Bruckner 4th

[etntuba]

So I am looking at the score from IMSLP of Bruckner's 4th, and I see something I didn't expect...the brass parts in the score aren't even in the same zip code as the actual parts. Reference letter D. The individual parts available for download are vastly different from what is in the score. I see that the score that has been scanned is the Eulenburg edition from (either) 1915 or 1925. The parts are from the Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag (Kalmus) edition 1936. In addition, the Eulenburg has the trumpet parts in Eb, while the Kalmus has them in F. All of the brass part in the Eulenburg seem watered down.

Now, I know good ol' Anton wasn't around to make changes between 1915 and 1936. So what gives? Is the Eulenburg edition an attempt to make the piece more do-able for a particular orchestra, and the Kalmus is the correct (as-written-by-AB) score? I have never seen any edition other than the Kalmus until I downloaded the .pdf from IMSLP. I also know good and well that the Kalmus edition isn't likely to show up in .pdf format in my lifetime...

[steltz]

I'm not an expert on this particular Bruckner, but I can tell you that Bruckner was a -- how shall we say it -- somewhat "malleable" character. He allowed many people to persuade him to make revisions to his works. I don't know if it was severe insecurity and an unhealthy desire to please other people, but many of his works have several different versions.

Sometimes it is just cuts because others found movements too long, and sometimes it is wholesale substitutions of new movements. And in some cases, I think the revisions were done by editors or Bruckner's students. Either way, it makes navigating the different editions of Bruckner's works more treacherous than your average Beethoven works.

Have a look at http://jomarques.tripod.com/bruckner.htm -- I don't know how scholarly or complete this is, but it's a start in looking at the different editions of Bruckner's symphonies.

Short answer -- it's difficult to say which is the "correct" version when a composer lets just about anybody convince him to change things all the time.

Ideally, the long-term goal is for IMSLP to have matching score/parts for each edition. And, of course, this is what can make IMSLP such a great resource for researchers. But then for Bruckner 4th, if the Marques website has an accurate final count, IMSLP will have 6 scores and 6 sets of parts.

How this relates to IMSLP: IMSLP relies solely on volunteer help to scan and upload works, which means there is no guarantee that score and parts will match. If a particular volunteer has access to both in the same edition, and the time to scan and upload them, then they will match. If not, then everyone has to wait until someone has access to and can scan and upload the missing items.

You can:
1) Request a specific edition of score or parts on the Score Requests page.
2) Find, scan and upload the missing edition yourself.

[sbeckmesser]

The particular value of some of the heavily redacted, non-Urtext Bruckner editions here at IMSLP is the insight they may provide to contemporary performance practice (i.e. of Bruckner's own era), particularly in the use of tempo modifications. See the remarks I added to the Bruckner 8th page concerning the first edition of the full score and its printed tempo modifications, many of which were removed in the two commonly performed Urtext editions (the pre-war one by Haas and the post-war one by Nowak).

As for parts, any of them originating from the Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag (the Haas edition) will not likely match any score here that doesn't originate also from the same source. While Eulenburg has recently reprinted the Nowak scores in mini format, they are still under copyright, I believe, and ineligible for posting here. Eulenburg has never, to my knowledge, issued any Haas-edited scores.

The Bruckner 4th has a particularly tortured version history. There are two basic versions of the symphony, dating from 1874 and 1878. There is yet another version of the Finale dating from 1880. The usual version heard in peformances and recordings uses the first 3 movements of 1878 plus the 1880 finale. Of the two urtext editions of this 1878/1880 conflation, the Haas edition appeared (in 1937) before the discovery, in the library of Columbia University, of a score with further corrections by Bruckner. This source was used for the Nowak edition, which first appeared in 1953. Confused yet?

If I had to recommend a single best inexpensive score for the second version of the Bruckner 4th as it is conventionally performed, it would be the most recent Eulenburg version of the 4th (Eulenburg No.1525), which is a photoreduced version of the most recently corrected Nowak edition. Second choice would be the Dover reprint, in one volume, of the Haas editions of Symphonies 4 and 9. The Bruckner 4th parts at IMSLP should match the Dover score and deviate only sometimes from the Nowak/new-Eulenburg. Hope this helps.

--Sixtus

PS: Amazon shows that Dover is reprinting a volume of the Bruckner 6th and 8th next year. These may be from the Haas edition.
PPS: I have edited the Bruckner 4 page to reflect some of these comments. The instrumentation listing for the 1889 edition, whatever that is, seems wrong, however. Cymbals have never been a part of any version of the Bruckner 4 as far as I know. That listing seems to be more applicable to the Bruckner 8th. I've added the instrumentation for the Nowak edition.

[syntia19]

I read that there is an arrangement of the 1888 version by Gustav Mahler.Since they are both my favorite composers i am interested,does anybody heard this version and what are your opinions?
Also,is it worth to buy it (not as a substitute for other versions but as alternative).It very surprised me that is only one recording exist.Also,it surprised me that there is a very little information aviable on the internet.And also i am wondering what are the Mahlers motives was to do that.

P.S. I am new on this forum(also in listening classical music),and i must say,it is a nice "place"(lot of useful information).

[Eric]

Ok. Mahler made a lot of "retouchings" of works- not always minor, and was not alone among conductors in adjusting older scores to newer orchestras, but..., mostly from the earlier classical period though... hrm. but ... hrm. Ok, WIkipedia mentions a recording by Rozhdestvensky (which seems to be with the Gosudarstvennyĭ simfonicheskiĭ orkestr Ministerstva kulʹtury SSSR, based on some more searching), that this was an editing/abridgement and reorchestration (though the final orchestration is not mentioned... not a small orchestra I think... I don't know. what does Gosudarstvennyĭ mean, will have to find out. It's not Bolshogo, which is Large... )- hrm. Rozhdestvenski made an LP recording in 1984, released in 1985, "Performed from a set of parts owned by Mahler kept at the Vienna City library." (apparently not published yet????) which would seem to be this recording, on the Melodiia label. At 50 minutes according to Worldcat, that would be 25 minutes less than the same conductor's 1975 recording of the same work (in another version, not sure which, but not the Mahler one)- so either much faster conducting or it is definitely true that the Mahler abridgements amount to something. Or both.)

Checking Worldcat, Rozhdestvenski's 1975 LP is pretty popular at libraries (the university right by me has a copy, I think) but his Mahler-edition LP is - erm... well... at the university around the corner in Seattle Washington, 3000 miles away (other ocean. ) Ouch... If I can get a listen somehow though, will do so.
Oh. Gosudarstvennyĭ = National/State/... - that sorta thing. Thanks.

[pml]

Was there actually an answer in there, Eric? :þ (gentle teasing)

Mahler of course made the first piano duet arrangement of Bruckner 3 with Rudolf Krzyzanowski, in 1878; Bruckner actually approved it personally.

According to Wikipedia (take with grain of salt) the main differences in Mahler’s version of Bruckner 4 are heavy cuts (explaining the very short duration of Rozhdestvensky).

P.

[Davydov]

I don't know. what does Gosudarstvennyĭ mean...

It's just "state" as in "State Symphony Orchestra of the U.S.S.R. Ministry of Culture". Since 1991 this has been the State Symphony Capella of Russia

[sbeckmesser]

The Rozhdestvensky recording of the Mahler version of Bruckner 4 is available as a free download, if you dare to sign up for one of those risky download sites. As far as I know, the score has never been published. It isn't even mentioned at the Mahler Gesellschaft list of upcoming Mahler critical edition scores (whereas Mahler versions of Beethoven and Schumann symphonies are planned). In any case, publication of the Bruckner now would probably put it under copyright protection and make it ineligible for IMSLP hosting. That applies also to the relatively recent publication of Mahler's version of Weber's Die drei Pintos (first publication 2000) and even to the original 3-part version of Das klagende Lied (1999).

--Sixtus

NB: On Das klagende Lied versions see:
http://www.universaledition.com/Gustav- ... troduction

PS: I have made alterations to IMSLP's Das klagende Lied pages to clarify the 2 vs. 3-movement versions. Also added notes to the Mahler 1st Symphony listings about the original "Hamburg" score and its Blumine movement.

[Eric]

re publication of the Bruckner/Mahler now putting it under copyright protection: (it seems to be not exactly the same kind of thing as the retuchen that Tiboris was recording for Elysium Records, by the way, hence my confusion)

depends on local law, I think- if Mahler- or Schoenberg in his society, though that was a much smaller group, so I doubt the latter- performed this arrangement around the time Mahler made it, then editio princeps in some jurisdictions (hopefully including Canada's?) makes that the first publication (which includes public performance defined broadly) so far as manuscripts are concerned, if I understand.

[Eric]

It's just "state" as in "State Symphony Orchestra of the U.S.S.R. Ministry of Culture". Since 1991 this has been the State Symphony Capella of Russia

Right, got the first part - thanks! The second part is very helpful for my iTunes and similar rationalization (in the sense of keeping things rational, not in the psychological neologism-sense.) Wish I knew which of the Soviet orchestras were the same as the post-Soviet orchestras, etc. (or basically the same) (with the names changed)- but that, is another topic!