Deryk Barker quotes David Griegel:

>The 1873 version (of Bruckner's Third) is based on Wagner's dedication
>score along with corrections in Mus. Hs. 6033.  In addition to corrections,
>Mus. Hs. 6033 contains revisions which Bruckner thought to be considerable
>improvements.

Griegel's comment only proves Newlin's point.  I would ask Griegel or
anyone else) to produce Wagner's dedication score.  At the same time, it is
comforting that we have someone living today who can tell us exactly what
Bruckner was thinking at any given moment.  Too self-effacing and eager to
get along, Bruckner often complied with "considerable improvements" much to
his private despair.  The record will show his eventual annoyance with his
"improvers."

>By referring to the piano reduction as the "original," John clearly
>indicates that his information is over 20 years out of date.

Griegel distorts my statement Dika Newlin suggested that for a "clearer
idea" of the original, one should turn to the Mahler transcription.  Newlin
did not say or imply the transcription was one and the same with the
original.

And Mahler, if not Griegel, almost certainly had a "clearer idea"
what Bruckner was "thinking." As a teenage college student, Mahler was
a frequent visitor at Bruckner's lodgings during 1877-79; it was a relief
to Bruckner to have found the earnest young man, who was willing to respect
his intentions in the Third and not try to "improve" upon them.  In fact,
Bruckner not only entrusted Mahler with the task of transcribing the
symphony, but also (along with Mahler's piano teacher Julius Epstein)
supervised Mahler and his roommate and fellow musician Rudolph Krzyzanowski
in doing the arranging.  For that reason alone, I would give more weight to
the Mahler transcription than to Nowak 1, etc.

John Dalmas
[log in to unmask]