Talk:Symphony No. 4 (Bruckner)

How many versions?

The article encloses some - at least - doubtful information on the versions. There have been three versions in total of this symphony.

To the Original and Second Verions: Bruckner's Fourth was, according to competent music dictionaries, originally composed in 1874. It was revised in 1878 (Cuts in the first two movements, replacement of the Scherzo [Jagd-Schrezo = Hunt-Scherzo] revision of the finale) and in 1880 he largely recomposed the finale. This so-called Second Version has been premièred 1881 by the Wiener Philharmoniker under the baton of Hans Richter.

Later-on there have been more re-workings, not all of them by the composer - or even authorize by him - that lead eventually to a Third Version.

-- Innik 12:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame I think not to have any performances of the original 1874 version in the notable recordings list. Is it worth adding the following? I think it's notable simply for being the 1874 version (as well as being a very enjoyable recording).

Dennis Russell Davis conducting the Bruckner Orchester Linz, live recording, 2003 (Arte Nova) (Nowak/1874)

Oops I just noticed that this was mentioned in the article: "Eliahu Inbal was the first to record the original 1874 version, edited by Leopold Nowak, with the Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra. The recording is available on Teldec LPs and CDs." Sorry for the edit spam :-/ -- Spod mandel 13:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Eliahu Inbal started with FRSO in 1974, but Daniel Barenboim recorded the 4th symphony with Chicago Symphony Orchestra in 1973 and, if I recall it right, it reads "original version" on the cover.--80.223.25.249 21:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the linked discography, both Barenboim recordings are of Haas/1881. "Original version" can mean many different things in the world of Bruckner symphonies. Even Haas's hybrid edition of the 8th symphony was advertised as the "originalfassung" ("original version") when published in the 30s: it was indeed "original", but in a completely different sense! Grover cleveland 02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Korstvedt quote??

At the end of the very informative new section "Bruckner's Fourth Symphony and the Bruckner Problem", there is an extensive passage in italics. I wonder whether this is a direct quotation, or whether it got formatted in italics by accident:

There is no evidence that Bruckner "refused" to sign the Stichvorlage. He may have omitted to do so, but this is also true of other Bruckner manuscripts whose authenticity is not doubted. Furthermore, there is no real evidence that Bruckner was forced to accept revisions in order to get the work published, as Haas claimed. The only condition that Gutmann made prior to publication was that he be paid 1,000 fl. in advance to cover his costs. Once this money was delivered to him, he would have been quite happy, presumably, to print whatever version of the symphony Bruckner sent him.

If this is a direct quotation, we should offer a citation and I would suggest indent by using a device such as <blockquote></blockquote>. Grover cleveland 02:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It was just a typo, Grover. I have corrected it. Eroica 16:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

1888 and 1889 Versions

In the article I refer to the last two versions of the symphony as "the 1888 version" and "the 1889 version". Might it be better to amend these to "the 1887 version" and "the 1888 version"?

Most Bruckner scholars, when they say "1888 version", are referring to the Gutmann printed edition of 1889.

Bruckner and his colleagues devised the first of these two versions mainly in 1887, though some small changes were still being made during the rehearsals for the premiere in January 1888.

Bruckner alone, it seems, revised the symphony in February 1888 for publication. So "1887 version" and "1888 version" would more accurately reflect when they were made.

Comments would be appreciated. Any change could be easily accommodated. Eroica 13:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest using whatever is the most common term in the literature. Grover cleveland 14:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And I would suggest adding footnote citations which include quotations and clarifications like "Simpson believes Version 3 dates from 1887 to 1889..." The reader who doesn't care to look at the footnotes ought to be burdened with tiny details like these the least possible, while those who care to split hairs will look to the footnotes.

While I'm at it, can we integrate the "notable recordings" list into the paragraphs before some jerk complains "listcruft"? Anton Mravcek 21:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have Changed them. Eroica 10:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes to publication history

After a bit of research I think I've made a few corrections to the symphony's publication history:

• I'm now convinced that the supposed Haas/1944 hybrid edition never existed. The only mention I can find of it is on this web page, which only mentions that he "prepared" the edition, not that he published it. Moreover, it is there described as "a mixture of the 1881 and 1878 versions", a phrase which actually could describe the 1936 edition. It is not mentioned in Korstvedt's article, which describes all of the Gesamtausgabe publications in the 1930-44 period: that article does, however, mention that Haas planned a further edition of the 1874 version, but this was never published (this is also supported by Haas's "introduction", linked from the article). It's also not mentioned in the discography. The Klemperer/Vienna Symphony recording, which was claimed to be of this Haas/1944 edition, is listed as being of the regular Haas/1936 edition on the discography page: without further evidence I am inclined to trust the discography.
• I also added the information that Haas/1936 includes an edition of the Volksfest finale. This is supported by Korstvedt's article, by Haas's "Introduction", and perhaps by the discography web page which mentions a Haas edition of the 1878 score.

Grover cleveland 17:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Haas's supposed hybrid edition of 1944 is also mentioned here: "Haas published two editions of the 1881 version. The first, from 1936, is a clean reproduction of the 1881 version. The second, from 1944, uses the 1878 version of the Trio, in which the melody at the beginning is played by oboe and clarinet, rather than by flute and clarinet. Thus it is a mixture of two versions." !?

According to the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Haas issued two editions of the Fourth Symphony. In 1936, Fassung von 1878 mit dem Finale von 1880. Finale von 1878 (Originalfassung), Vienna. Reprinted Leipzig 1944 !!

This seems to confirm your suspicions, that the 1936 edition is the hybrid (which it would have to be, since the 1880 version of the symphony was simply the 1878 version with a new finale) and that it was the only edition Haas produced, the 1944 edition being merely a reprint. Eroica 12:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work, thanks. So we have the following story:

• 1936: Haas publishes an edition based on the 1881 autograph manuscript. The manuscript contains the "1878" movts i-iii and the "1880" finale and thus could be called a "hybrid", although it is one going back to Bruckner himself. Haas includes the 1878 "Volksfest" finale in an appendix. In his "introduction" to this edition he writes that he plans a further edition of the 1874 first version: however this is never published. (Evidence: Korstvedt article, "Introduction" linked from article, numerous other sources).
• 1944: His edition is reprinted. (Evidence: New Grove, http://worldcat.org/oclc/21426659)

The key question is whether the 1944 is a mere reproduction of the 1936 edition, or whether it contains changes in the musical text. The evidence that it does not contain changes is the absence of any reference to changes in any other sources we've been able to discover (including the Korstvedt article which covers all of Haas's editing activity, and indeed the online discography). The only evidence that the 1944 edition contains changes is the two websites http://www.geocities.com/dkgriegel/versions.html and http://members.tripod.com/~jomarques/bruckner.htm: it's quite likely that one of the websites is taking the information from the other, which means that there is only one source for this claim. On the other hand, the information about the change is impressively detailed (new introduction and orchestration changes): why would anyone make this claim if it's not true? Grover cleveland 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Table of versions

Thanks for adding the table of versions. I made a change: Manuscript 19476 contains the 1880 finale, not the Volksfest. You can see that in this catalog of the library's holdings. Grover cleveland 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Richter: aristocrat?

I'm not sure Richter should be referred to as an aristocrat - according to http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=41:69091~T1 his father was a Kapellmeister and his mother a professional singer. He was certainly successful and wealthy but according to the same source was concerned about his pension. A minor detail but worth checking out. Timribchester (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Gerd Schaller's used version

Although it is written on the back-cover of Profil CD PH13049 that it is Carragan's edition of the 1878 version, Gerd Schaller actually used Nowak's edition for movements 1-3 and the Volkfest-Finale for movement 4, as Uwe-Christian Haller already did in 1996. See John Berky's discography. We are thus still waiting for a recording of Carragan's edition of the 1878 version. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The versions and their variants

There are actually three versions of the symphony with several variants:

• First version: 1874. Edited by Nowak
• Second version: 1878. A "simplified" version with in-depth revision of the first two movements, a new scherzo and a new finale ("Volkfest Finale").
  • The 1880 version is a " hybrid version" (aka 1878/1880), with the first three movements of the 1878 version and a new (third) finale. This version has thereafter been revised in 1881 (edited by Haas) and 1886 (edited by Nowak).
• Third version: 1887 – the final version, somewhat shortened and re-orchestrated, revised in 1888 (edited by Korstvedt), and first issued in 1889.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

A too promotional section?

IMO the section Symphony_No._4_(Bruckner)#Performances is too promotional. I would thus propose to remove it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, just the last sentence - if with a reference - would be worth keeping, in history perhaps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I have done it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

How long are the various versions?

I came here to find out how long it is .. because I do not like to miss the end when I have a deadline.

No mention at all of the times of the various (or even the most common) versions. Please add, oh editors! mfc (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The duration of a not too slow (as Celibidache) or too fast performance is about 1 hour and 15 minutes - 1 hour 20 minutes for both versions of the Symphony. Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)