Symphony No.8 in C minor, WAB 108 (Bruckner, Anton) - placing new files, order of versions?

[Bhm]

Hi all,

I have found scans of the complete performance material (score and parts) for this work in the 1892 first edition. (Currently, parts are supplied only in an amalgamation of the 1887 and 1890 versions.) But I have some questions about how to upload them and, by extension, about the current status of the work page.

1. Compared to the existing score scan, this score scan is much cleaner in terms of markings and more uniform in terms of colors, with the result that it was easier to convert to monochrome (another benefit of the upcoming scans). But, importantly, this scan comes from a different source and does not include the color cover at the beginning of the current score. Therefore, I would like to simply add this score without overwriting the existing score #562274 - how do I do this?

2. The parts tab, of course, does not have a section for the 1892 first edition at all; how do I add this section to the page when uploading the parts?

3. Continuing on the question of parts, this edition features shared parts - the same part is read by multiple players. Trumpet 1 is always in F, but Trumpet 2 alternates between F and C - and they are reading from the same part. There will also be a Trumpet 3, which also alternates between F and C. Since transposition is supposed to come after numbering, this raises the question of how to name the part when uploading it. The best way I can think of, based on the style guide, is Trumpet 1 (F) / 2 (F, C), 3 (F, C): two trumpet parts in the same file, with Trumpets 1 and 2 both in the first part and Trumpet 3 in the second, and transpositions as indicated. I suppose that Trumpet 1 / 2, 3 (F, C) would be nicer, but also inaccurate because Trumpet 1 is never in C, only F.

4. Right now, the sections in the scores tab are ordered 1887, 1890, amalgamation, 1888, 1890 Adagio, 1892. Obviously, this is a mess, and even more so when considering the disjointed manuscripts, which are another story. But shouldn't we have the 1887-1890 amalgamation (that is, the Haas edition of 1939) after the first published edition at the end? After all, both are non-manuscript editions, but the amalgamation was prepared and published later - indeed, posthumously. This question is mostly in the interest of consistency with the parts, which will be just 1892 and amalgamation.

[Sallen112]

Go ahead and upload the set to the tab, we'll take care of it. Something to keep in mind, the ordering of the level 4 tabs your talking about is from the "Complete" Score of all movements for an edition vs. the ordering of the single movement files for there own edition in a hierarchy chronologically speaking from oldest edition to newest. The Amalgamations makes this more complex where to put them exactly.

[Bhm]

I'm just going by analogy with the Symphony No. 2; the amalgamation of the first and second versions for that page comes after all authentic editions.

[Bhm]

Okay, everything is uploaded. I provided the original sources (in color) for reference. I used Scan Tailor (mostly) to convert the images to monochrome, as well as to set uniform page sizes. The threshold was a challenge to set; the one I used was a little darker than the default, but it seemed to balance broken text and lines and filled-in white space the best. If you or the other reviewers feel that these scans are too dark (or perhaps too light), let me know, as I can adjust them - for now.

[Bhm]

I messed up one of the file names - for file #925082, WAB108-Timpani-etc.pdf ought to be WAB108-1892-Timpani-etc.pdf by analogy with the other new files. I think we can't generally rename uploaded files, but since these files are still in review, if I could rename this file (or have it renamed by staff) as indicated above, that would be great! As a last resort, I'm also willing to simply reupload the percussion part under a new number.

[Sallen112]

Files names do not matter on a workpage, every file is given there own unique IMSLP number to the left in Edit based on when the workpage was created in sequence on the site. What does matter is that a file uploaded does not duplicate against another file on the workpage.

[Bhm]

I've possibly identified a very unusual issue with the new scan of the full score. The original color scan shows very faint text, which appears erased, at the end of book page 17 and the beginning of book page 19. A review of the Bruckner Online scan shows that these are instructions for an optional first movement cut: Vi- (Kurzung bis P) at the end of book page 17, and -de at the beginning of book page 19. Obviously, these have not made their way into the monochrome document.

I know that we are supposed to remove markings, but should we restore erasures as well? And I'm not especially sure that this even was a deliberate erasure; after all, the original color scans show no markings at all, or at least no additions.

[Bhm]

I went ahead and updated the new score, #925089, to restore the missing/erased text; compare PDF pages 21 (bottom) and 23 (top) in the other score, #562274.