Bob Kasenchak ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

>Well, OK.  Bruckner.
 [...]
>Near as I can tell most of his syms have a similar number of editions or
>revisions.  Is this correct?

Not really.  The situation wrt 2-4 is the most complex.  There is only one
version of 5, 6, 7 and 9.

For more info check my Bruckner page
http://www.camosun.bc.ca/~dbarker/bruckner.html - with the proviso that
it is slightly out of date and there is a new version (!) on the way.

>When you Bruckner-philes buy a Bruckner symhpony, is it terribly important
>to you to know which version/edition/revision it is? Schwann does not
>normally note such things.  This is for 2 reasons:
>
>1.  Mostly for space considerations.  The thing is big anyway.
>
>2.  If we had some/most listings indicating which version/edition was
>recorded, and some not, wouldn't that be even more confusing? Some record
>labels do not indicate which version is recorded on the material provided.
>(not to mention the research to capture all that info)
>
>All the same, this is information I think should be included if the likes
>of y'all listers think it important.

It is important and should be provided, no question.

As to how much difference it makes to me, well it's made less complex
by the fact that the actual recordings tend to concentrate on one or two
versions, mainly those produced by Robert Haas (1-2,4-8), Alfred (?) Oeser
(3) and Alfred Orel (9) before the war or the editions by Leopold Nowak
published in the 1950s.  Nowak differs significantly from Haas in 2, 3, 4
and 8.  His 9 is pretty much identical to Oeser's.

Given my druthers there are versions of each symphony I prefer to the
others, but I'd rather hear Szell (say) conducting the 3rd even in the
Nowak edition (1889 - my least favourite) than not hear him at all.

Deryk Barker
[log in to unmask]