1980) 1892revised 1877 version - *[Doblinger]*first performance version - *[Lienau]* 1893Hynais version - *[Doblinger]* 1894F. Schalk versionHynais version 1895Mahler version 1896*[Doblinger (F. Schalk version)]*unfinished1899J. Schalk revision of Hynais version - *[Doblinger]* 1903Löwe version - *[Doblinger]*1913Hynais version - *[Hynais (Andante only)]* 1924Wöss version - *[Wöss]* yearSymphony 
No. 00Symphony 
No. 1Symphony 
No. 0Symphony 
No. 2Symphony 
No. 3Symphony 
No. 4Symphony 
No. 5Symphony 
No. 6Symphony 
No. 7Symphony 
No. 8Symphony 
No. 91934*[Orel (autograph version of first 3 movements)]*1935*[Haas (1877 version)]**[Haas (1878 version)]**[Haas (1881 version)]* 1936*[Haas (1881 version)]*; *[Haas (1878 Finale)**]* 1938Haas 1872/1877 mixed version - *[Haas]* 1939Haas 1887/1890 mixed version - *[Haas]* 1944Haas 1883/1885 mixed version without cymbal - *[Haas]*Furtwängler: Haas/Lienau mixed version 1950*[Oeser (1879 engraver's model version)]* 1951Furtwängler: Haas/Gutmann mixed version 1953*[Nowak (1886 version)]* 1954Nowak: Haas/
Gutmann mixed version with optional cymbal - *[Nowak]* 1955*[Nowak (1890 version)]* 1959*[Nowak (1889 version)]* 1965Nowak revision of Haas version - *[Nowak]* 1968*[Nowak (1869 version)]* 1972*[Nowak (1887 version)]* 1973*[Nowak (1863 version)]* 1875*[Nowak (1875 version)]* 1976*[Nowak (1876 Adagio)]* 1977*[Nowak (1873 version)]* 1980*[Brosche (1891 version)]* 1981*[Nowak (1878 version)]* 1983Carragan completion of Finale19841984 Samale/ Mazzuca realization of Finale19881988 revision 
of Samale/
Mazzuca Finale1991*[Carragan (1873 and 1876 versions)]* 1992SPCM realization of Finale; 
Josephson completion of Finale1995*[Grandjean (1865 Adagio and Scherzo)]* 19961996 revision of SPCM Finale1997Caragan reconstruction of 1876 Coda 1998*[Carragan (1866 version)]* 20032003 revision of Carragan Finale2004*[Kawasaki (1888 Adagio)]* 2005*[Carragan (1872 version)]*Kanz mixed version - *[Kanz]*;
Marthe mixed version2005 revision of SPCM Finale20062006 revision of Carragan Finale; 
Marthe Finale2007*[Carragan (1877 version)]*2007 revision of SPCM Finale2008Kawasaki reconstruction of 1876 version - *[Kawasaki]*Letocart realization of Finale20102010 revision of Carragan Finale2011*[Caragan (1874 version)]* 2012Carragan compilation of full 1888 version2012 revision of SPCM Finale2014*[Carragan (1878 version)]* 2015Schaller completion of Finale2016*[Röder (1868 version)]* 20182018 revision of Schaller Finale2019Carragan reconstruction of 1876 version 2021*[Korstvedt (1876 version)]*2021 revision of SPCM FinaleyearSymphony 
No. 00Symphony 
No. 1Symphony 
No. 0Symphony 
No. 2Symphony 
No. 3Symphony 
No. 4Symphony 
No. 5Symphony 
No. 6Symphony 
No. 7Symphony 
No. 8Symphony 
No. 9
(1/2)


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

(2/2)

The orchestral parts of the first performances of the 1st and 2nd symphony in 1868 respectively 1873 and 1876 show some differences to the original scores from 1866 respectively 1872. Earlier versions of the Adagio and Scherzo of the 1st which were already written in 1965 like the first movement were exchanged probably before the Finale was finished.

Bruckner changed the original versions of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th symphony on the very same score. The original versions of the 1st and 3rd were copied before the changes were implemented and in the case of the 3rd were sent to Wagner in Bayreuth. The original states of the 4th and 7th have not been reconstructed until now. The 7th was first performed in the original state in 1884 but the orchestral parts are apparently not available anymore. In the case of the 5th the difficult attempt of an reconstruction has been done by Takanobu Kawasaki in 2008.

Bruckner wrote a new version of the 3rd in 1976 and again made again changes on the very same score except for the Adagio which was completely rewritten. The Adagio was published in 1976 by Nowak but the other movements needed to be reconstructed what Carragan did in 2019. There was a rehearsal of the symphony in 1877 in Vienna probably still with the 1876 Adagio. A bit later in 1877 the work was first performed probably with all movements already changed but the Scherzo. In 1878 the Scherzo was changed and an Scherzo Coda was added. But the version that was printed in 1979 is somewhat different. The engraver's model version for the print does not include the Scherzo Coda and a general pause in the first movement.

The 4th symphony was completely revised in 1878. The Scherzo and Trio were substituted. This is the only case a complete movement was exchanged. The Scherzo of the 1st symphony of 1865 was also substituted in 1866 but the Trio remained. The Finale of the 4th was also heavily changed in 1878, but that wasn't the last revision of the movement. The Finale was again massively changed in 1880 while the other movements stayed the same. In this form the symphony was first performed in 1881. After the performance Bruckner made again some changes on the very same score, and we don't have the exact version of the first performance anymore. In 1886 Bruckner sent another version of the symphony which rather small changes primarily in the Finale to New York where the work was performed in 1888. At this time in 1888 the work was already revised again twice.

In the late 1880s and afterwards more and more symphonies were published and new versions were prepared for this purpose by Bruckner and his advisors. A lot of controversy exist around the question which versions are authentic and which aren't. 
- It begins with the insertion of some changes like the cymbal in the 7th symphony in 1885, which Bruckner probably commissioned. 
- Then in 1887 Bruckner revised the 4th with advisor Ferdinand Löwe. The version was performed in 1888 in Vienna, and Bruckner again revised it afterwards and the work got published for the first time in this form by Gutmann in 1889. The result of new research is that the version is authentic.
- In 1889 Bruckner revised the 3rd symphony again with Josef and Franz Schalk. The version that was published in 1890 includes some slight changes to this 1889 version which revert back in some cases to the 1878 version. These versions are probably authentic.
- In 1891 Bruckner revised the 1st symphony. The symphony was published in 1893 but with changes regarding tempo and dynamics for example. It is not known if these changes were commissioned by Bruckner or made by Cyrill Hynais unauthorized. According to Korstvedt the 1893 version is in a grey area regarding authenticity. But the 1891 version is authentic Bruckner.
- In 1892 Bruckner revised the 2nd symphony with Cyrill Hynais and the 8th with Josef Schalk. Again these versions are in an authenticity grey area according to Korstvedt. Apparently Schalk made some changes to the 8th but Bruckner authorized them afterwards. There is also some correspondence between some advisors preserved, in which a rising discontentment with Bruckner is mentioned because of his stolidness.
- Around 1890 Bruckner revised the 5th symphony, a version that was never published. In 1894 Franz Schalk revised the 5th symphony based on this 1890 version without further involvement of Bruckner and many unauthorized changes. This Schalk versions was published in 1896.
- In 1894 Cyrill Hynais revised the 6th symphony. But before the work was published in 1899 Joseph Schalk implemented more definitely unauthorized changes. Like in the 1893 edition of the 1st there are primarily changes to tempo and dynamics. But over 2000 changes are countable according to Carragan.
- In 1895 Gustav Mahler and Ferdinand Löwe revised the 1888 version of the 4th symphony without involvement of Bruckner. But the symphony was already published and this version was just for performance purposes.
- In 1903 Ferdinand Löwe created a 3 movement version of the unfinished 9th symphony with additions of tempo, dynamic and articulation indications to the raw, unrefined Bruckner score but also changes to harmony, instrumentation and filling auf general pauses.
- In 1913 Cyrill Hynais published the Andante of the study symphony with changes to tempo, expression, orchestration and some different notes.
- In 1924 Josef Wöss published the 0th symphony. There are some editorial changes to the Bruckner score but mostly logical advises for conductors which appear very natural. Nowak also added some of these kind of additions to the raw Bruckner score in his critical edition of 1968 but put them in brackets.

Beginning in the 1930s Bruckner scholars like Robert Haas and Alfred Orel changed the handling of the versions completely. The new goal was to cleanse the symphonies from the influence of others than Bruckner. The first published editions got discarded and new editions were published, but many conductors still preferred the old editions for decades. In some cases the attempt to replace the old editions with exactly one authentic version led to new authenticity problems because of the mixing of versions.
- In 1938 Robert Haas published a new edition of the 2nd symphony. He discarded the 1892 version but found two authentic versions: The 1872 version and the 1877 version. The 1877 has many cuts compared to the 1872 version and Haas' thought was that these changes stem from the influence of bad advisors. But he thought that other changes like the revised Coda of the Finale were true Bruckner. So he took the 1877 version but inserted optional sections of the 1872 version where the 1872 version was longer. This resulted in some transition problems and Haas composed his own solutions for this. Leopold Nowak published a new edition of the 2nd in 1965 which is closer to the 1877 version but maintains some special characteristics of the Haas version. Carragan argues that Nowak even aggravated an mistake at the end of the first movement.
- In 1939 Haas published a new edition of the 8th symphony. Here again Haas discarded the 1892 version but found two authentic earlier versions: The 1887 version and the 1890 version. Again Haas wanted to publish only one score. Again he thought that cuts stem from bad advisors but with the exception of the cut Coda of the first movement. This time Haas made the inserted extensions of the 1887 version not optional, but again Haas composed some notes for transitions.
- In 1944 Haas published a new edition of the 7th without cymbal and some other changes. Haas reconstructed the 1883 were it was possible and eliminated changes which Bruckner commissioned per correspondence. Nowak later published an edition with optional cymbal, without 1883 reconstructions and with such changes of the Gutmann edition compared to the autograph which were proven to by commissioned by Bruckner.
- Haas also wanted to publish mixed version of the 3rd and 4th but he was replaced at the end of the war. In 2005 Joseph Kanz published a mixed version of the 3rd dedicated to Robert Haas.

Wilhelm Furtwängler conducted the first performance of the Haas version of the 8th symphony, but disagreed later with some changes made by Haas and created a mixture of the Haas and the Lienau version. Furtwängler also conducted a mixed version of the 4th symphony that is based on the 1888 version but leaves out the cuts in the repetition of the Scherzo like in Haas' 1881 version.

Leopold Nowak replaced Robert Haas as general editor for the international Bruckner society after the war. Nowak gave up the goal to mix versions together for the purpose of only one edition and began to publish multiple versions per symphony especially the very early versions.

Editions of the late versions have been published again in the last decades in cases where the versions are thought to be authentic. Scholars like William Carragan have done reconstructions of the Finale of the 9th symphony and of overwritten versions of revised symphonies. Carragan has also compiled an intermediate version of the 8th with the 1888 Adagio finished by Bruckner and provisional plans for the other movements between 1887 and 1890 by Bruckner.

See also:
- https://www.abruckner.com/discography1/
- https://imslp.org/wiki/Category:Bruckner,_Anton
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versions_and_editions_of_Bruckner's_symphonies
- https://bruckner.webs.com/versions.html
- https://www.unicamp.br/~jmarques/mus/bruckner-e.htm
- https://carragan.com/


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

I have a (Dutch) biography of Bruckner by Cornelis van Zwol, with also a lot of information like this. 
I most definitely won't collect recordings of 'all' versions sub-versions and editions, because one would almost need 2 lives for that, but it's an interesting read.

I think we should send your posts to David Hurwitz, to make him explode from anger! :devil:


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Marc said:


> I think we should send your posts to David Hurwitz, to make him explode from anger! :devil:


I don't always agree with Hurwitz, but I think he's absolutely right about this ever expanding madness:






Bottom of the line: we KNOW which versions Bruckner actually preferred. And - lucky coincidence or a great composer's wisdom? - those versions mostly coincide with the ones that are mostly played and regarded as the best and most musically satisfying.
Promoting, issuing and playing/recording inferior versions not only goes against the composer's will but does a tremendous disservice to his legacy.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I see Gerd Schaller has a new 20 disk set on Profil with many of these versions and editions. Over 1000 minutes. I`'ll stick with Nowak and Haas and be content.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

David Hurwitz does come across as a legend in his own mind, but he knows his stuff. The best thing he ever did was showcasing the various Bruckner versions, presenting them in a very simple logical way where a novice like me can finally understand it all. I didn't even know Bruckner left a will behind stating his prefered versions. If you watch his video, (and know your Bruckner), it really appears to be quite straightforward.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Subutai said:


> If you watch his video, (and know your Bruckner), it really appears to be quite straightforward.


It is, absolutely. Simple as it can be. It's just the Bruckner scholars who keep muddying the water and create needless complications and controversy.
In their view, Bruckner isn't just like any other self-critical composer, who kept improving his works till they reached a final stage which he was content with - no, they treat him like a feeble human being, who can't be trusted with his own music. Everything he did, every premature stage of a work has for some reason to be regarded as equal to the sanctioned final version of a work. Can you think of another composer who gets this kind of humiliating treatment, who gets his legacy sullied by professional scholarship in the same way?

Really, do people really think Bruckner would have approved of that clunky first version of the 4th to be played and recorded over and over again? While the clearly superior 1881 exists? Just because "we can"? Or - like someone here wrote, "we have more Bruckner this way." Yes, we have more Bruckner now. First we had only good Bruckner. Now we have good Bruckner and bad Bruckner. Happy now?

One wishes that Bruckner had the good sense of destroying his sketches and old versions of his scores, like Brahms did. Imagine the same kind of dispute over the symphonies of Brahms, with people recording the reconstructed 1861 version of the 1st symphony, some preferring it over the intermediate 1868 version (you know, the one with the order of the middle movements reversed) and arguing that in the final published 1876 version, Hanslick tampered with the orchestration...
Would that be better than the situation we have now, with one single definitive version and nothing else? Maybe people will say that it would be nice to have "more Brahms..."

This madness has to stop, and the disservice that's being done to a great composer must be reverted.
Sorry for the ranting, had to get this out of my system!


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

RobertJTh said:


> I don't always agree with Hurwitz, but I think he's absolutely right about this ever expanding madness:
> 
> Bottom of the line: we KNOW which versions Bruckner actually preferred. And - lucky coincidence or a great composer's wisdom? - those versions mostly coincide with the ones that are mostly played and regarded as the best and most musically satisfying.


I think Hurwitz wants to give a guidance to new Bruckner listeners, but he simplifies the situation too much in an inaccurate and dishonest way. In some cases he belittles the differences of versions for example regarding the 1st, 2nd and 7th. We know if Bruckner wanted the cymbal in the 7th? If its so easy to tell please let me know! Hurwitz says differences like these or entire rewritten passages like the Scherzo-Codas of the 1st and 3rd doesn't matter. So on the one hand Hurwitz condemns the editors where he likes pleases but on the other hand he does not care for differences where they does not suit his message.

In the case of the 1889 version of the 3rd Hurwitz says you can legitimately get the version because it is also very popular. This contradicts his message. Seems like he argues for versions because of their popularity and not because of Bruckners will. Hurwitz also does not demand the 9th to be played with the Te Deum as finale even tough Bruckner wanted that.

Hurwitz is more interested in simplification than truth. There is more to say about the value and meaning of the version than just whether Bruckner sent them to the national library. The early versions basically contain more original ideas which where toned down because the influence of the Vienna audience, critics and his advisers and in some cases also because of Bruckners own listening experiences of performances. On the other hand the later versions have detail improvements at the very least, even the 1888 version if the 4th despised by Hurwitz (there are also important mutilations in this version tough imo).

The versions are there no matter what we think about it. Nobody has to hear them if he doesn't want to. But great conductors of the past like Furtwängler have played versions that aren't played much anymore. It does not seem fair to disregard them because of some ideological wars about versions. People have come to many different conclusions about the versions so I really doubt someone "knows" the one and only truth.



RobertJTh said:


> Really, do people really think Bruckner would have approved of that clunky first version of the 4th to be played and recorded over and over again? While the clearly superior 1881 exists?


Dennis Russell Davies says the 1st version of the 4th is more coherent. Georg Tintner said that in the case of the 4th the result of the revision was superior, but prefers the early versions of other symphonies like the 3rd and 1st. Opinion over opinions. But I would not deny the love of any conductor for the music. Preferring one version is one thing, totally normal, but denying the right to exist of other versions, I mean, this is hostile towards art other people love.

Hurwitz just says the 2nd isn't that interesting of a symphony. Bruckner would have approved this?



RobertJTh said:


> Just because "we can"? Or - like someone here wrote, "we have more Bruckner this way." Yes, we have more Bruckner now. First we had only good Bruckner. Now we have good Bruckner and bad Bruckner. Happy now?
> 
> One wishes that Bruckner had the good sense of destroying his sketches and old versions


How do "bad versions" hurt? If you don't listen to them they have no relevance. But I think this rejection of different versions is very basic, can't really be changed and maybe does not have much to do with the music itself. Maybe some don't like it that there is maybe more than one truth about a work. Or they perceive the existence of different versions necessarily as questioning of the authority of composers. I think its interesting, that there is maybe more than one truth about works, and playing a finished score of a composer can't objectively be hostile towards the composer.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Aries said:


> I think Hurwitz wants to give a guidance to new Bruckner listeners, but he simplifies the situation too much in an inaccurate and dishonest way. In some cases he belittles the differences of versions for example regarding the 1st, 2nd and 7th. We know if Bruckner wanted the cymbal in the 7th? If its so easy to tell please let me know! Hurwitz says differences like these or entire rewritten passages like the Scherzo-Codas of the 1st and 3rd doesn't matter. So on the one hand Hurwitz condemns the editors where he likes pleases but on the other hand he does not care for differences where they does not suit his message.


How exactly is the chart he presents "inaccurate and dishonest"?
Note that it focuses on the main, most popular editions and makes a point that those mostly coincide with what Bruckner wanted to preserve for posterity. The alternative editions are more diverse, but it's not the point of the chart to elaborate on that. Also, yes, there are small differences between Haas and Novak, but that's a different matter altogether.











> In the case of the 1889 version of the 3rd Hurwitz says you can legitimately get the version because it is also very popular. This contradicts his message. Seems like he argues for versions because of their popularity and not because of Bruckners will. Hurwitz also does not demand the 9th to be played with the Te Deum as finale even tough Bruckner wanted that.


Hurwitz lists the symphonies according to Bruckner's preference, then checks whether those versions are the most frequently played or not. Not the other way around, like you claim.

Bruckner's idea to use the Te Deum as the 9th finale preceded his work on the main body of the finale. See:
https://www.abruckner.com/down/arti...acques-bruckner_9_finale_critical_account.pdf
Page 3: "He seems to have investigated several possibilities for a transition from the Finale music to his Te Deum, but after that he continued work on the purely instrumental Finale."
The use of the Te Deum thus presented an intermediate stage in the conception of the 9th, not his definitive thought. It's interesting to note that
- there's no ready-to-use score with the transition from the adagio to the Te Deum, only sketches.
- those very sketches with the transition and the Te Deum main theme figuration are actually used in the unfinished finale, which indicates that Bruckner had dismissed the Te Deum idea but transfigured the sketch material into something else.



> Hurwitz is more interested in simplification than truth. There is more to say about the value and meaning of the version than just whether Bruckner sent them to the national library.


How so? Bruckner chose the works (and the versions of the works) he wanted to have preserved for posterity. If scholars chose to ignore that important decision, for me it's proof that they don't take Bruckner seriously, that they claim they can handle his legacy better better than the composer himself - something that Hurwitz criticises and ridicules in his videos, and rightly so.



> The early versions basically contain more original ideas which where toned down because the influence of the Vienna audience, critics and his advisers and in some cases also because of Bruckners own listening experiences of performances.


Outdated and partly wrong opinion, basically what Haas thought in the old days (Bruckner as the weak foolish genius, powerless against critics and well-meaning "friends"). Subsequent research has proven that Bruckner in fact had a very strong will, didn't approve of any tampering with his scores and was only forced by his editors to make or give permission to others to make amendments in the printed versions of his symphonies. But regarding those: it's significant to notice that Bruckner in most cases bequeathed the middle version manuscripts to the Imperial Library, not the last versions which were used for the printed first editions.
So with the first editions mostly discredited, what we are left with is basically and simply a canon list of Bruckner-approved middle versions. This isn't rocket science, people.



> On the other hand the later versions have detail improvements at the very least, even the 1888 version if the 4th despised by Hurwitz (there are also important mutilations in this version tough imo).


If completely unauthentic editions like the Schalk 5th and the Löwe 9th are not taken into account, the 4th is the main example of a bowdlerized first edition. It's not authentic Bruckner.



> The versions are there no matter what we think about it. Nobody has to hear them if he doesn't want to. But great conductors of the past like Furtwängler have played versions that aren't played much anymore. It does not seem fair to disregard them because of some ideological wars about versions. People have come to many different conclusions about the versions so I really doubt someone "knows" the one and only truth.


Again, differences between Haas and Novak aren't part of this discussion. I think no-one can discredit any great conductor of the past based on the editions he used (well, maybe Knappertsbusch, what was he thinking?) The obsession with first versions is fairly recent, and the main damage to the composer's legacy is done not by the likes of Furtwängler but by people like Inbal and Tintner.



> Dennis Russell Davies says the 1st version of the 4th is more coherent. Georg Tintner said that in the case of the 4th the result of the revision was superior, but prefers the early versions of other symphonies like the 3rd and 1st. Opinion over opinions. But I would not deny the love of any conductor for the music. Preferring one version is one thing, totally normal, but denying the right to exist of other versions, I mean, this is hostile towards art other people love.


It's too easy to claim it's just a matter of opinions and tastes. Hurwitz argues (and I think he's right) that we know which versions the composer approved of, and that scholars and performers willfully chose to ignore that important information. Instead we have 4 or 5 different editions of the 4th now, all bound in the same format, so to make it clear that according to the "Bruckner people" they're all of equal worth. Which couldn't be more beside the truth.

And that "coherence" in the first version of the 4th... Just listen to those ridiculous rising and falling scales in the first version of the finale. They made me laugh out loud when I listened to Inbal's recording. And so many more atrocities that were mercifully cut out in the 1881 version... but fine, Mr. Davies, let's just call the first version "coherent garbage" and be done with it.



> Hurwitz just says the 2nd isn't that interesting of a symphony. Bruckner would have approved this?


I don't know, and I don't see how this is relevant. I prefer the 1st and 3rd as well.



> How do "bad versions" hurt? If you don't listen to them they have no relevance. But I think this rejection of different versions is very basic, can't really be changed and maybe does not have much to do with the music itself. Maybe some don't like it that there is maybe more than one truth about a work. Or they perceive the existence of different versions necessarily as questioning of the authority of composers. I think its interesting, that there is maybe more than one truth about works, and playing a finished score of a composer can't objectively be hostile towards the composer.


There's another infamous musicological case that's all about "let's ignore the facts, let's erect smoke curtains and claim it's all a matter of taste" and that's the order of the middle movements of Mahler's 6th. We KNOW what Mahler wanted (andante - scherzo), there's overwhelming forensic proof - and still there are lots of people, including, ironically Hurwitz, who basically put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la, can't hear you!"

My point is that when Bruckner himself says "Look people, here's my legacy to the world, here's what I want you to preserve and keep performing", the Bruckner scholars en masse go "la la la, can't hear you!"


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

RobertJTh said:


> How exactly is the chart he presents "inaccurate and dishonest"?
> Note that it focuses on the main, most popular editions and makes a point that those mostly coincide with what Bruckner wanted to preserve for posterity. The alternative editions are more diverse, but it's not the point of the chart to elaborate on that. Also, yes, there are small differences between Haas and Novak, but that's a different matter altogether.
> 
> View attachment 163929


1st: 
- In the video he says that there are just orchestration differences between the versions of the 1st. Thats not true. Sections are significantly changed like the codetta in the first movement or the Scherzo-Coda.
- Haas did not publish a edition of the Vienna version for performance purposes. 
2nd:
- Hurwitz belittles the differences between the Haas, Nowak and Carragan 1877 versions. It is dishonest to say the Haas and Nowak versions are ok in this case where they are popular but to condemn not authentic versions in cases where they aren't popular.
3rd: 
- It doesn't make sense to treat the 1889 version of the 3rd differently than the 1888 version of the 4th. Why does he do it? He literally says because the 1889 3rd is popular. It is dishonest for him to claim that he just want to defend Bruckners will if he cares for popularity of the versions.
7th: 
- The 1883 version is apparently lost. We have the 1885 version and intermediate versions. Hurwitz doesn't care but claims to know what Bruckner wanted. 
8th: 
- He belittles the differences between the Haas and Nowak versions. The Haas version is not authentic. The Carragan 1888 version is more authentic, it represents an actual provisional stage of the work, while Haas mixes two version together with an result that was never an actual stage of the work. The Carragan version is questionable too, because Bruckner did not release this version beside the Adagio. But Hurwitz dishonestly cares more for popularity than authenticity.



RobertJTh said:


> Bruckner's idea to use the Te Deum as the 9th finale preceded his work on the main body of the finale. See:
> https://www.abruckner.com/down/arti...acques-bruckner_9_finale_critical_account.pdf
> Page 3: "He seems to have investigated several possibilities for a transition from the Finale music to his Te Deum, but after that he continued work on the purely instrumental Finale."
> The use of the Te Deum thus presented an intermediate stage in the conception of the 9th, not his definitive thought. It's interesting to note that
> ...


Ok, interessting. You can definitely hear great Te Deum quotations in the Finale (well not if it is up to Hurwitz).



RobertJTh said:


> How so? Bruckner chose the works (and the versions of the works) he wanted to have preserved for posterity. If scholars chose to ignore that important decision, for me it's proof that they don't take Bruckner seriously, that they claim they can handle his legacy better better than the composer himself - something that Hurwitz criticises and ridicules in his videos, and rightly so.


That Bruckner preferred versions doesn't necessarily mean that he completely disregarded other versions. Choosing one version was strategically useful in a situation where he could not know that the posterity cares as much for him as it is the case now.

The main issue is that the versions do not represent consistent paradigms. It is always a mixture of tamings and improvements simply speaking. So there is no version about which you could say it is still fully original but already fully improved. Some versions may be the overall best compromise but they aren't superior in every aspect.



RobertJTh said:


> Outdated and partly wrong opinion, basically what Haas thought in the old days (Bruckner as the weak foolish genius, powerless against critics and well-meaning "friends"). Subsequent research has proven that Bruckner in fact had a very strong will, didn't approve of any tampering with his scores and was only forced by his editors to make or give permission to others to make amendments in the printed versions of his symphonies. But regarding those: it's significant to notice that Bruckner in most cases bequeathed the middle version manuscripts to the Imperial Library, not the last versions which were used for the printed first editions.
> So with the first editions mostly discredited, what we are left with is basically and simply a canon list of Bruckner-approved middle versions. This isn't rocket science, people.


He commissioned others to make changes in the score of the 7th. In the case of the last versions of the 3rd and 4th there is the influence of others as you say (And I really dislike some aspects of these versions), but Bruckner still did the decisions and work on these symphonies and improved things. Its not like one version is the best in every aspect even if it is overall "the best".



RobertJTh said:


> If completely unauthentic editions like the Schalk 5th and the Löwe 9th are not taken into account, the 4th is the main example of a bowdlerized first edition. It's not authentic Bruckner.


I dislike the cuts in the Scherzo and the quiet codetta in the Finale, but overall it has more the true Bruckner sound than the 1889 version of the 3rd imo. What is the reason to treat them differently beside personal preference or popularity?



RobertJTh said:


> Again, differences between Haas and Novak aren't part of this discussion.


What about Nowak and Oeser? Should the Scherzo Coda of the 3rd be played or not? Hurwitz says it doesn't matter in another video. That is ridiculous. It is a significant difference. The Scherzo-Coda is the quintessence of the movement imo.



RobertJTh said:


> we have 4 or 5 different editions of the 4th now, all bound in the same format, so to make it clear that according to the "Bruckner people" they're all of equal worth. Which couldn't be more beside the truth.


Equally legit according to them I would say. Who says they are equally worth? Nobody says they all should be played equally often as far as I know.



RobertJTh said:


> And that "coherence" in the first version of the 4th... Just listen to those ridiculous rising and falling scales in the first version of the finale. They made me laugh out loud when I listened to Inbal's recording. And so many more atrocities that were mercifully cut out in the 1881 version... but fine, Mr. Davies, let's just call the first version "coherent garbage" and be done with it.


Just listen to the great climax of the Andante in the first version. It is great. The first version has another paradigm, it is more about sound surfaces. I would say the theme of the Scherzo is indeed more related to the theme of the first movement in the first version. But I do not have to decide which Scherzo is better. I also do not have to decide whether the Scherzo of the 8th or 5th is better. But I am glad that I am able to listen to both.



RobertJTh said:


> I don't know, and I don't see how this is relevant. I prefer the 1st and 3rd as well.
> 
> There's another infamous musicological case that's all about "let's ignore the facts, let's erect smoke curtains and claim it's all a matter of taste" and that's the order of the middle movements of Mahler's 6th. We KNOW what Mahler wanted (andante - scherzo), there's overwhelming forensic proof - and still there are lots of people, including, ironically Hurwitz, who basically put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la, can't hear you!"


There is inconsistency in Hurwitz opinions, but do we have to care?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Why all the argument over Hurwitz, WGASA? It isn't as if his opinions amount to anything more than just his (not always well informed) opinions.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Aries said:


> (...) But Hurwitz dishonestly cares more for popularity than authenticity.


I agree that he does underplay the complexity of the chaos that is the "Bruckner problem", for the sake of getting his main argument more clearly across.
But before we lose ourselves in details, let's remind us what this discussion is about. Not about the authenticity of the various versions of Bruckner's symphonies, but the question which versions were chosen by the composer himself to represent these works in their best incarnations. He mentions popular versions only to prove his point that Bruckner's own favorites are our favorites too.
To me the chart still holds up. Take for instance Hurwitz' claim that the 1877 version of the 2nd is the preferred one because it's both Bruckner's own choice and the most accepted/performed version. You dismiss that claim because Hurwitz doesn't go into detail about which edition should be used, Haas, Novak or Carrigan. That seems to me splitting hairs for the sake of the argument. Hurwitz says elsewhere, and I agree, that it really doesn't matter that much whether Haas or Novak is used, the differences aren't big enough to dismiss either or both. Let's face it, the non-obsessed lover of Bruckner's music doesn't care whether his favorite orchestra plays the extra couple of measures inserted by Haas in the 8th, or whether the cymbal crash in the 7th is played or not. That's peanuts compared to what really matters: the quality of the performance.



> That Bruckner preferred versions doesn't necessarily mean that he completely disregarded other versions. Choosing one version was strategically useful in a situation where he could not know that the posterity cares as much for him as it is the case now.


Interesting thought, but completely conjectural. There's no proof whatsoever that Bruckner sanctioned the existence of more than one version of his symphonies. Moreover, his continuous reworking of his older works tells me that he tried to create one perfect version for each symphonies, so maybe he was even more concerned with the idea of leaving a spotless canon oeuvre than other self-critical composers. He was the polar opposite of a "careless" composer like Schubert, who left a chaotic trace of compositions for posterity to sort out.
I think that was one of the tragedies of his life - he tried to achieve immaculate perfection, but he had to accept his scores being tainted by publishers, conductors and well-meaning friends in order to get them performed and published. That's why it's so meaningful that he bequeathed those manuscripts to the Imperial Library too - the manuscripts that he still had full control over, not the ones that were used for performances or printed editions.

Maybe we need a new Bruckner edition, the "canon" one, with just those versions. Leather bound, printed on luxury paper and Bruckner's golden stamp of approval on it.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

RobertJTh said:


> _Leather bound, printed on luxury paper and Bruckner's golden stamp of approval on it._


With "Screw you, Hanslick" as the dedication.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

RobertJTh said:


> I agree that he does underplay the complexity of the chaos that is the "Bruckner problem", for the sake of getting his main argument more clearly across.
> But before we lose ourselves in details, let's remind us what this discussion is about. Not about the authenticity of the various versions of Bruckner's symphonies, but the question which versions were chosen by the composer himself to represent these works in their best incarnations. He mentions popular versions only to prove his point that Bruckner's own favorites are our favorites too.


His message as I understand it is: The versions that are the most popular are also the most authentic (sent to the Library by Bruckner), therefore the work of Bruckner scholars is useless.

Problems with this:
- The vienna version of the 1st is not the most popular.
- The true 1877 version of the 2nd is less popular than the Haas and Nowak versions. (And it is not even so clear what the true 1877 really is. Maybe Carragan is wrong at the end of the first movement.)
- The 2nd version of the 3rd (1876-1880 editions) is less popular than the 3rd version (1889-1890 editions).
- It is not clear how Bruckner wanted the 7th to be played.

Of the 8 finished and numbered symphonies he sees no problem in 3 of them. In two cases (1st and 3rd) his message is wrong. In the case of the 2nd, 7th and 8th he sweeps problems under the carpet. In the case of the 4th his position is the most inherently logical.



RobertJTh said:


> To me the chart still holds up. Take for instance Hurwitz' claim that the 1877 version of the 2nd is the preferred one because it's both Bruckner's own choice and the most accepted/performed version. You dismiss that claim because Hurwitz doesn't go into detail about which edition should be used, Haas, Novak or Carrigan. That seems to me splitting hairs for the sake of the argument.


He even says that the Carragan 1877 is the best, but he basically says its not important. The problem isn't that he doesn't go into details but that he arbitrarily chooses where he goes into details and where they don't matter.



RobertJTh said:


> Interesting thought, but completely conjectural. There's no proof whatsoever that Bruckner sanctioned the existence of more than one version of his symphonies.


I'm sure I read in a book that he wanted an early version of one of his symphonies (I think it was the 1887 8th) to be preserved for the friends of his music. But I will have to look where I read that exactly.



RobertJTh said:


> Moreover, his continuous reworking of his older works tells me that he tried to create one perfect version for each symphonies, so maybe he was even more concerned with the idea of leaving a spotless canon oeuvre than other self-critical composers.


There was an rehearsal of the 1876 version of the 3rd with special Tannhäuser quotations in the Adagio. The VPO didn't want to perform the work afterwards. Carragans conclusion is that Bruckner changed some aspects of the symphony because of this influence. Makes a lot of sense to me but he definitely knows more than me. After a revision of 3 movements including the Adagio and cuts the work was performed. But the revisions did not just tame the work for the VPO but also improved things. You can not let Bruckner work on such symphonies without improving.

But it is a matter of fact that Bruckner was not as self confident as other composers like Beethoven. That does not mean that he just let others write things into his symphonies until he was too old to fight that off (around 1892 maybe).



RobertJTh said:


> That's why it's so meaningful that he bequeathed those manuscripts to the Imperial Library too - the manuscripts that he still had full control over, not the ones that were used for performances or printed editions.


But there is often a lack of tempo, dynamic and articulation indications in these scores. Bruckner used to add them in rehearsals, after performances or in the publishing process. Conductors of the time probably knew approximately what to do with the scores, but today some think they have to play it just dry because there is a lack of indications in the raw manuscripts. I'm not 100% sure if this is an issue, but it probably is.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I don't know how many people here, if any really, subscribe to American Record Guide, but the March/April edition just out has a lengthy Bruckner overview that is quite thorough and enjoyable to read. The editor admits that most of the Bruckner lovers who wrote the article are old men; that about sums up my experience with a lot of Bruckner fanatics! If you can get hold of a copy, you will certainly enjoy the article in light of this thread. I was particularly pleased to see that the Bruckner Linz Orchestra set of symphonies on Camerata is one that they hold in high esteem - I made the same comment on another Bruckner thread.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Becca said:


> Why all the argument over Hurwitz, WGASA? It isn't as if his opinions amount to anything more than just his (not always well informed) opinions.


Some want to rant about Hurwitz...Bruckner seems incidental.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Forster said:


> Some want to rant about Hurwitz...Bruckner seems incidental.


Focusing on Hurwitz' opinion about the versions isn't the ideal direction for the thread, but it is at least very much connected to the topic of the thread, and if someone brings it up it is like it is and it will be discussed. But pure Hurwitz comments are unnecessary. We don''t need a secondary discussion here about if there is too much Hurwitz discussion.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Apologies for bringing up Hurwits, y'all.
I only meant it as a joke.

I will enjoy Bruckner's symphonies (and their versions) the way I like myself.
No matter what ole Dave's opinion is.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Aries said:


> Of the 8 finished and numbered symphonies he sees no problem in 3 of them. In two cases (1st and 3rd) his message is wrong. In the case of the 2nd, 7th and 8th he sweeps problems under the carpet. In the case of the 4th his position is the most inherently logical.


But Hurwitz addresses the problem with the 1st and 3rd both in his video and on the chart. He doesn't claim that it's all 100% foolproof exact science.
Personally I think the 3rd is Bruckner's most problematic symphony, the one that he never got "right". But it's significant that he chose the 1877 version to be preserved, the one that was used (with some amendments afterwards) for the disastrous premiere, and not the 1889 version which was cut to the point of mutilation. To me it's still a mystery why the 1889 is still more popular than the 1877. So I call that no fault in Hurwitz' reasoning, it's just a historically grown inadequacy.

In my opinion, the problems with the 2nd, 7th and 8th aren't swept under the carpet, they just aren't part of the discussion. The choice between Haas or Novak has nothing to do with the choices that Bruckner himself made.
And besides, the "problems" are really minor. 99% of all performances of Bruckner's symphonies before the onset of modern scholarship were based on either Haas or Novak, and I don't think there's any lover of Bruckner's music who chooses his favorite performance based on the editions that were used. Some conductors even switched between them. Compared to the big interpretative issues that various historical and modern recordings pose, the editorial differences between Haas and Novak are small fry.



> I'm sure I read in a book that he wanted an early version of one of his symphonies (I think it was the 1887 8th) to be preserved for the friends of his music. But I will have to look where I read that exactly.


That's interesting and if true, it would shed new light on Bruckner's reasoning. But dear god, the first version of the 8th, really? With that horrible first movement coda?



> But there is often a lack of tempo, dynamic and articulation indications in these scores. Bruckner used to add them in rehearsals, after performances or in the publishing process. Conductors of the time probably knew approximately what to do with the scores, but today some think they have to play it just dry because there is a lack of indications in the raw manuscripts. I'm not 100% sure if this is an issue, but it probably is.


I guess that it wouldn't be that much of a problem if dynamic and articulation indications were added, based on the further revised and/or printed editions, provided the structure of the work isn't changed?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

RobertJTh said:


> But Hurwitz addresses the problem with the 1st and 3rd both in his video and on the chart. He doesn't claim that it's all 100% foolproof exact science.


But it is a merit of the Bruckner scholars making the 1891 version of the 1st, the 1878 version of the 3rd etc. available. Hurwitz argues for the status quo and against the scholars, what doesn't make much sense. Its necessary to differentiate more, but this requires the confession that the situation is not so easy and work on the versions isn't necessarily bad.



RobertJTh said:


> Personally I think the 3rd is Bruckner's most problematic symphony, the one that he never got "right". But it's significant that he chose the 1877 version to be preserved, the one that was used (with some amendments afterwards) for the disastrous premiere, and not the 1889 version which was cut to the point of mutilation. To me it's still a mystery why the 1889 is still more popular than the 1877. So I call that no fault in Hurwitz' reasoning, it's just a historically grown inadequacy.


I think the 1878 version with Scherzo Coda is probably _overall_ the best; that every version has its benefits; but that the last version is the only one with sections which sound wrong, especially the codetta of the first movement and the simplified build up to the climax in the development.



RobertJTh said:


> In my opinion, the problems with the 2nd, 7th and 8th aren't swept under the carpet, they just aren't part of the discussion. The choice between Haas or Novak has nothing to do with the choices that Bruckner himself made.


Haas inserted sections of the earlier version in all three cases. He inserted sections of the 1872 version in the 77-2nd with transitions composed by himself. He inserted sections of the 1887 version in the 90-8th. And he reconstructed as much as he could of the 1883 version of the 7th. So these three compilations are basically the choice of Haas not Bruckner. Are these just details? Not regarding the 2nd. Regarding the 7th I prefer the cymbal. The Haas version of the 8th does not bother me while listening to be honest even tough the Haas version isn't authentic.



RobertJTh said:


> That's interesting and if true, it would shed new light on Bruckner's reasoning. But dear god, the first version of the 8th, really? With that horrible first movement coda?


I found the comment but its about the 1890 version. Bruckner wrote to conductor Felix Weingartner in 1891:

_„Wie geht es der achten? Haben Sie schon Proben gehabt? Wie klingt sie? Bitte sehr, das Finale so wie es angezeigt ist, fest zu kürzen; denn es wäre viel zu lange und gilt nur späteren Zeiten, und zwar für einen Kreis von Freunden und Kennern"

"How is the eighth? Have you had rehearsals yet? How does she sound? Please cut the finale tightly as indicated; Because it would be much too long and only applies to later times, namely for a circle of friends and connoisseurs."_

So it is not about the 1887 version but about the 1890 version. But it is still remarkable that Bruckner encouraged two separate versions, one for the big audience and one for friends in later times.



RobertJTh said:


> I guess that it wouldn't be that much of a problem if dynamic and articulation indications were added, based on the further revised and/or printed editions, provided the structure of the work isn't changed?


All the first published editions between 1885 and 1930 have such indications added and it is sometimes difficult to tell to which extend they represent Bruckners will. But that he did not include much of such indications initially in the original manuscripts, what does it mean? Was the free space of the interpretation of the conductor just undisputed and anticipated by Bruckner, or was he on the contrary in truth for a very sober playstyle?


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

To me, the 'faults' of the musicologists do not really exist.
The misery begins with friends, helpers of Bruckner, and with (more or less) helpful conductors, who all advised him to change things in his scores, because otherwise his music could/would not be performed (or so they said).
And Bruckner, both being insecure and desperately wanting to have his works performed, listened to them.

Then, many of the lot after his death, Bruckner's symphonies were published, with quite some editing and arranging by f.i. the Schalk brothers.

Then Robert Haas decided to mix multiple versions to his own likings, adding a few insertions, too.

And there were the editions of Oeser, too.

A mess.

(But a fun mess, encouriging the curiosity and the need for research by Brucknerians of course. All very explainable.)

Novak was actually the first editor who (more or less) managed to split up the actual versions by Bruckner himself. And to make decent editions out of them.
Some of his work was corrected by Carragan.

The latter (and a few others) also published other verions/concepts of various movements.
Of course one can say "that's a bit too much" but there are still conductors, musicians and Bruckner-adepts who are cursious and want to perform/hear them.

Nothing really special or weird about this. In my humble opinion, that is.
The real 'mess' had already started way earlier.

Of course, one can say that this is "all musicological nonsense" because such research does not happen with works by composers X, Y and Z... but those other composers are NOT Bruckner and, who knows, maybe they did not have the same problems in getting their works performed and/or published in their own preferred way. Which, maybe, also led to fewer versions/editions.

Let's face it: there are also 4 to 5 versions of Bach's Johannes-Passion, all of them being printed and performed. There are 2 versions of his Matthäus-Passion plus the 'edition' of Mendelssohn. 
Multiple versions exist of Händel's _Messiah_ and of Mozart's _Don Giovanni_ and of Verdi's _Don Carlo(s)_ and of works by Stravinsky, of organ works by Bach, all of them now printed and performed, and there are probably thousands more examples. I just named a few.

Apologies for mentioning Hurwitz again, but he just has got a personal problem with musicologists. It shows in quite a few of his reviews and Youtube clips.
He's right that musicology should not really interfere with personal listening experiences, but imho, in his rants he's mostly getting rid of his own annoyances. I once wrote on his YT channel that he wasn't right with calling the 1872 version of Bruckner 2 just a concept (and, by calling it just a concept, showing his contempt for Carragan again), but he just deleted my comment.

I do agree with him i.c. the 2nd and 3th though: I also prefer the 1877 versions. With a slight preference for an added coda in the Scherzo of the 3rd.
It's a pity that Bruckner decided, after his 1st performing version of the 8th was rejected, that so many other symphonies 'needed' editing and arranging again, too. If he had not done that, if he had just changed the 8th and nothing else, he might have had enough time to finish the 9th.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Aries said:


> Bu[...]
> I found the comment but its about the 1890 version. Bruckner wrote to conductor Felix Weingartner in 1891:
> 
> _„Wie geht es der achten? Haben Sie schon Proben gehabt? Wie klingt sie? Bitte sehr, das Finale so wie es angezeigt ist, fest zu kürzen; denn es wäre viel zu lange und gilt nur späteren Zeiten, und zwar für einen Kreis von Freunden und Kennern"
> ...


The man just wanted the darn thing to be played, and so many folks had said to him, for years and years, "your works are too long/too clumsy/too modern/too inconceivable" that he probably believed it himself. He did not have the confidence to say "so what? It's MY work!"

All for the sake, I think, to get at least a few of them performed. During his own lifetime. It happened (way too) rarely, alas.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Marc said:


> Let's face it: there are also 4 to 5 versions of Bach's Johannes-Passion, all of them being printed and performed. There are 2 versions of his Matthäus-Passion plus the 'edition' of Mendelssohn.
> Multiple versions exist of Händel's _Messiah_ and of Mozart's _Don Giovanni_ and of Verdi's _Don Carlo(s)_ and of works by Stravinsky, of organ works by Bach, all of them now printed and performed, and there are probably thousands more examples. I just named a few.


But hardly any of them (except maybe Don Carlo/s or Tannhäuser) is perceived as a problem or reason for flamewars, unlike Bruckner. I am not sure if this is because of the difference in the genre or the difference in the fans...


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Kreisler jr said:


> But hardly any of them (except maybe Don Carlo/s or Tannhäuser) is perceived as a problem or reason for flamewars, unlike Bruckner. I am not sure if this is because of the difference in the genre or the difference in the fans...


The thing is, that I never had been aware of those flamewars, unless I saw and read Hurwitz. Lol. 
It was only after a few more of his clips (including some about other composers) that I found out that he really has a personal problem with musicology. 
His recommendations of recordings/peformances can be very interesting, but for all the rants I just laugh and take him with a large grain of salt.

I might not be a true Brucknerian, but I have been listening to his music since the second half of the 1980s, and I mostly took the versions/editions thing for granted. (Hurwitz would have loved me for that.) And I never met a Brucker fan who blamed me for that.

Since I bought a Dutch biography of Bruckner (by Cornelis van Zwol) I became more 'deeply' interested. I find the version and edition histories quite interesting, but not at all essential for my love for his music.

Mind you: there are Bach-lovers who find the growing attention for f.i. the 1725 version of his SJP and the 1727 version of his SMP rather ridiculous, too.

And Mozart-lovers who do not like the 'happy' Prague ending of Don Giovanni, and/or vice versa.

Who knows, how many flamewars about these topics can be found on the Dark Side Of The Web.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

In fact, until recently I also thought that for most Bruckner symphonies there was a "standard version" that was usually performed/recorded and for some (1-4,8) a lesser known "secondary" one but overall this was handled pragmatically. Similarly for Bach's Passions where the standard version dominates even more clearly. Sure, the version problem for Bruckner is in fact more complicated. 
But I don't have the impression that too many people are bothered with the fact that the most frequently performed versions of "Don Giovanni" and "Messiah" are hybrids that are strictly speaking historically wrong because they were never performed that way during their composer's lifetimes. Because Don Ottavio wants both of his arias etc.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Kreisler jr said:


> In fact, until recently I also thought that for most Bruckner symphonies there was a "standard version" that was usually performed/recorded and for some (1-4,8) a lesser known "secondary" one but overall this was handled pragmatically. Similarly for Bach's Passions where the standard version dominates even more clearly. Sure, the version problem for Bruckner is in fact more complicated.
> But I don't have the impression that too many people are bothered with the fact that the most frequently performed versions of "Don Giovanni" and "Messiah" are hybrids that are strictly speaking historically wrong because they were never performed that way during their composer's lifetimes. Because Don Ottavio wants both of his arias etc.


It depends to whom you talk, I think.
I've read reviews and articles in the Dutch magazine about that 'Don Ottavio problem', and that they obstruct the developing flow of action in an otherwise great opera. Same with the add-ons for Donna Elvira.

And why not?

Let them have their fun with it. It doesn't bother me.

I also let Hurwitz have his fun with his rants. Let it all out, David!


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

Sticking to Bruckner's own preferred versions makes a lot of sense to me, but with two exceptions: I prefer the Linz version of the first symphony, and I think all three versions of the third symphony are worth hearing. It's hard to follow any doctrine consistently.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

While reading this thread I have 2 questions;
1. Hurwitz shows that the most revisions Bruckner ever made to one of his symphonies was 2. The original, and 2 revisions. Before this I had read that there were as many as a half dozen versions of said symphonies. By this they meant Bruckner + his various latter day editors (Haas, Nowak, Carrigan etc (More confusing then it needs to be). By just sticking with Bruckner's revisions simplifies the issue.
2. Why is it unacceptable for Bruckner's associates to make changes to some of his symphonies and be signed off by the composer himself, yet perfectly acceptable to then have them edited by these latter day musicogists and be accepted?

3. Most people won't hear the difference (unless they're Brucknerians).


----------



## Andrew Kenneth (Feb 17, 2018)

Subutai said:


> (...)
> 2. Why is it unacceptable for Bruckner's associates to make changes to some of his symphonies and be signed off by the composer himself, yet perfectly acceptable to then have them edited by these latter day musicogists and be accepted? (...)


George Szell had a fondness for the "original" published versions; from before the musicologists started tampering with the scores.

(Szell quoted in an 1971 Grammophone article) => "It is incontestable that the Ninth Symphony by Bruckner first came to us in a version which was very different from the one Bruckner himself composed, and yet I am heretic enough to say I don't think every correction Ferdinand Loewe makes - and I happened to know Ferdinand Loewe quite well; he was a very good musician - I don't happen to think that all his corrections are very wrong. He went much too far, according to present day thinking and standards, in trying to help the composer, but in many of the other symphonies a great deal of mischief is being wrought by the musicologists (who unfortunately are not musicians), and I am quite sure I'll cause a great deal of enmity in these statements [with a laugh], but I can't help it. (...) This is the version with which we have grown up, and if I say 'we', I mean my generation and those of my generation who grew up where I did, in Vienna, among and surrounded by the people, by the musicians who were very close to Bruckner - a whole lot closer than the young gentlemen who, both in England and in America, pretend to know so much about it and were born thirty and forty years later and actually have no idea what they are talking about! To forbid a composer self-correction, to forbid a composer to have second thoughts, and to forbid a composer to accept well-meant and justified advice, consciously and without pressure, is simply preposterous. "
link =>https://www.abruckner.com/articles/articlesEnglish/szellgeorgecomment/


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Subutai said:


> While reading this thread I have 2 questions;
> 1. Hurwitz shows that the most revisions Bruckner ever made to one of his symphonies was 2. The original, and 2 revisions. Before this I had read that there were as many as a half dozen versions of said symphonies. By this they meant Bruckner + his various latter day editors (Haas, Nowak, Carrigan etc (More confusing then it needs to be). By just sticking with Bruckner's revisions simplifies the issue.


Bruckner sometimes started symphonies again freom an empty paper. Its true that there are not more than 2 of these big revisions for his symphonies (there are 3 of such revisions of single movements tough: the Adagio of the 3rd and the Finale of the 4th).

But there are also smaller revisions made by Bruckner himself. He often implemented changes on a score that was already performed or copied. By counting that you can easiliy get to a half of a dozen.

The editors of his lifetime and afterwards often/sometimes published scores with changes made by themselves. So sometimes they just do not represent one of the authentic Bruckner versions and should be counted separately.



Subutai said:


> 2. Why is it unacceptable for Bruckner's associates to make changes to some of his symphonies and be signed off by the composer himself, yet perfectly acceptable to then have them edited by these latter day musicogists and be accepted?


People have different philosophies and they battle each other. But both sides have their points imo, and I prefer to assess a version by the music.



Andrew Kenneth said:


> George Szell had a fondness for the "original" published versions; from before the musicologists started tampering with the scores.
> 
> (Szell quoted in an 1971 Grammophone article) => "It is incontestable that the Ninth Symphony by Bruckner first came to us in a version which was very different from the one Bruckner himself composed, and yet I am heretic enough to say I don't think every correction Ferdinand Loewe makes - and I happened to know Ferdinand Loewe quite well; he was a very good musician - I don't happen to think that all his corrections are very wrong.


I agree with Szell. Löwe did some good refinements at some places, which seem to just work better in practice and show the ideas of the music more clear. Maybe the thought that the first three movements were really finished and finalized by Bruckner, is not exactly right. He would have done some refinements himself if would have lived longer like in the case of his other symphonies. But we don't know which exactly.



> This is the version with which we have grown up, and if I say 'we', I mean my generation and those of my generation who grew up where I did, in Vienna, among and surrounded by the people, by the musicians who were very close to Bruckner - a whole lot closer than the young gentlemen who, both in England and in America, pretend to know so much about it and were born thirty and forty years later and actually have no idea what they are talking about! To forbid a composer self-correction, to forbid a composer to have second thoughts, and to forbid a composer to accept well-meant and justified advice, consciously and without pressure, is simply preposterous. "
> link =>https://www.abruckner.com/articles/a...georgecomment/


Here he talks about the third symphony:



> For instance, take the case of the Bruckner Third. We know exactly what Bruckner's last will was, if we can put it this way, as far as his Third Symphony is concerned. This is the version with which we have grown up ...


https://www.abruckner.com/articles/articlesEnglish/szellgeorgecomment/

So he basically disagrees with Hurwitz. Hurwitz says Bruckners last will was the 2nd (main) version because he sent it to the imperial library, Szell says Bruckners last will was the 3rd version (probably because its the last version he worked on).


----------

