Vroon on Schalk's Bruckner 5
Deryk Barker
Schalk Bruckner 5?
Apart from his overall tone, I really would question one thing: he
says that one of the note writers does 'dare to bring up the Nazi
question' - which I didn't find terribly daring at all - but he then
goes on to say that 'Haas appealed to the Nazi notion of Aryan purity
by prufying Bruckner's scores of the influence of Jewish conductors
(like Schalk) and publishers.'
Now, not only does the liner note say nothing about Jewish
*conductors*, simply limiting itself to publishers, but as far as I
can make out, Schalk himself was not Jewish.
At least, while reading volume II of De La Grange, I found that Mahler
had written to say that he could not appoint Leo Blech to the Vienna
Hofoper, because the anti-semitic would not swallow the notion of two
Jewish conductors at the opera and conversion (like Mahler's) would
count for nothing in their eyes.
And this, unless I'm misreading it, at a time when Schalk was already
on board.
Is this just a typical piece of Vroonishness?
And does anyone else agree that if more conductors played the Schalk
Bruckner 5 would be more popular? Jeez, we could add a few electric
guitars and a rap singer and then it would be *really* popular Don.
--
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Music does not have to be understood|
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada| It has to be listened to. |
|email: dba...@camosun.bc.ca | |
|phone: +1 250 370 4452 | Hermann Scherchen. |
MWKluge
In article <73qbtf$k5s$3...@news.islandnet.com>, dba...@camosun.bc.nospam.ca
(Deryk Barker) writes:
>
>Has anyone else read Vroon's review of the Botstein recording of the
>Schalk Bruckner 5?
>
>Apart from his overall tone, I really would question one thing: he
>says that one of the note writers does 'dare to bring up the Nazi
>question' - which I didn't find terribly daring at all - but he then
>goes on to say that 'Haas appealed to the Nazi notion of Aryan purity
>by prufying Bruckner's scores of the influence of Jewish conductors
>(like Schalk) and publishers.'
>
>Now, not only does the liner note say nothing about Jewish
>*conductors*, simply limiting itself to publishers, but as far as I
>can make out, Schalk himself was not Jewish.
>
[snip]
>Is this just a typical piece of Vroonishness?
>
>And does anyone else agree that if more conductors played the Schalk
>Bruckner 5 would be more popular? Jeez, we could add a few electric
>guitars and a rap singer and then it would be *really* popular Don.
>--
Vroon strikes me as a skimmer, and he writes much the way he apparently reads.
As far as I know, Hermann Levi was the only Jewish musician who could claim to
have influence on Bruckner. Haas did write in defense of his methodology about
attacks by the "Jewish press" and other such nonsense, even in response to
articles in Nazi publications. One such tirade, aimed against his colleague
Alfred Orel, refers to "certain Aryan cohorts" to the "Jewish objections and
resistance." The purification of "foreign elements," often cited by Haas in
his writings, was typical Nazi language for Aryanization. However, Vroon gives
no indication that he has researched any of the relevant literature, only that
he superficially read (and badly paraphrased) the notes. He also blasts Leon
Botstein as a "terrible writer," a comment we are supposed to take on face
value since nothing in the way of an example is cited.
As a further example of carelessness regarding Bruckner in ARG, Haldeman's
review of the new Tintner Eighth thoroughly confuses editions, claiming that
Jochum is better at "this edition," although Jochum never recorded the 1887
text used by Tintner. He further prattles about "Nowak's 48-bar cut in the
Adagio," which is patent nonsense.
Mark K.
John Wilson
Barker) wrote:
>Has anyone else read Vroon's review of the Botstein recording of the
>Schalk Bruckner 5?
>
This may be a really dumb question but, who is Vroon?
John
HenryFogel
>review of the new Tintner Eighth thoroughly confuses editions, claiming that
>Jochum is better at "this edition," although Jochum never recorded the 1887
>text used by Tintner. He further prattles about "Nowak's 48-bar cut in the
>Adagio," which is patent nonsense.
>
>Mark K.
>
>
Yes, it was clear that Haldeman saw the identification of "1887 Version, edited
by Nowak" on the disc, as assumed that it was just the standard Nowak -- not
recognizing that the date was different. However, since this symphony is
utterly different in its 1887 version from the later and more common Nowak
version -- something that should have been apparent at the different, and loud,
ending of the first movement (if not before that) -- it makes one wonder how
well he knows this music at all.
Henry Fogel
Marc Perman
Donald R. Vroon is the editor of American Record Guide. He is notable
for, among other things, ranting about all things Furtwanglerian and
raving about all things Cincinnatian (ARG is published there).
Marc Perman
Aaron Z Snyder
HenryFogel <henry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19981129101513...@ng101.aol.com...
...or if he even took the time to listen to it!
I don't think that I'll be renewing my subscription to ARG.
--
Aaron Z Snyder
Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
John Harkness
MWKluge wrote:
> Vroon strikes me as a skimmer, and he writes much the way he apparently reads.
> As far as I know, Hermann Levi was the only Jewish musician who could claim to
> have influence on Bruckner. Haas did write in defense of his methodology about
> attacks by the "Jewish press" and other such nonsense, even in response to
> articles in Nazi publications. One such tirade, aimed against his colleague
> Alfred Orel, refers to "certain Aryan cohorts" to the "Jewish objections and
> resistance." The purification of "foreign elements," often cited by Haas in
> his writings, was typical Nazi language for Aryanization. However, Vroon gives
> no indication that he has researched any of the relevant literature, only that
> he superficially read (and badly paraphrased) the notes. He also blasts Leon
> Botstein as a "terrible writer," a comment we are supposed to take on face
> value since nothing in the way of an example is cited.
Don Vroon called Boststein a terrible writer? I'd feel that my life was complete if
someone as marginally literate as Vroon called me a terrible writer.
John
MWKluge
In article <19981129101513...@ng101.aol.com>, henry...@aol.com
(HenryFogel) writes:
> He further prattles about "Nowak's 48-bar cut in the
>>Adagio," which is patent nonsense.
>>
>>Mark K.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, it was clear that Haldeman saw the identification of "1887 Version,
>edited
>by Nowak" on the disc, as assumed that it was just the standard Nowak -- not
>recognizing that the date was different. However, since this symphony is
>utterly different in its 1887 version from the later and more common Nowak
>version -- something that should have been apparent at the different, and
>loud,
>ending of the first movement (if not before that) -- it makes one wonder how
>well he knows this music at all.
>Henry Fogel
>
>
Not very well, since Nowak didn't make any "48-bar cut," or any cut for that
matter, in his edition of either the 1887 or 1890 version. The 1887 Adagio of
329 bars was rewritten by the composer for the 291-bar 1890 version.
Mark K.
Ernest Jones
pompous ass ,his reviews and views are mediocre at best. He abuses his
ownership of ARG to use it as a platform for his far right wing
diatribes which border on white supremist!
However I will continue to read ARG because it has much of
value to offer and Vroon's editorials do give me a laugh!
Ernest Jones
Retired Music & Cruise Crazy
Internet Cybernerd On The Beach
Curtis Croulet
It is my opinion that Haldeman did not listen to the Tintner recording, or
at most he merely sampled his favorite bits. I've expressed such, via
e-mail, to Mr. Vroon, but I haven't had a reply, although I have received
responses on other occasions. Perhaps this happens more frequently than I
realize -- that a review is published of a recording that has not actually
been auditioned -- but for me the credibility of ARG will rest on Mr.
Vroon's handling of this affair.
Matthew B. Tepper
pondered what I'm pondering as follows:
>
>On 29 Nov 1998 02:35:27 GMT, dba...@camosun.bc.nospam.ca (Deryk
>Barker) wrote:
>
>>Has anyone else read Vroon's review of the Botstein recording of the
>>Schalk Bruckner 5?
>>
>This may be a really dumb question but, who is Vroon?
>
>John
Let me just put it this way -- compared to Don Vroon, I am warm and
fuzzy and lovable, and full of praise for the entire world.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/index.htm
My main music page --- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/berlioz.htm
And my science fiction club's home page --- http://www.lasfs.org/
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Matthew B. Tepper
mon...@webtv.net pondered what I'm pondering as follows:
>
>Vroon is editor and majority owner of ARG. In addition to being a
>pompous ass ,his reviews and views are mediocre at best. He abuses his
>ownership of ARG to use it as a platform for his far right wing
>diatribes which border on white supremist!
> However I will continue to read ARG because it has much of
>value to offer and Vroon's editorials do give me a laugh!
Also in the latest issue, Paul Moor's unsupported _ad hominem_ rant
about Volkov largely against Laurel Fay and other real Shostakovich
scholars whose rolls of toilet paper he is not fit to replace, is also
worth reading for a few chuckles.
John Wilson
wrote:
>>This may be a really dumb question but, who is Vroon?
>>
>>John
>
>Let me just put it this way -- compared to Don Vroon, I am warm and
>fuzzy and lovable, and full of praise for the entire world.
>
Thanks guys. I remember picking up an ARG a few years ago in a local
Tower and skimming through it and thinking "not today". :-)
John
Eric Schissel
>Also in the latest issue, Paul Moor's unsupported _ad hominem_ rant
>about Volkov largely against Laurel Fay and other real Shostakovich
>scholars whose rolls of toilet paper he is not fit to replace, is also
>worth reading for a few chuckles.
Hrm. Given Mr. Moor's posts to MCML, this surprises me not in the least.
-Eric Schissel
--
schi...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/schissel ICQ#7279016
standard disclaimer
MT
<<Hrm. Given Mr. Moor's posts to MCML, this surprises me not in the
least.>>
Years ago he used to post to rec.music.classical. I remember that Roger
Lustig and others had a long argument with him, though I can't recall
what it was about.
Best regards
mt
Edward A. Cowan
> He abuses his
> ownership of ARG to use it as a platform for his far right wing
> diatribes which border on white supremist!
I'm not so sure about how "far right wing" Vroon is, but I recall being
tempted to cancel my subscription to ARG when he published a ranting
editorial about the allegedly "fascist police" of Seattle who gave him a
ticket for ... jaywalking??!
-- E.A.C.
Matthew B. Tepper
I'm not sure Vroon's political philosophies could be easily categorized
as "left" OR "right." Better pick another direction, like straight up
-- and way out there!
Alain
MT wrote:
Something about credentials. I remember that one - it was a real scorcher.
alain
Mark Koldys
He abuses his
> ownership of ARG to use it as a platform for his far right wing
> diatribes...
Man, are you wrong!
"A long life is only extra time for more trouble" -- Charlie Chan
David M. Cook
wrote:
>I'm not so sure about how "far right wing" Vroon is, but I recall being
>tempted to cancel my subscription to ARG when he published a ranting
>editorial about the allegedly "fascist police" of Seattle who gave him a
>ticket for ... jaywalking??!
Gee, that's one of the few I've enjoyed.
Dave Cook
Philip Haldeman
can be made, and that should come as no surprise. Accusations of laxity,
laziness, or negligence, however, often reflect a lack of imagination on the
part of the accuser, or in the worst case a mean-spirited pettiness or
cynicism. This is not to say that mistakes shouldn't be pointed out or
criticized.
My response to the blunder I made about Bruckner versions in the last issue
of ARG is forthcoming; the magazine is coming off the presses about now. I
haven't made posts to these boards in a long time, but if this message gets
through in an acceptable format, I'll post my letter of explanation later
today.
Philip Haldeman
MWKluge wrote in message <19981129090811...@ngol01.aol.com>...
>
[snip]
>As a further example of carelessness regarding Bruckner in ARG, >Haldeman's
>review of the new Tintner Eighth thoroughly confuses editions, claiming
that
>Jochum is better at "this edition," although Jochum never recorded the 1887
>text used by Tintner. He further prattles about "Nowak's 48-bar cut in the
Philip Haldeman
American Record Guide pointing out my error regarding the Bruckner 8:]
This is how I went wrong: (1) A quick check led me to the following header
in "The Bruckner Versions, One More Time" by William Carrigan in the
March/April 1995 ARG, p. 57: "Eighth Symphony, C minor. Two versions."
(2) Closing the magazine, I assumed the two versions were Nowak and Haas
(and this was the first time I’d reviewed 8). (3) When I decided to refer
to the Jochum recording, I went to the booklet. It described Jochum’s
recording like this: "Version: 1887-90, ed: Leopold Nowak."
In the first instance I neglected to read either the remainder of Carrigan’s
paragraph or his introduction. I assumed he was listing the total number of
edited versions up front. He was not. He was only referring to the Nowak
versions. In the case of the DG Jochum booklet, and in the context of what
I’d just read in Carrigan, I merely saw the date "1887". Even in
retrospect it can be seen that the booklet doesn’t specify what Jochum is
playing. I naively concluded from my hasty research that Jochum’s "Nowak"
was also Tintner’s "Nowak". The blunder was compounded because, being under
deadline, I didn’t have the time to listen *to Jochum* again for a fresh
comparison. I trusted my aesthetic memory, and that, at least, is pretty
reliable.
To further complicate matters, I recalled something about 48 bars that were
"removed" by Nowak. I referred to Jonathan D. Kramer (in <I>Listen to the
Music<D>, Schirmer Books, 1988, p. 204). It states: "Haas restored 48 of
the 150 bars Bruckner and Schalk had removed . . .and Leopold Nowak rejected
his predecessor’s (i.e. Haas’s) work." Nowak’s "48-bar cut", as Mr. Griegel
[whose letter to ARG I’m responding to] correctly points out, is not a cut
at all, but merely an accurate editing of Bruckner’s originals. Nowak‘s
first (1955) edition was the second of Bruckner’s versions, that of 1890.
Nowak’s 1972 edition is Bruckner’s first version of 1887.
Keep in mind that a non-expert who becomes a reviewer has to occasionally
risk what someone once called "educating yourself in public". I hope I’ve
explained what happened, and I apologize to anyone who was misled.
Philip Haldeman
Tony Movshon
"Philip Haldeman" <hald...@accessone.com> writes:
> My response to the blunder I made about Bruckner versions in the last issue
> of ARG is forthcoming; the magazine is coming off the presses about now. I
> haven't made posts to these boards in a long time, but if this message gets
> through in an acceptable format, I'll post my letter of explanation later
> today.
I'm sure there will be a great deal of interest in that posting;
please proceed!
Tony Movshon mov...@nyu.edu
Center for Neural Science New York University
Aaron Z Snyder
Philip Haldeman <hald...@accessone.com> wrote in message
news:741k6i$e1a$1...@supernews.com...
>[The following is my unedited reply to several letters that arrived at
>American Record Guide pointing out my error regarding the Bruckner 8:]
>
>This is how I went wrong: (1) A quick check led me to the following header
>in "The Bruckner Versions, One More Time" by William Carrigan in the
>March/April 1995 ARG, p. 57: "Eighth Symphony, C minor. Two versions."
I don't mean to be petty, but the man's name is Carragan, not Carrigan.
>(2) Closing the magazine, I assumed the two versions were Nowak and Haas
>(and this was the first time I’d reviewed 8).
A critic shouldn't assume anything. Research would have shown you what the
facts were.
>(3) When I decided to refer
>to the Jochum recording, I went to the booklet. It described Jochum’s
>recording like this: "Version: 1887-90, ed: Leopold Nowak."
Booklets accompanying recordings, unless written by dependable scholars,
should never be trusted.
>In the first instance I neglected to read either the remainder of Carrigan’
s
>paragraph or his introduction. I assumed he was listing the total number
of
>edited versions up front. He was not. He was only referring to the Nowak
>versions. In the case of the DG Jochum booklet, and in the context of what
>I’d just read in Carrigan, I merely saw the date "1887". Even in
>retrospect it can be seen that the booklet doesn’t specify what Jochum is
>playing. I naively concluded from my hasty research that Jochum’s "Nowak"
>was also Tintner’s "Nowak". The blunder was compounded because, being
under
>deadline, I didn’t have the time to listen *to Jochum* again for a fresh
>comparison. I trusted my aesthetic memory, and that, at least, is pretty
>reliable.
I guess we now know how reliable your aesthetic memory is. As for your
"hasty research", what you have described hardly qualifies as research,
hasty or otherwise.
>To further complicate matters, I recalled something about 48 bars that
were
>"removed" by Nowak. <snip>
I'm sorry, but having a vague recall of something which you read previously
is a very bad reason for putting such information into an article as fact.
>Keep in mind that a non-expert who becomes a reviewer has to occasionally
>risk what someone once called "educating yourself in public". I hope I’ve
>explained what happened, and I apologize to anyone who was misled.
It's apparent that at least in such a complex situation as editions of
Bruckner symphonies, Mr. Vroon erred in choosing you to review this
recording. Mind you, this statement is *not* a flame against you, Mr.
Haldeman. You have graciously admitted being the wrong person for the job,
and I (I can't speak for everyone else, naturally) accept your apology. If
Mr. Vroon had shown any editorial integrity, he would have rejected your
article before publishing it.
There are some of us out here who are trying our best to clarify what's
really what with regard to the various editions, versions, etc. of
Bruckner's music, and articles such as the one with your name attached to it
only impede whatever progress has been made. From the content of your
article, it was impossible not to conclude that there was "laxity,
laziness, or negligence" on your part. These accusations hardly "reflect a
lack of imagination on the
part of the accuser, or in the worst case a mean-spirited pettiness or
cynicism"; rather, they are the results of our honest attempts to understand
how someone could go so wrong as you did in this article. I get no pleasure
from "mean-spirited pettiness or cynicism', and certainly no positive
results can come from such methods of dealing with the opinions of others.
As I said, you shouldn't take this as a flame against you. A lot of us who
contribute to this newsgroup would be quite happy to fill you in on the
facts concerning the Bruckner editions, or at least point you in the right
direction toward good reference materials.
Juan I. Cahis
As I said in a paper that it was published three years ago in "The
Journal of the Conductor's Guild", many confusions derive from the
tradition of thinking the words "Versions" and "Editions" as synonyms
in the case of Bruckner's Symphonies.
I suggested to call "Versions" the different authentic finished
compositions, made by bruckner himself, that refer to the same
Symphony. In the case of the Eighth, there are only two: the one of
1887 and the one of 1890 (independently of the publisher), and there
is very little possibility that they will appear another one in the
future.
And I suggested also to call "Editions", the published printed scores
that refer to the same Symphony. In the case of the Eight, there are
at least four up to now (two by Nowak, one by Haas and one by Schalk),
and it could be many others in the future, independently of which
version they refer to.
It seems to me that Mr. Carragan, in his article, also followed this
idea.
"Philip Haldeman" <hald...@accessone.com> wrote:
>[The following is my unedited reply to several letters that arrived at
>American Record Guide pointing out my error regarding the Bruckner 8:]
>
>This is how I went wrong: (1) A quick check led me to the following header
>in "The Bruckner Versions, One More Time" by William Carrigan in the
>March/April 1995 ARG, p. 57: "Eighth Symphony, C minor. Two versions."
>(2) Closing the magazine, I assumed the two versions were Nowak and Haas
>(and this was the first time I’d reviewed 8). (3) When I decided to refer
>to the Jochum recording, I went to the booklet. It described Jochum’s
>recording like this: "Version: 1887-90, ed: Leopold Nowak."
>
>In the first instance I neglected to read either the remainder of Carrigan’s
>paragraph or his introduction. I assumed he was listing the total number of
>edited versions up front. He was not. He was only referring to the Nowak
>versions. In the case of the DG Jochum booklet, and in the context of what
>I’d just read in Carrigan, I merely saw the date "1887". Even in
>retrospect it can be seen that the booklet doesn’t specify what Jochum is
>playing. I naively concluded from my hasty research that Jochum’s "Nowak"
>was also Tintner’s "Nowak". The blunder was compounded because, being under
>deadline, I didn’t have the time to listen *to Jochum* again for a fresh
>comparison. I trusted my aesthetic memory, and that, at least, is pretty
>reliable.
>
>To further complicate matters, I recalled something about 48 bars that were
>"removed" by Nowak. I referred to Jonathan D. Kramer (in <I>Listen to the
>Music<D>, Schirmer Books, 1988, p. 204). It states: "Haas restored 48 of
>the 150 bars Bruckner and Schalk had removed . . .and Leopold Nowak rejected
>his predecessor’s (i.e. Haas’s) work." Nowak’s "48-bar cut", as Mr. Griegel
>[whose letter to ARG I’m responding to] correctly points out, is not a cut
>at all, but merely an accurate editing of Bruckner’s originals. Nowak‘s
>first (1955) edition was the second of Bruckner’s versions, that of 1890.
>Nowak’s 1972 edition is Bruckner’s first version of 1887.
>
>Keep in mind that a non-expert who becomes a reviewer has to occasionally
>risk what someone once called "educating yourself in public". I hope I’ve
>explained what happened, and I apologize to anyone who was misled.
>
>Philip Haldeman
>
>
>
Thanks
Juan I. Cahis
Santiago de Chile (South America)
Email: jic...@ibm.net.nospam jic...@reuna.cl.nospam
To send me Email, please remove ".nospam" from my Email address
Note: Please forgive me for my bad English, I am trying to improve it!
Simon Roberts
: I guess we now know how reliable your aesthetic memory is. As for your
: "hasty research", what you have described hardly qualifies as research,
: hasty or otherwise.
Right; it is difficult to imagine how someone could forget something as
radical as the difference between the endings on the versions conducted by
Tintner and Jochum....
: It's apparent that at least in such a complex situation as editions of
: Bruckner symphonies, Mr. Vroon erred in choosing you to review this
: recording. Mind you, this statement is *not* a flame against you, Mr.
: Haldeman. You have graciously admitted being the wrong person for the job,
: and I (I can't speak for everyone else, naturally) accept your apology. If
: Mr. Vroon had shown any editorial integrity, he would have rejected your
: article before publishing it.
Well, yes; an alternative would have been to admit familiarity with the
relevant differences among the available versions of the score(s) and gone
on instead to provide a detailed review of the performance, which is
surely as much of interest as the edition (it is to me, at least), but I
don't think he did that either (I haven't kept the issue and can't say
for sure).
Simon
Philip Haldeman
know if I have them all. But just so there's no misunderstanding: My
letter of explanation regarding my review of the Bruckner 8 is not intended
as an excuse, merely an explanation of the mechanics of what happened. I
was given the Bruckner 8 because of my reviews of some earlier Bruckner
symphonies. I've written nearly 100 reviews for ARG in the last two years,
and this is the first time I've committed a significant error that I know of
(other than making a reference to one label when I meant another).
There seems to be a feeling that I should have recalled certain details of
the Jochum recording without having listened again for direct comparison
(something I almost always do and damned well should have done this time).
My familiarity with Jochum, Wand, Karajan, Giulini, and others came at a
time when I had the luxury of listening to the Bruckner 8 purely for
pleasure, i.e. before becoming a reviewer. It may come as a shock that
someone could have favorite Bruckner 8’s and not focus on textual
differences---or recall whether the close of the first movement is
pianissimo or fortissimo in one of them. At the time, I had no reason to
care one way or the other, I suppose. Whether one "should" care or "should
have noticed" may be a matter for endless postings and invective. But I see
that the pianissimo close is somewhat brief and is preceded by fortissimo
brass, regardless. I kick myself now, of course. I'm unhappy about this
review, but I can't take back what's in print---and I know that's a
frustration for others as well as myself. Still, I'd like to think that
someone notices when things go right---my review of the Vaughan Williams 7
in the same issue, for example. I thought that came out quite well.
None of this excuses the Bruckner blunder. On the other hand, I’ve read
reviews by people who seem to know certain scores forwards and backwards.
They sit with the score on their lap, following the notes closely. They
notice that the kazoo enters in bar 225 right on the beat, but can’t seem to
hear the lack of feeling or sincerity. They know it’s right, and that’s all
they know. I’ve been burned by purchasing discs based on such reviews, and
I doubt that composers ever intended us to listen in such a dry, analytical
manner. But that is another subject, and I really don’t intend it to be
defensive. In fact, in case any of you missed it, I have pleaded "no
contest."
Philip Haldeman
MT
you won't be the last. Just write a note listing the errors of fact you
made and be done with it. It's not like you lied under oath...
Regards,
mt
Curtis Croulet
Aaron Z Snyder
news:3665EB...@sprintmail.com...
>Man, don't worry so much. You are not the first to fuck up in print, and
>you won't be the last. Just write a note listing the errors of fact you
>made and be done with it. It's not like you lied under oath...
No, but to list the errors of fact, he's got to do some listening and
reading so that he can recognize just what they are!
Philip Haldeman
Aaron Z Snyder wrote in part...
>
>A critic shouldn't assume anything. Research would have shown you what >the
facts were.
>
they know better than others. They often make assumptions based on
secondary sources, and this is one of the reasons mistakes
occur---especially in consumer or semi-scholarly publications. Because of
space requirements, reviewers don't usually have the luxury of crediting all
sources---certainly not in footnotes, etc. Direct quotes are another
matter, of course. And such magazines are written by people with a wide
variety of backgrounds, which is a great benefit given the subjective nature
of music. I'm told that one of the better reviewers of the past (not ARG)
was a New York City cab driver. He wrote very well, too.
>Booklets accompanying recordings, unless written by dependable scholars,
>should never be trusted.
I wonder if you'd care to send me a list of the dependable scholars for all
the music I review, and the undependable ones. It would certainly be
helpful.
>I guess we now know how reliable your aesthetic memory is. As for your
>"hasty research", what you have described hardly qualifies as research,
>hasty or otherwise.
Good quarterbacks can fumble the ball. As for my aesthetic memory, that's
up to anyone to judge. Many readers are looking for a particular recording
they "can live with," and I've always seen my responsibility---in part at
least---as one of assessing the overall qualilty of a recording in
comparision to the "desert island" ones in the catalog. If anyone believes
that he/she can live with Tintner's 8 *overall* that's okay by me. What I
meant by "aesthetic memory" did not refer to textual variations. Desires
concerning editions are obviously another matter. And my review of
Tintner's 8 was not a negative one. (If you think so, you don't know how
negative I can be.) In the booklet, Georg Tinter himself thinks Haas "the
best of the three versions" (meaningful if we may include the conductor on a
list of dependable scholars :-)
>
>I'm sorry, but having a vague recall of something which you read previously
>is a very bad reason for putting such information into an article as fact.
True.
>It's apparent that at least in such a complex situation as editions of
>Bruckner symphonies, Mr. Vroon erred in choosing you to review this
>recording. Mind you, this statement is *not* a flame against you, Mr.
>Haldeman. You have graciously admitted being the wrong person for the job,
>and I (I can't speak for everyone else, naturally) accept your apology. If
>Mr. Vroon had shown any editorial integrity, he would have rejected your
>article before publishing it.
I'd like to think that on a better day I'd have done a better job. I think
the Bruckner 8 is one of the great symphonic masterpieces of all time. I
may not get another chance at it---but we'll see (it's hard to accept defeat
with all you gentlemen providing me such intense feedback). ARG is pretty
well run by Don Vroon under difficult circumstances. I have no reason to be
too hard on him. It's one of those things that slipped by.
>There are some of us out here who are trying our best to clarify what's
>really what with regard to the various editions, versions, etc. . . .
[snip].
You have me at an advantage (as they say in Victorian novels). Who are you,
and what is your business concerning Bruckner?
Philip Haldeman
Mike Barker
> Because of space requirements, reviewers don't usually have the luxury of
> crediting all
> sources---certainly not in footnotes, etc.
I hadn't realized this was a "luxury." I was under the impression that it was
an obligation.
Setting aside footnotes, some alternative formats for citation take up less
space -- and are less burdensome for publishers (e.g., parenthetical notation).
Then again, it is conceivable that citations of any significant sort would
alienate one's audience, depending on the audience. It would be -- and is -- a
shame when one has to give up on principle for the sake of practicality.
This isn't really a flame, but a lamentation.
Yours,
Mike Barker
-------------------------------------
J.M. Barker, Ph.D.
Dept. of Philosophy
Dept. of Mathematics
Florida State University
Philip Haldeman
in standard references. When and how often to credit is a judgment call.
Certain people seem to be under the impression that reviewers are, or should
be, professional academics. Some are. Most are not. All work in their
spare time. Editors don't always have the luxury of sending out CDs only to
those reviewers who are expert in particular areas. Magazines must review
what they receive, and what they receive varies greatly from month to month.
Consider the prospect of receiving 8 compact discs containing, say, 8 hours
of music by a variety of composers. Each disc has to be heard at least
three times carefully. That's 24 hours of listening. At least three
comparison discs should be referred to and key passages addressed. That
time varies, of course, but I'll estimate 5 hours on average. Let's say it
takes a couple of hours to write and revise each review once one's responses
are noted, essential information is gathered, etc. We now have 45 hours,
not including research. The deadline is three weeks off when the discs
arrive---which means that people with jobs and/or families have to fit in an
extra week's work into a three-week period.
Under these circumstances, one delivers the best he or she can. One usually
depends on the materials at hand---in my case a couple of hundred books in
my library devoted to music---and sometimes even the booklet accompanying
the CD, which I usually try to credit if that material is especially useful
(it usually isn't). The main part is to describe in ordinary language what
one hears, and whether or not what one hears is worth buying. Everything,
in my humble opinion, should be relegated to the spirit of the music itself.
Only by getting to know a reviewer's taste and judgment can a reader find
value in what is being said.
Concerning editorial matters: ARG publishes over 600 reviews per issue.
The editor, Don Vroon, must attempt to edit these reviews from the time they
arrive (the deadline) to the time they go to the printer. That period of
time is about three weeks as well. 600 reviews. Not to mention running the
entire magazine with only three people. Courteous Ph.D.'s of philosophy
might keep in mind that such enterprises are not government funded. Nor do
they turn a profit for the shareholders. Nor do they allow the luxury of
endless scholarship, footnote formality, or more than absolutely necessary
parenthetical credit. (No flame intended.)
Philip Haldeman
Mike Barker wrote in message <366D2EF9...@mailer.fsu.edu>...
[snip] [see previous post]
> . . .It would be -- and is -- a shame when one has to give up on
principle for the sake of practicality. . . .
>
Raymond Hall
> [snipped ........]
> Everything,
> in my humble opinion, should be relegated to the spirit of the music itself.
> Only by getting to know a reviewer's taste and judgment can a reader find
> value in what is being said.
>
Hear, hear. Well said, as you have IMHO got right to the nitty-gritty in
the above statement. All judgements, made by a potential buyer, should
be carefully weighed using personal past experience, past experience of
reviewer's comments about particular recordings, artists, and even
works, and even weighing up one reviewer's comments against another.
In many ways, this group, for me, adds considerable weight also for my
choices.
| Ray Hall: < hallr...@bigpond.com >
| "My God! What has sound got to do with music!" (Essays) Chas. Ives
Aaron Z Snyder
>You have me at an advantage (as they say in Victorian novels). Who are
you,
>and what is your business concerning Bruckner?
Sorry it took so long to respond.
I shall assume that by "you", you mean who are the "some of us" to whom I
made reference. The "some of us" include
1. William Carragan, who is acknowledged Bruckner scholar, editor of the new
edition of the Bruckner 2nd Symphony (with Leopold nowak's blessing shortly
before he died), and contributing editor to the complete edition.
2. Benjamin M. Korstvedt, professor of music at the University of Iowa and
Bruckner scholar, whose doctoral thesis concerned the authenticity of the
1888 edition of the Bruckner 4th Symphony.
3. Mark Kluge, musicologist, contributing writer to various publications and
program annotator for several CD labels.
4. Juan I. Cahis, part-time musicologist (he has an unrelated day job to pay
the bills -- but then again, so did Charles Ives), who has made significant
contributions to the study of the diverse versions of the Bruckner,
including a numbering system to give order to and remove ambiguity from this
diverse collection of versions.
5. Lani Spahr, who has provided and is maintaining an indispensible list of
recordings of Bruckner works, including detailed information about the
versions used in each recording.
6. A few others of us whose credentials may not be so impressive as the
above (and please forgive me if I've left out anybody whose credentials
actually *are* as impressive -- I must admit to not having full knowledge of
everyone's background), but who have an abiding interest in Bruckner's music
and who have made their own contributions to this group effort.
7. Finally, there's yours truly. I admit to not being a cab driver or
anything else so lofty. I'm a hillbilly from West Virginia who got his EE
degree from MIT and decided to return to stay in Boston, after a 10-year
exile in Philadelphia. I became interested in Bruckner at age 17, and in the
past 37 years I've spent a considerable amount of time studying his works.
However, I must admit to having no formal musicological credentials.
In thinking a lot of things over, including your aguments in defense of your
errors, I still come to the conclusion that the contents of your article are
completely indefensible. In honor of the 100th anniversary of Bruckner's
death, ARG published an article which clearly explains the differences among
the editions of the Bruckner Symphonies. Had you taken the time to read this
article published in the very magazine for which you write, you would not
have made the mistakes which are contained in your article on the Tintner
Bruckner 8th recording.
Perhaps the previous paragraph will give you a better sense of who I
*really* am!
carr...@hvcc.edu
"Aaron Z Snyder" <mad...@world.std.com> wrote:
> Philip Haldeman <hald...@accessone.com> wrote in message
> news:746pm0$r6o$1...@supernews.com...
>
> >You have me at an advantage (as they say in Victorian novels). Who are
> >you, and what is your business concerning Bruckner?
This is the text of my 1995 statement on the Eighth:
Eighth Symphony, C minor. Two versions. The original, 1885-1887, represents a
return by Bruckner to the monumental scale of the Fifth. It was published by
Nowak in 1972. Its intended conductor rejected it, however, and Bruckner
prepared a new version, shorter but with an expanded orchestra, in 1890. This
was brought out by Nowak in 1955. The Haas version of 1939 is an unacceptable
combination of the two, again containing bridging material by him; it should
be abandoned.
Today, in 1998, I would not use the word "version" in connection with Haas's
work on the Second and Eighth, but instead the word "score", reserving
"version" for something which Bruckner actually created and "edition" for a
faithful attempt by an editor to bring a "version" before the public. In this
terminology, the Haas scores of the Second and Eighth are neither versions
nor editions. They may or may not have musical or artistic merit, but if they
do, not all of it comes from Bruckner. Thus Haas creates an ethical problem,
with which neither the layman nor the scholar without access to the originals
is able to deal. Here I repeat my previous question: What can we learn of
what [Bruckner] has to tell us when we know someone else stands in the way?
In 1995, for space reasons, I did not mention the 1892 first publication. It
is quite close to 1890, but it has much more explicit tempo indications and
certain other changes, some of which must certainly be from Bruckner. The
first publications are worthy of study and of occasional performance. They
should not be dismissed out of hand, especially by people who do not know
what they are like. Again, someone may be standing in the way, but it is also
true that Bruckner was connected with all of them (except the Löwe Ninth),
and for this reason, if no other, they deserve some measure of respect.
William Carragan
Contributing Editor, Anton Bruckner Collected Edition
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Eric Schissel
look forward to my first encounter with the early Bruckner 1 scherzo, for
instance (I wasn't in Britain when it received its BBC premiere, and have
to wait for its Naxos recording.)
Philip Haldeman
>Eighth Symphony, C minor. Two versions. The original, 1885-1887, represents
>a return by Bruckner to the monumental scale of the Fifth. It was published
by
>Nowak in 1972. Its intended conductor rejected it, however, and Bruckner
>prepared a new version, shorter but with an expanded orchestra, in 1890.
This
>was brought out by Nowak in 1955. The Haas version of 1939 is an
>unacceptable combination of the two, again containing bridging material by
>him; it should be abandoned.
Georg Tintner writes (in the booklet accompanying his performance of the
1887 Nowak):
"Robert Haas, the brilliant first editor of Bruckner's original scores,
claimed to know which changes were imposed on Bruckner in this symphony and
which of those he himself felt the need for; his version presents the 'best
of both worlds'. He restores sections that were excised from the 1887
version which he rightly considered essential. However his method may be
objected to from the 'scientific' point of view, *his is the best of the
three versions*." (my italics)
Mr. Carragan reprises the header in his 1995 article, i.e. "Two versions."
I see that he creates his own definition, or argument, for "version." But
it seems clear that Haas did what he thought best, and his edition is
respected by many who are highly familiar with various versions/editions.
Why throw it out? My favorite performance is Gunter Wand's North German on
RCA. It seems that all this confusion really results from poor Bruckner
himself---allowing himself to be shoved around---and we cannot look back and
determine what he would have wanted under better circumstances. I can,
however, make an educated guess about one thing he would have wanted: He
would have wanted the majority of us to take our noses out of the scores and
enjoy this glorious music *regardless*.
Philip Haldeman
Eric Schissel
recording the original scherzo to the first symphony (with the
upward-fourth theme, rather than an oscillating semitone theme, and
entirely different from there). Sigh...
carr...@hvcc.edu
schi...@adore.lightlink.com (Eric Schissel) wrote:
> I look forward to my first encounter with the early Bruckner 1 scherzo, for
> instance (I wasn't in Britain when it received its BBC premiere, and have
> to wait for its Naxos recording.)
I am sorry to say that you will have to wait some more. The Tintner recording
is of the pure 1866 version, as performed from the parts copied in that year
by Franz Schimatschek and used in 1868. By 1866 Bruckner had created the
symphony much as we know it today, but in 1877, when he revised Symphonies
2-5, he also made changes to the First. These changes are implicit in the
so-called "Linz" version, as edited by both Haas and Nowak, which is really a
version prepared in Vienna eleven years later than the date given on so many
record labels.
Of course everyone would like to hear what Bruckner's first concept of this
piece was, but I was also deeply concerned with what he did to the First in
1877. It is historically known that Herbeck brought pressure to bear on
Bruckner in that year concerning the Second and then the Third, pressure
which Bruckner resisted vigorously. However, it is unlikely that Herbeck had
anything to say about the First, which was not being considered for
performance. Thus in studying the revisions to the First, I could get an idea
of what Bruckner wanted to change on his own; then changes of a different
type, made to the Second and Third but not the other symphonies, would be
probably due to Herbeck. The results suggest that the regularization of the
bar structure was due to Bruckner, but the cuts in the Second, particularly
the wretched cut in the slow movement, might have been Herbeck's idea. The
statement that Haas makes in his report on the Second, that Herbeck wrote the
violin solo of 1873 into the composition score himself, is not true. The
writing is that of the copyist Carda; Herbeck's distinctive hand (which I
know from MSS. of his own works in the ÖNB) is nowhere to be found in the
sources of the Second.
In doing my work on the First, I did not work with the manuscript itself, but
instead with Haas's critical report of 1935, which is an excellent piece of
work, although it requires a certain amount of decipherment. All of the
variants of source F, the parts, are listed passim by Haas, and from them I
created a new score and set of parts for Tintner to use. The most important
differences are in the finale, and they will be quite noticeable, even though
the main events are the same. The work took me a some time, and while I was
doing it I wondered if I was the first person to read and study this
document, over 60 years old, who cared passionately and professionally about
every detail of it.
I am sure that Tintner would be delighted to record the variant second and
third movements of the First Symphony, as well as other versions of other
symphonies; it just requires convincing Naxos. I am glad that the response to
Tintner's work has been so good, and perhaps Naxos would consider extending
the series if they heard from the public. They already know my opinion!
Those who have been waiting for the new scores of the Second will not have to
wait much longer. I am working on the introductions and will send them to
Vienna shortly. The galley proofs of the music are good and the smallest
print will not be so small any more. When the scores are published, I hape
very much that the 1872 version will become the one of preference. I have
received many good comments about it, starting with the Linz orchestra itself
which was absolutely taken over by it. It surely is a lovely piece: lean,
graceful, lyrical, elegant, and exciting.
William Carragan
Tony Movshon
"Philip Haldeman" <hald...@accessone.com> writes:
> It seems that all this confusion really results from poor Bruckner
> himself---allowing himself to be shoved around---and we cannot look back and
> determine what he would have wanted under better circumstances. I can,
> however, make an educated guess about one thing he would have wanted: He
> would have wanted the majority of us to take our noses out of the scores and
> enjoy this glorious music *regardless*.
This kind of mealymouthed homily, however true, is too late to spare
you the wrath of the BrucknerFassungsPolizei, whose electronic
representatives you have met ... I still bear scars from the
consequences of once saying "Nowak, Haas, who gives a taas?".
Bob Harper
> himself---allowing himself to be shoved around---and we cannot look back and
> determine what he would have wanted under better circumstances. I can,
> however, make an educated guess about one thing he would have wanted: He
> would have wanted the majority of us to take our noses out of the scores and
> enjoy this glorious music *regardless*.
>
I claim no musicological expertise, but I'm with Messrs Haldeman and
Tintner here. To this amateur, Haas just sounds better. The first
version (the one Tintner has recorded) is interesting and enjoyable, but
Tintner's right (to these ears) in saying that most of Bruckner's
changes are improvements. But he cut too much, and I'm prepared to
believe he was pushed into it. Haas may be messy for musicologists, but
his 'score' (version, edition) gets the spirit right, to these ears at
least, in a way Nowak fails to do.
Bob Harper
Curtis Croulet
>himself---allowing himself to be shoved around
What evidence do you have that he allowed himself to be shoved around? I
know this has been claimed in countless articles and recording notes, but
that doesn't make it true. The understanding I have of the research
performed by Professors Kluge and Carragan shows that Bruckner quite
willingly made these changes, that he truly considered the final revisions
to represent his true thoughts, and that the revised versions (I'm including
the earlier symphonies in this discussion) are the ones he wanted to leave
to posterity. The buck lands on Bruckner's desk.
>---and we cannot look back and
>determine what he would have wanted under better circumstances.
The final versions are the ones he "wanted." Many of us prefer earlier
versions for their superior form, but we are not choosing the versions
Bruckner expected us to play. The least we can do for him, though, is to
play the versions he wrote, and Haas's 2nd and 8th are not among them.
>however, make an educated guess about one thing he would have wanted: He
>would have wanted the majority of us to take our noses out of the scores
and
>enjoy this glorious music *regardless*.
He would have wanted us to know enough to recognize the different versions
when we hear them!
Curtis Croulet
Bruckner had not been "shoved around." I meant Dr. Benjamin Korstvedt.
MWKluge
In article <7522oc$eef$1...@nntp.pe.net>, "Curtis Croulet" <curt...@pe.net>
writes:
>Correction: I erroneously credited Mark Kluge with the research showing the
>Bruckner had not been "shoved around." I meant Dr. Benjamin Korstvedt.
>
>
Thanks, Curtis- that "Professor" mantle had me stooped over with the weight of
academic responsibility. Bill Carragan and Ben Korstvedt bear it much better.
(lol)
Mark K.
Juan I. Cahis
"Philip Haldeman" <hald...@accessone.com> wrote:
>"Robert Haas, the brilliant first editor of Bruckner's original scores,
>claimed to know which changes were imposed on Bruckner in this symphony and
>which of those he himself felt the need for; his version presents the 'best
>of both worlds'. He restores sections that were excised from the 1887
>version which he rightly considered essential. However his method may be
>objected to from the 'scientific' point of view, *his is the best of the
>three versions*." (my italics)
>But
>it seems clear that Haas did what he thought best, and his edition is
>respected by many who are highly familiar with various versions/editions.
>Why throw it out?
Of course, as an arrangement it can survive. Haas attitude seems
equivalent to me to a musicologist that tries to make the "ideal"
Beethoven's Leonore Overture, reinserting into the Leonore No. 3 some
passages that he likes very much from the Leonore No. 2. Maybe he
would succeed writing the "Ideal Leonore Overture" from Beethoven, but
does this kind of experiment really have any significance? Would be
consider that "Leonore 2+1/2" as "authentic Beethoven"?
So, if probably we will not accept those policies for Beethoven, why
should we accept them for Bruckner?
The problem with the two versions of the Eighth Symphony (1887 and
1890) is that it is absolutely wrong to see the version of 1890 as
"the version of 1887 with cuts". Both versions are *completely
different* from the first step of their design. As an example of this,
you can compare both Adagios: both have a completely different
structure and tonal plan, and a similar conclusion can be said from
the First Movement.
Curtis Croulet
Wonderful analogy, Juan. BTW, I think Leonore 2 is a much more interesting
piece than Leonore 3.
Jon A Conrad
>Of course, as an arrangement it can survive. Haas attitude seems
>equivalent to me to a musicologist that tries to make the "ideal"
>Beethoven's Leonore Overture, reinserting into the Leonore No. 3 some
>passages that he likes very much from the Leonore No. 2. Maybe he
>would succeed writing the "Ideal Leonore Overture" from Beethoven, but
>does this kind of experiment really have any significance?
Sure, if we like the results. (It's extraordinarily unlikely that it
would actually improve on what we have, but I like to leave the
possibility open.)
>Would be
>consider that "Leonore 2+1/2" as "authentic Beethoven"?
I prefer to retire the word "authentic" with all its unexamined overtones
of superior virtue. But such a hypothetic overture could be worth
hearing, "authentick" or not.
Probably every single performance of Beethoven we hear these days is
inauthentic in terms of anything he himself would expect, no?
>So, if probably we will not accept those policies for Beethoven, why
>should we accept them for Bruckner?
I accept them for both, in principle at least. The test is how they
convince our ears and souls; there's no substitute for making one's own
judgement.
Jon Alan Conrad
Department of Music
University of Delaware
con...@udel.edu
Philip Haldeman
Curtis Croulet wrote in message <7522oc$eef$1...@nntp.pe.net>...
>Correction: I erroneously credited Mark Kluge with the research showing the
>Bruckner had not been "shoved around." I meant Dr. Benjamin Korstvedt.
Mr. Croulet, do you really think a confirmed Brucknerite can get off so
easily?? Do not think public errors are easily dismissed. I am assigning
Aaron Z. Snyder to your case.
Juan I. Cahis
con...@copland.udel.edu (Jon A Conrad) wrote:
>Juan I. Cahis <jic...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>>Of course, as an arrangement it can survive. Haas attitude seems
>>equivalent to me to a musicologist that tries to make the "ideal"
>>Beethoven's Leonore Overture, reinserting into the Leonore No. 3 some
>>passages that he likes very much from the Leonore No. 2. Maybe he
>>would succeed writing the "Ideal Leonore Overture" from Beethoven, but
>>does this kind of experiment really have any significance?
>
>Sure, if we like the results. (It's extraordinarily unlikely that it
>would actually improve on what we have, but I like to leave the
>possibility open.)
>
>>Would be
>>consider that "Leonore 2+1/2" as "authentic Beethoven"?
>
>I prefer to retire the word "authentic" with all its unexamined overtones
>of superior virtue. But such a hypothetic overture could be worth
>hearing, "authentic" or not.
So, we agree 100%!!! Remember that I started my previous posting with
a sentence that said "Of course, (Haas edition,) as an arrangement, it
can survive."
Ramon Khalona
>
> > Mr. Croulet, do you really think a confirmed Brucknerite can get off so
> > easily?? Do not think public errors are easily dismissed. I am assigning
> > Aaron Z. Snyder to your case.
>
> extraordinarily lengthy and pedantic essay, damning me before millions of
> r.m.c.r. habitues for my sloppiness and negligence. It comes with the
> territory.
Hmmm. Sounds like grounds for impeachment to me! :)
--
Ramon Khalona "Die Sechste ist die Keckste"
Carlsbad, California - Anton Bruckner -
curt...@pe.net
> Mr. Croulet, do you really think a confirmed Brucknerite can get off so
> easily?? Do not think public errors are easily dismissed. I am assigning
> Aaron Z. Snyder to your case.
I'm certain that at this very moment Mr. Snyder is preparing an
extraordinarily lengthy and pedantic essay, damning me before millions of
r.m.c.r. habitues for my sloppiness and negligence. It comes with the
territory.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
John Harkness
Philip Haldeman wrote:
> I always try to credit information I believe wouldn't normally be available
> in standard references. When and how often to credit is a judgment call.
>
> Certain people seem to be under the impression that reviewers are, or should
> be, professional academics. Some are. Most are not. All work in their
> spare time. Editors don't always have the luxury of sending out CDs only to
> those reviewers who are expert in particular areas. Magazines must review
> what they receive, and what they receive varies greatly from month to month.
>
> Consider the prospect of receiving 8 compact discs containing, say, 8 hours
> of music by a variety of composers. Each disc has to be heard at least
> three times carefully. That's 24 hours of listening. At least three
> comparison discs should be referred to and key passages addressed. That
> time varies, of course, but I'll estimate 5 hours on average. Let's say it
> takes a couple of hours to write and revise each review once one's responses
> are noted, essential information is gathered, etc. We now have 45 hours,
> not including research. The deadline is three weeks off when the discs
> arrive---which means that people with jobs and/or families have to fit in an
> extra week's work into a three-week period.
You neglect to mention something here. That 45 hours of work will generally earn
one far less than one could have made, say, serving burgers at MacDonald's.
John Harkness
Aaron Z Snyder
<curt...@pe.net> wrote in message news:754tt8$f37$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>[Philip Haldeman wrote in his message]
>> Mr. Croulet, do you really think a confirmed Brucknerite can get off so
>> easily?? Do not think public errors are easily dismissed. I am
assigning
>> Aaron Z. Snyder to your case.
>
>I'm certain that at this very moment Mr. Snyder is preparing an
>extraordinarily lengthy and pedantic essay, damning me before millions of
>r.m.c.r. habitues for my sloppiness and negligence. It comes with the
>territory.
Ordinarily I'd be quite amused by the perceived notoriety that I've
attained. Apparently what I had to say must have gotten to Mr. Haldeman,
considering his perception that I don't tolerate error in individuals.
That's hardly the case. Of course we're *all* error-prone, and, in fact, if
you check back on earlier parts of this thread, I apologized for misquoting,
or at least misattributing meaning to, words of Mr. Haldeman. I even gave
myself a lashing (in private) for that one, not because I made an error at
all, but because I wanted to get a message across and not have anyone
reading it be distracted by unrelated factors.
I really don't care what editions of Bruckner's works other people listen to
and/or enjoy, and certainly it's nobody else's business either. However, I
*do* respect the artistry and integrity of the man who composed the music,
and feel that what he *wanted* to be remembered for having written should be
honored by being published *and* performed, so that anyone else with a
genuine interest in the music can hear it. You may like Robert Haas'
arrangement of the 8th Symphony and may even prefer it to the pure 1887 or
1890 versions. However, I would prefer to have Bruckner's own intentions be
performed rather than the music which a Bruckner scholar lacking integrity
*wished* that the Master had composed.
Getting back to the issue of errors, I have no reason to damn Mr. Croulet
"before millions of r.m.c.r. habitues" for an honest error. Mark Kluge may
lack the professorship or doctoral degree that the other people in question
have, but his surname speaks for itself, especially where music and
music-on-recordings are concerned. In addition, Mr. Croulet had the courage
(or is it just plain decency?) to recognize his error, apologize, and then
move on. Meanwhile, Mr. Haldeman has yet actually to admit his error. He
mentions lot of mitigating circumstances for making a misstatement, and then
continues complain about the fact that some of us just don't buy his
excuses. In the case of the Tintner 8th recording, I find it hard to believe
that Mr. Haldeman listened to it even *once*, let alone three times, as he
implies in a previous posting. His arguments about the circumstances which
produced the confused and erroneous information in his review are
unsupportable. Contrition and admission of error are part of the path to
public forgiveness. Whining won't get him there.
As for my pedantry ....well, we all have our faults. Must be my engineering
background.
Steve
(snip)
> Contrition and admission of error are part of the path to
> public forgiveness.
Are you, by any chance, a Republican member of the House of
Representatives? :-D
Steve Wolk
Philip Haldeman
>mentions lot of mitigating circumstances for making a misstatement, and
>then continues complain about the fact that some of us just don't buy his
This is becoming hilarious. Anyone who has read my posts knows that I
admitted the error, explained exactly how it was made, stated flatly that
there was no excuse for it, and apologized for misleading anyone as a
result. Mr. Snyder must be reading these posts upside down with dark
glasses on.
Philip Haldeman
Bob Harper
scholarly (and snide) comments to the contrary, such as someone's
referring to it as Haas' "arrangement" of the work.
Now I'd certainly prefer to hear a great performance of the Nowak to a
mediocre performance of the Haas, but it seems to me that without the
material Haas restored the climax of the slow movement arrives too soon.
I can't be more specific than that.
Bob Harper
gri...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <3673D8...@pacifier.com>,
> bha...@pacifier.com wrote:
> > I claim no musicological expertise, but I'm with Messrs Haldeman and
> > Tintner here. To this amateur, Haas just sounds better. The first
> > version (the one Tintner has recorded) is interesting and enjoyable, but
> > Tintner's right (to these ears) in saying that most of Bruckner's
> > changes are improvements. But he cut too much, and I'm prepared to
> > believe he was pushed into it. Haas may be messy for musicologists, but
> > his 'score' (version, edition) gets the spirit right, to these ears at
> > least, in a way Nowak fails to do.
>
> You seem to be making a comparison between the 1887 version, edited by Nowak,
> and the 1890 version, edited by Haas. There's not much of a debate here;
> people mainly prefer the Haas. The real debate is between the competing
> editions of the 1890 version, the one edited by Nowak and the one edited by
> Haas. These are so similar that I wonder how the Haas 1890 can get the spirit
> right while the Nowak 1890 fails. Both of them work for me as a listener.
>
> Dave Griegel
>
> P.S. As one who sent a letter to ARG about Mr. Haldeman's review, I must say
> I'm sorry about a lot that I see here. I understand the love that people can
> have for Bruckner's music, and the constant confusion and misrepresentation of
> Bruckner's versions can be taxing for those who are trying to set the record
> straight, but that doesn't justify acting in an unkind way towards another
> person.
gri...@my-dejanews.com
rkha...@adnc.com
>
> P.S. As one who sent a letter to ARG about Mr. Haldeman's review, I must say
> I'm sorry about a lot that I see here. I understand the love that people can
> have for Bruckner's music, and the constant confusion and misrepresentation of
> Bruckner's versions can be taxing for those who are trying to set the record
> straight, but that doesn't justify acting in an unkind way towards another
> person.
Amen.
Ramon Khalona
Carlsbad, California
Ernest Jones
Ernest Jones
Retired Music & Cruise Crazy
Internet Cybernerd On The Beach
carr...@hvcc.edu
rkha...@adnc.com wrote:
> Dave Griegel wrote:
> >
> > P.S. As one who sent a letter to ARG about Mr. Haldeman's review,
Aaron Snyder is one of my closest friends, and I want to assure everyone that
he is a person of good will, and a rock-ribbed Democrat as am I. He has been
a Bruckner enthusiast for many years and knows from his occasional
collaborations with me how important careful scholarship is, and how long it
takes. I am also very well-disposed to Don Vroon who has always been
interested in what I have to say (my only contacts with him). I agree that he
runs his magazine under difficult circumstances, and I always enjoy reading
it, and furthermore, I am not offended by his use of his editorship to make
outspoken comments, though I do not share his occasional pessimism.
In a sincere wish to calm the storm about Mr. Haldeman's review, I'd like to
say that I appreciate its quality--that it was a positive review of a
performance which I have found more and more valuable as I have heard it many
times. It is too bad that Mr. Haldeman did not understand exactly what he was
listening to, even though he had seen (but not read) my 1995 squib on the
matter. But he has admitted that, and besides, surely the most important
thing is that he saw that the recording was good and told us so. I think what
might be distressing Aaron (and what certainly distresses me) is the
dismissal of the value of scientific scholarship which some of the
contributors are making. It is of paramount importance to anyone who cares
about Bruckner's music that the edition can be trusted to be Bruckner's work
and not someone else's. In this connection the 1892 printing has been a
whipping-boy since the 1930s, but it is much closer to Bruckner's work, as it
was at a certain time, than Haas's score is to Bruckner's work as it was at
any time. This is why certain people call Haas's work an arrangement. Some
may prefer it, and others may encourage this sort of thing, but it is not the
work of the composer.
I've had to face this kind of argument from the other side, concerning my
completion of the Ninth. Those parts of the music of the completed Finale
which were supported by Bruckner's sketches were often not fully
orchestrated, and for those measures, what I have provided is an arrangement.
And my coda is more than an arrangement; most of it is simply my composition
based on Bruckner's ideas. The same is true of the score produced by Samale
et al. But there is a difference between these efforts and what Haas did to
the Second and Eighth: in the case of the finale of the Ninth, nothing else
is possible, because of the incompleteness of the sources, but in the case of
the Second and Eighth, it would be very hard to show that it was necessary
for Haas to do what he did to these symphonies where the sources are
complete.
I believe deeply and sincerely that proper scholarship and research are just
as important here as they are in physics, my other profession. Whether the
scholarship is seen as dry or fruitful depends heavily on the interpreter! In
the case of Tintner's recording of the 1887 Eighth, a score which he has
championed for many years and which I was privileged to hear him conduct
twice in 1982, I think most listeners will agree that Nowak's meticulous
research and Tintner's dedicated and inspired conducting have borne very good
fruit.
William Carragan
PS. I did my darndest with the Second, and I think both Eichhorn and Tintner
are terrific there too!
PPS. As part of a recent tribute to Henry Brant which was put on by Neely
Bruce and others at Wesleyan, six pianists performed the last five piano
sonatas of Beethoven, on the same stage, simultaneously. (Or at least that's
what the plans were!) Now music doesn't get any better than those sonatas,
and people usually listen to them rather carefully. But this occasion must
have been hilarious, not in the least irreverent, and certainly very
stimulating, even though the sound could not have been exactly what Beethoven
had in mind. My wife was a student of Brant's, I was coached by Brant, and
Neely is my friend, and I am very sorry that I couldn't be there. There is
lots of value in getting involved with greatness in lots of ways.
Tony Movshon
Bob Harper <bha...@pacifier.com> writes:
> Now I'd certainly prefer to hear a great performance of the Nowak to a
> mediocre performance of the Haas, but it seems to me that without the
> material Haas restored the climax of the slow movement arrives too soon.
I know what you mean, but nothing in Bruckner ever arrives too soon ...
Aaron Z Snyder
Steve <sjw...@erols.com> wrote in message news:367747...@erols.com...
Hmmmm.... Aren't you referring to the wrong party? I could swear that the
Republans [no "sic" is necessary; this is for those who think that the other
party is the *Democrat* party] provide no path to public forgiveness
whatsoever -- that is, unless they themselves commit "youthful
indiscretions". It's the Democrats who believe the above!
Aaron (who really can take a joke, despite some evidence to the contrary)
;-)
Philip Haldeman
Aaron Z Snyder wrote in message ...
>
>Philip Haldeman <hald...@accessone.com> wrote in message
>news:75a2u7$k3i$1...@remarQ.com...
>
>>. . .Mr. Snyder must be reading these posts upside down with dark
>>glasses on.
>
>Why, what could you possibly mean? 8-0
>
>Aaron Z Snyder
>Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
>
>myself! ;-)
I knew it!
P. Haldeman
carr...@hvcc.edu
Since I have been involved with the transcription, analysis, and editing of
Bruckner manuscripts for twenty years, I have what may be considered a
special viewpoint on the "versions" issue. I try my best to be evenhanded
about them, because if an editor preferred one over another, the edition
would itself fail in conveying the composer's intentions which at this point
exist on paper. With Bruckner there is the special difficulty concerning the
influence of his friends--what it was, and the extent to which Bruckner
complied or resisted, case by case. And there is also the difficulty that
Bruckner lovers are by and large brought up on the editions made available by
the International Bruckner Society editions of 1934 through 1965, and not on
the early versions which were published later--this meaning that the early
versions require special advocacy merely to hold their own with the later,
revised versions.
It is important to know what version one is listening to. The distinctions
have a lot to do with symphonic form, which is the backbone of this kind of
music. I believe that form is heard, or sensed, by all listeners, even those
who do not understand it, just the way other aspects of musical technique
contribute to everyone's pleasure, whatever their sophistication. Thus for me
an important issue is whether the classical form finds full expression in
this or that version, or conversely, whether a revision, in abandoning
certain features normally associated with sonata form, creates something
innovative which is successful on its own terms. It is interesting to
remember that many of the earlier commentators on Bruckner said that his
formal sense was deficient. And indeed, the first publications of the Third
and Fourth, and also the manuscript versions published by Haas and Nowak
through the 1950s, are formally defective, (or innovative), while the early
versions of these symphonies, only published by Nowak in the 1970s, are
formally complete and explicit.
With this in mind, the intrusions of Robert Haas into the Second and Eighth
Symphonies create a new problem only if they are taken seriously, as in some
way superior to anything Bruckner himself wrote using the same material. In
favoring the Haas version of either of these symphonies, the listener is
saying implicitly that Bruckner could not get things right by himself--that
he required someone else's intervention to make his music successful. Thus
the old practice of pushing this composer around continues over a century
after his death.
I do not believe that Haas's work on the other symphonies, dating from
earlier in the thirties, should carry this stigma, however. Something
happened to him in 1938 to make him do his own, innovative, anti-scholarly
work on the Second, and a year later, on the Eighth. We can only guess what
that was.
William Carragan
Contributing Editor, Anton Bruckner Collected Edition, Vienna