The Bruckner Problem

The Bruckner Problem is a term that refers to the difficulties and complications resulting from the numerous contrasting versions and editions that exist for most of the symphonies of Anton Bruckner. [H. C. Robbins Landon, "The Symphonies of Joseph Haydn". London: Universal Edition & Rockliff (1955): 101. "The Bruckner problem is ... complicated by the fact that not only did the composer often revise his own works but to a certain extent sanctioned the alterations, even those on the largest scale, which his pupils and others found it advisable to make. The case of Haydn is simpler, since we are not faced with two or more alternatives but with one."] The term arose from the article to deal with the subject, 'The Bruckner Problem Simplified', by musicologist Deryck Cooke, which brought the issue to the attention of English-speaking musicians. [Cooke(1969)]

The early published editions of Bruckner's works

The editions of Bruckner's works published during and slightly after Bruckner's lifetime tended to "incorporate orchestral retouching, alterations in phrasing, articulation, and dynamics, and added tempo and expression markings", and on occasion were cut. [Korstvedt, p. 122] These changes were made by Bruckner's friends and associates, and it is not always possible to tell whether the emendations had Bruckner's direct authorization.Korstvedt, p. 132] These were the versions that were used for nearly all performances until the 1930s. Cooke judges all these publications as "spurious" because they "did not represent Bruckner's own intentions", [Cooke, p. 20] while Korstvedt classifies them into three categories:
* "Not authentic": versions that "contain extensive modifications and additions made without Bruckner's approval, participation, or knowledge"
* "Authentic": "authentic versions prepared, supervised, and authorized by Bruckner. They do contain some elements that did not originate from the composer, but especially in the light of his publication of them, this is not enough reason to reject them." [Korstvedt, pp. 132-133]
* "Grey area": publications that "differ in some ways from the readings of Bruckner's last manuscript scores and certain contain some external editorial emendations ... yet they were published with Bruckner's apparent approval". "More study is needed" into these texts.Korstvedt, p. 133] Korstvedt argues that it was not uncommon for differences to exist between the autograph manuscripts and the first publications of musical works in the late ninenteenth century, and that while the discrepancies in Bruckner's case are "unusually pronounced" they are not "essentially aberrant". He points to the example of Verdi's "Falstaff", whose musical text contains substantial contributions from the leader of the orchestra of La Scala which were apparently welcomed by the composer.

Approaches to The Bruckner Problem

Robert Haas

In the case of Symphonies No. 2 and No. 8, Haas mixed and matched passages from an early version and a later version to create "hybrid" scores. [Watson, Derek. "Bruckner" Oxford: Oxford University Press]

Deryck Cooke

In the case of the Third Symphony, Cooke identified and compared the following six scores:

# 1873 original version (then still unpublished);
# 1874 first revision (then still unpublished);
# 1877 second revision, published in 1878 as the first edition;
# 1877 Fritz Oeser edition of the same (published by the International Bruckner Society in 1950);
# 1889 another revision (Cooke called this a Bruckner-Schalk revision), edited by Theodor Raettig, published 1890;
# 1889 the same, edited by Leopold Nowak as part of the Complete Edition.

Cooke considered the 1873 and 1874 versions to be "pure pedantry" and that "the first two scores were mere discarded attempts, which have never been published or performed [at that time] " (Cooke 362). Therefore he concluded that there was only a choice between the 1877 version and the discredited (in his opinion) 1889 Bruckner-Schalk revision.

Cooke's position on the first versions has been severely criticised by later musicologists, most notably Julian Horton, saying that "his dismissal of the first version of the Third [Symphony] ... on the grounds that they were not performing versions is untenable. The fact that this score was not performed before it was revised does not render it illegitimate" (Horton 2004).

Notes

References

* Citation
last =Cooke
first =Deryck
author-link =Deryck Cooke
title =The Bruckner Problem Simplified
journal =Musical Times
volume =CX
issue =
pages =59-62
date = 1969
year =1969
url =http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-4666%28196901%29110%3A1511%3C20%3ATBPS1S%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E
doi =
id =
* Horton, Julian, "Bruckner's Symphonies: Analysis, Reception and Cultural Politics", 2004, Cambridge.
*citation
first=Benjamin
last=Korstvedt
contribution=Bruckner editions: the revolution revisited
editor-first=John
editor-last=Williamson
title=The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner
publisher=Cambridge University Press
isbn=0521008786
date=2004
* James R. Oestreich, "Problems and Detours On Bruckner's Timeline", New York Times, July 10, 2005, Sec. Arts and Leisure, Pg. 23.

External links

* [http://members.tripod.com/~jomarques/bruckner.htm Detailed information on the various editions and revisions of Bruckner's symphonies]