Missing Intermezzo from Bruckner's String Quintet

[Starrmark]

While I am grateful to Generoso for uploading Bruckner's magnificent String Quintet WAB 112 in the 1913 Eulenberg Edition, I would welcome the addition of the missing Intermezzo. When Bruckner composed this work, it was premiered in 1881 in a three movement version. Several years later, Bruckner added a fourth movement. However, in 1885, when the work was to be performed by the Hellmesberger Quartet, Joseph Hellmesberger complained to Bruckner that the Scherzo was too difficult. Bruckner composed an Intermezzo to replace the Scherzo. The Hellmesberger Qt. performed the work with the Intermezzo. Nevertheless, when Eulenberg published its edition in 1913, the Intermezzo was replaced by the Scherzo -- and it is in this four movement version that the work is usually performed. But the Intermezzo was not discarded. When the String Quintet is performed today, the Intermezzo is usally included in the program after the quintet as an encore. In essence, Bruckner's String QUintet has five movements.

I, for one, would be most interested in studying the score of the Intermezzo -- which must be available in another edition (although I don't know who published it or when it was first published.

MS

[pml]

It would have to be in the Bruckner Gesamtausgabe, so it ought to be easily obtainable for IMSLP — I don’t think any of the volumes are newer than 1980.

Cheers, PML

[madcapellan]

Nowak does mention a publication of the Intermezzo in 1913, but I'm unaware of what version he is speaking of, or if it still exists. Likewise, I assumed the Gesamtausgabe was the only place to find it.

I suppose that also begs the question as to the status of the Nowak editions regarding copyright. I know they're protected in the US, but perhaps not elsewhere if they count as urtext editions. The Bruckner problem being what it is, they might be considered differently to the Berlioz Edition, for instance, because of the absurd amount of revisions and versions Bruckner's works all exist in. I had assumed they were unpostable, as a template does not yet exist (plus the other reasons), but perhaps the existence of IMSLP-EU changes that.

[pml]

Quite. It’s a bit of a work-by-work proposition with Bruckner, but there are many works that were not editorially munged. The early-to-middle symphonies are problems, but not the late ones.

Cheers, Philip

[Eric]

The fact that we deal in only public-domain or CC (or very occasional urtext) editions here more or less means that we have at best the most recent editions that we can without violating copyright law... to not post something because it's an imperfect score and editorially munged seems to me ... (fortunately, Eric's connection broke before he could even try to finish that sentence. But perhaps he misunderstood...)

[pml]

Eric,

the editorial munging can have consequences! Fortunately Schalk and Haas have been dead more than 50 years (the latter still retains EU copyrights). Nowak †1991 is not so much a goer.

Cheers, Philip

[Eric]

those sorts of consequences, no argument there. after all, I remember the Case of the Mendelssohn Violin Sonata discovered and Edited by Menuhin (doesn't trip off the tongue like certain Arthur Conan Doyle titles and such things but makes them seriously protected allsame...) was just arguing for not rejecting something because we couldn't find a pure edition for copyright reasons. (certainly something one runs into enough with much much much times-n lesser-known composers all the time of course )