Parts #26350 and #38761-38772 are currently listed under the header Revised "Linz" and "Vienna" versions. However, a quick perusal of these parts clearly suggests that only one version of the First Symphony is represented, not two. If both versions were presented, one would expect them to be printed separately – or at least in the form of ossia passages – and clearly marked in any event. The parts show no such things.
Haas’s contemporaneous editions of the full scores for each version have the following major structural differences. Measures reflect bar counts as printed in the full scores; true bar counts, especially in the third movement, may be a little off.
- First movement: Allegro, 351 measures (revised Linz); Allegro, 345 measures (Vienna)
- Second movement: Adagio, 168 measures (revised Linz); Adagio, 171 measures (Vienna)
- Third movement: Scherzo – Schnell/Trio – Langsamer, 135/40/159 measures (revised Linz); Scherzo – Lebhaft/Trio – Langsam, 140/51/166 measures (Vienna)
- Fourth movement: Bewegt, feurig, 396 measures (revised Linz); Bewegt, feurig, 393 measures (Vienna)
The greatest changes are in the third movement. While the reprised scherzo leads directly to the coda (with the last bar omitted) in both versions, the Vienna trio also leads directly into the reprised scherzo, with the material prior to rehearsal letter A recomposed and shortened. The revised Linz version does not alter the beginning of the scherzo in the reprisal, and there is a clear pause on both sides of the trio.
So which version is reproduced in the parts? On all counts, all of the parts point toward only revised Linz, with no Vienna features to be found.
I can understand the mislabeling; surely, if Haas prepared two full scores, there should be two sets of parts as well, or at least a unified set of parts for both scores. But it appears that, despite the choice of full scores, the performance material in the Alte Gesamtausgabe was for the revised Linz version only* – which, of course, was simply called "Linz" at the time and erroneously claimed to be written in 1865, but I digress.
As an aside, the Flute 3 part at the end of #38761 does not appear to be by MWV at all. Compared to the others, it is more obviously handwritten, and directions (“Tacet till End of Symphony”) are only in English, but not, like the other parts, in German.
In fairness, we still do have Vienna performance material in the form of the Doblinger parts (#687409-#687421), but that is the first published edition, not the Alte Gesamtausgabe edition.
There is one other issue regarding the full score of the Haas revised Linz edition. In file #563206, book page 50 is missing; page 49 (on PDF page 48) is followed directly by page 51 (on PDF page 49). I know that there are reprints of this score that are intact, but file #563206 is of interest as the original issue of it. If it cannot be updated to include the missing page, there should be a miscellaneous note added to the effect that page 50 is missing. The same issue affects score #562917 under the Alte Gesamtausgabe work page; PDF pages 179 and 180 in that file should have an additional, missing page in between.
*Breitkopf & Haertel appears to continue offering performance material for the entire Alte Gesamtausgabe on a hire-only basis. But for the First Symphony, only the "Linz version" is mentioned. This also explains why the Berkey discography does not mention any recordings for the Haas Vienna score.
Bruckner First Symphony - MWV/Kalmus parts are "revised Linz" only, plus missing page in scores #563206/#562917
Moderators: vinteuil, Leonard Vertighel, Lyle Neff, Wiki Admins
Re: Bruckner First Symphony - MWV/Kalmus parts are "revised Linz" only, plus missing page in scores #563206/#562917
An update regarding the scores (#563206/#562917):
Both PDFs are reported as having been scanned by Bruckner Online. A check of the provided digitalization on that Web site indicates that the missing page is included there. Apparently it was simply overlooked in the preparation of the PDFs. But this is good news, as it indicates that both files on IMSLP can be fixed fairly easily by simply inserting the missing page in the appropriate spot. Of course, it will need to be converted to monochrome, etc. I may even give it a try myself.
Both PDFs are reported as having been scanned by Bruckner Online. A check of the provided digitalization on that Web site indicates that the missing page is included there. Apparently it was simply overlooked in the preparation of the PDFs. But this is good news, as it indicates that both files on IMSLP can be fixed fairly easily by simply inserting the missing page in the appropriate spot. Of course, it will need to be converted to monochrome, etc. I may even give it a try myself.