The Versions of the First Symphony

Bruckner’s First Symphony exists in two versions: the Linz and the Vienna versions.Footnote ⁶ The present edition is based on the earlier Linz version. The composition of the work was originally finished in 1866 (the Linz version) and was performed in 1868. It was not to be performed again until 1891, and at that time, before he would allow it to be performed, the composer undertook an extensive revision of the symphony; this resulted in the Vienna version. This version of the symphony was first published by Doblinger in 1893, dedicated by the composer to the University of Vienna in gratitude for the honorary doctorate that institution had recently awarded to him. For the next 42 years, this was the only available score, and the symphony was known and performed exclusively in this form. In the 1935, Haas edited both the Linz and the Vienna versions and published them in the first Gesamtausgabe with a detailed editorial report. Before this, the Linz version had never been published. Since then, this version has become the most-often performed version, a development that Haas’s edition strongly encouraged since his score of the Vienna version never appeared in a performing edition with orchestral materials, but only in a large-format ‘wissenschaftliche Ausgabe’, containing the full score complete with extensive critical apparatus. In the second Gesamtausgabe, Nowak published the Linz version as early as 1953, while the publication of a new edition of the Vienna version was delayed until 1980, when it was edited by Günter Brosche in what, remarkably, was the first modern performing edition of this work. This delay surely reinforced the bias toward the Linz version as a preferred version of the work.

Although the First Symphony was not performed between 1868 and 1891, during this long period the composer returned to the work multiple times and attempted to improve it. The first time was in 1877, and in the 1880s Bruckner started more extensive revisions to the Finale. These revisions were entered directly into his original manuscript score; therefore, that manuscript no longer fully preserves the original state of the text. In 1890, when Bruckner concluded that he needed to fundamentally overhaul the symphony, he created a wholly new score. Given these intermittent revisions, any editor of this work must decide whether to include the revisions Bruckner made in 1877 and the 1880s or instead to present the work in its initial state.

When Robert Haas edited the musical text of the Linz version in 1935 he incorporated the revisions made in 1877 and the 1880s, as did Nowak. In contrast, Röder, the editor of the new edition, clearly states in his editorial report that

Röder therefore excludes the revisions Bruckner made in 1877 and the 1880s in order to reproduce the text of the symphony as it was first performed. To accomplish this Röder relied upon the set of orchestral parts used for the first performance in 1868 as a primary source for this edition, along with Bruckner’s original manuscript and the first copy of the score, which was used for the first performance in 1868, and the second copy, made according to the editor between 1884 and 1890.Footnote ⁸ Haas had treated the orchestral parts as of merely secondary importance, but they were crucial to Röder’s goal of restoring the original state of the symphony since they were mostly left untouched by the later revisions that Bruckner made, which were contained in the first copy score as well as the original manuscript.Footnote ⁹ As a result, the new edition, which is described as the ‘1868 Version’ on the title page, includes some elements of the musical text that have never been published before.Footnote ¹⁰

The revisions made in 1877 derived in part from what the composer called ‘rhythmic analysis’, by which Bruckner re-examined the phrase structure in order to ensure that important arrival points (structural cadences, the end of major sections, etc.) arrived on metrically strong bars.Footnote ¹¹ Wherever he identified an unacceptable irregular phrase, especially one that ended on a weak bar, he fixed it, typically by adding or deleting a bar to give the phrase an even number of bars.Footnote ¹² The very beginning of the first movement is a good example of this; Bruckner simply added an additional bar of lower strings playing the accompaniment pattern of four quarter notes so that the introductory vamp would be a ‘regular’ two-bar period. At the end of the first and second movements the penultimate bar is duplicated so that the movement ends on a structural downbeat following an eight-bar period. Interestingly, on the other hand, Bruckner primarily deleted, rather than added, bars to regulate phrases in the Finale. Because of this, in 1877 the length became shorter in the Finale, while the first and second movements were made slightly longer.Footnote ¹³ In all of these instances, Röder opts for the original reading, not the revision.

In the Finale, Bruckner’s revisions went well beyond the sort of metrical adjustments he made in 1877. The modifications include some from around 1889 when Bruckner returned to the work again and altered the instrumentation, especially in the winds and brass, mainly to clarify the texture. For example, on the first page of the Finale, the dotted minims in flutes, horn and trumpets were replaced by dotted-rhythm figurations to match other wind instruments.Footnote ¹⁴ As a result, the profile of a key motif was sharpened. Another easily identifiable difference can be heard on the last page of the movement where the dotted-rhythm figuration from the main subject of the movement is restated by two trumpets. Also, in some places, the texture was thinned by reducing the instrumentation.

The question the editor of this work must answer is where to draw the line in 1868, after the symphony’s first performance, or after the revisions made in the late 1880s. Haas – and Nowak, it would seem – concluded that the compositional process of the Linz version did not end with the 1868 performance but continued until Bruckner began a wholly new score of the work in 1890.Footnote ¹⁵ Röder sees things differently. For him, the two performances that occurred respectively in 1868 and in 1891 are the key milestones in the work’s compositional history that define the Linz and Vienna versions, respectively.Footnote ¹⁶ Röder therefore judged the revisions Bruckner made in 1877 to be a side matter.Footnote ¹⁷ He also determined that the revisions to the Finale in the late 1880s are actually the initial stages of the process that led to the Vienna version and not strictly part of the Linz version’s history. He observes that numerous sketches were pencilled into both the original manuscript score and the first copy score, particularly in the first and second movements.Footnote ¹⁸ Although those sketches were not finalized in the scores, they presage changes that appear in the Vienna version. This suggests that Bruckner began to revise the rest of the work in the manuscript score after finishing the revision of the Finale. Röder surmises that Bruckner decided at that time he had to prepare a new score because he felt it was impossible to work on those scores due to the extent of the changes he felt were necessary. The fact that the revisions made to the Finale occurred right before Bruckner created a new score and embarked on further revision do suggest that Bruckner was still in the process of revising the work when he finished revising the Finale on the original manuscript score and the first copy score.

A great deal of effort is required to decipher the contents of the critical apparatus of this edition, especially when using the English translation, even for those who are familiar with the issues surrounding Bruckner’s versions and editions. This is inevitable to some extent, given the intricacy of the issues involved; nevertheless, the differences in musical text between the four most important sources are not as clearly described as one would hope. Information about one source can be found across two separate parts (Introduction and Editorial Report) of the volume, and this can be disorienting. Nor does the editor clearly describe any differences between the states of the text in 1866, when composition was completed, and 1868, when the work was performed; we are left to surmise that any revision from this period was minimal at most, but it would be preferable to know this for sure.Footnote ¹⁹

Above all, though, critical apparatus of any edition of a Bruckner symphony must not only offer the rationale of editorial decisions and describe the primary sources and variant readings, but also help the user make an informed decision about what score to use. Röder provides a clear reason for his decision to base his edition on the 1868 performance text of the Linz version, namely to reproduce ‘the reading of its first performance – as far as that is possible’.Footnote ²⁰ Therefore, he determined that the revisions from 1877 and the 1880s were not going to be included in his edition, regardless of their authenticity. He argues that ‘by early May 1877, the first symphony existed in a revised, but preliminary stage’ surmising that the composer also added numbers to the score to indicate adjustment to phrases lengths he intended to make in the later version.Footnote ²¹ Although these revisions from separate times are essentially different, triggered by different motives under different circumstances, he believes that they still point toward the new Vienna version that appeared in the early 1890s.

While the publication of the new edition of the Vienna version is scheduled as part of the Complete Edition, the revised text of the Linz version with both set of these revisions as published by Haas and Nowak will not be included in the new Gesamtausgabe, even though the authenticity of this text is undeniable. Substantial differences are limited to the Finale, but some may see the instrumentation changes as clear improvements, even if it only shows a preliminary stage of the revision process. Even though the new edition is meant to replace the previous editions of the Linz version, the revised state of the work is still of merit and perhaps should remain accessible to public.

Performing the First Symphony in the New Edition

Röder’s new edition was prepared, as noted in the foreword of the score, with ‘the most up-to-date editorial methods in preparing text designed for modern practical usage’. Considered from this viewpoint, the score offers some clear benefits, as well as one notable drawback. The musical text of the new edition is cleanly organized. Editorial markings are put in brackets so that the user can easily identify them, while occasional inconsistencies in articulation and slurring that derive from the manuscript sources are left as is. In the previous editions, wedge-like accents were used to represent Bruckner’s staccato strokes. In the new edition, these strokes are notated with slightly droplet-shaped vertical stroke, as in many recent critical editions, since the editor observes that in his hand-written scores Bruckner never used the wedge-shaped marking.Footnote ²²

Röder also clarifies Buckner’s inconsistent use of the designation ‘solo’. At times, Bruckner marked leading parts ‘solo’ when the overall texture is thin and the music quiet. These ‘solo’ markings typically appear in the winds and brass, which are generally used as solo instruments in such passages anyway, but when ‘solo’ is applied for a string part, it can cause some confusion.Footnote ²³ For example, in three places in the first movement the cello part is marked ‘solo’. The interpretation of these notations was left ambiguous in the previous editions. Therefore, some conductors have had each of the divided ‘solo’ cello parts in the second subject (starting in bar 53) played by a single player.Footnote ²⁴ In the new edition, the editor states that when ‘solo’ is applied to a string part its purpose is ‘to indicate passages that are exposed or should be brought out in performance’ rather than to indicate that only a single player should play the passage.Footnote ²⁵ Not only does this interpretation follow the practice of Bruckner’s time, but as the editor points out, there are no ‘tutti’ markings afterwards to cancel the corresponding ‘solo’ markings in the manuscript sources.Footnote ²⁶ This seems a clear improvement and may help to clarify any confusion over handling of the ‘solo’ markings in strings.

The engraving of the score is clean and modern.Footnote ²⁷ The layout of the staves mostly matches that of the manuscript scores except for the trombones, which are placed below, rather than above, the timpani in the manuscript sources. The score is printed without hiding any empty staves unlike the previous editions that adopted a layout that hid empty staves, sometimes known as ‘French scoring’.Footnote ²⁸ The result is much thicker volume, having roughly two and a half times as many pages as the previous editions.Footnote ²⁹ While this layout does ease legibility, it also means that any opening of two pages covers a shorter duration of music, which can cause inconvenience for score study. Nor is this design an advantage for the conductor because it necessitates more frequent page turning, particularly in movements with a faster tempo such as the Scherzo movement. For example, the Scherzo movement requires six page turns from the beginning to the first repeat sign (roughly 45 seconds) as opposed to only once in the previous editions.

Recent philological methodology and the growth of technology have made it easier to produce cleaner and more authentic readings of musical text for publication. However, these advantages may or may not translate into practical use. Musical scores are of course meant to be used by performers who give life to them. As mentioned, the layout of the new edition is not terribly user-friendly since it requires so many page turns.Footnote ³⁰ Also, orchestral parts for Bruckner’s symphonies published by MWV have been available only as rental material (but not for purchase), while scores and parts of previous editions of Bruckner’s symphonies have been still obtainable via purchasing reprint editions. This circumstance seems to have contributed to the persistence of Bruckner’s textual problems, since only well-funded major orchestras can afford MWV’s rental parts. Rental parts do not in any case really suit school orchestras, whose rehearsal periods tend to be long. In such situations, it is not surprising that an edition that is available for purchase would be preferred. Moreover, some conductors today still openly advocate Haas’s editions of Bruckner’s symphonies for their ‘musical’ merit, often without knowing that aspects of their musical texts resulted from questionable editorial decisions.