Max Bruch - Violinkonzert Nr. 1 g-moll op. 26

IV
instrument – was lacking in depth of sound, brilliance and brio, qualities
that are indispensable for the assertiveness of this dynamically
conceived movement. The composer, who will most likely not have a
Joachim or Laub on hand at all times, hardly has any other choice
than to radically simplify the instrumentation, so that the fluttering
flame shines through, golden and pure.” 6
Bruch himself must have seen the necessity of a thorough revision of
the work. He began by contacting Joseph Joachim in order to obtain
advice for a formal reworking of the solo part; as a pianist, Bruch was
not entirely familiar with the subtleties of performance practice and
the sound of the stringed instrument down to the last details. Early in
the summer of 1866, only a few weeks after the first performance,
Bruch sent Joachim the score for perusal and comments. In his
lengthy reply of 17 August, Joachim testifies to the work’s “very violinlike”
sound but points out passages that would profit from a reworking.
On the other hand, he dispersed Bruch’s doubts about his choice
of the term “concerto” 7 as the title; at that time, the first movement
was still superscribed Introduzione quasi Fantasie because of its formal
characteristics. The linking of the once independent first two
movements goes back to a suggestion made by Joachim. Encouraged
by this positive reaction, Bruch revised the piece in the following
weeks. He dispatched his new version to the eminent soloist on 26
September in the form of a “principal part which I have had written
as you wished […]; I have had all the tutti fully written out, as is only
proper, so that you may temporarily follow the red thread of the
whole work even without a score or piano reduction.” 8 It was only a
few years ago that this part was found once again in the property of
the Palace Museum of Sondershausen. With entries by Joachim (in
pencil) and Bruch (in red ink), it confirms the additional labor involved
in giving a new form to the solo part (for further information see the
Revisionsbericht (Critical Commentary) in the present edition.) 9 Traces
of the alterations carried out in this process, or at least motivated
by Joachim, can also be found at several passages in the autograph
score. Bruch then added the note “altered by Joachim” to a new formal
development which he, Bruch, notated in the first movement
(mm. 99ff.): see music example 1, p. V.
Aspects of sound and performance practice seem to have inspired the
revision of certain passages of the solo part in the finale, in particular
the measures 193–212. Here we initially have a change of position
(middle of m. 194) that is impractical because it is bound together
with parallel sixths and the increasingly problematic sound in the high
position (m. 195). This made it necessary to find a more fitting development
better suited to the instrument. The original parallel thirds
(mm. 201 and 203) which Bruch apparently conceived motivically
were eliminated with the repeated b 1 in favor of a figure without
change of position. This also applies to the measures 208–212 whereby,
in view of the closing cadenza, a fuller sound (mm. 209f. with
open string) seemed preferable: see music example 2.
The uneven relationship between effort and effect presumably gave
cause for the revision of the passage at mm. 259 –263. Here the problematic
octave motion of a sound that hardly carries seems more
effective for a keyboard instrument. In contrast, the revised version
(with progressions of a second and “third” voice) is not only more
rewarding for the violin, but also seems richer in effects: see music
example 3.
In spite of this often pragmatically motivated revision, Bruch, with regard
to the solo part, was still uncertain and sent the complete score
for another round of corrections to the renowned Leipzig Gewandhaus
concertmaster Ferdinand David (1810 –1873). Indeed, David advised
Bruch to make another revision which, in view of the “original
David violin passages” 10 , the composer then rejected. We can find
this in the autograph as well, in an alternative cadenza entered in
pencil in m. 10 of the first movement, to which Bruch appended his
comment at the close with the words “change by David in Leipzig, rejected!
M. B.” 11 See music example 4.
By contrast, a new version of the finale made in late 1866 goes back
to earlier objections made by Hermann Levi. It was followed by a definitive
redaction as confirmed in a letter of 19 February 1868: “It [the
concerto] will be released in two weeks’ time (the engraved score as
well) with the markings by Joachim. I spent eight days in Hanover in
October [1867] and laid down the final version with Joachim.” 11
Bruch dated the autograph score that is accessible again to us today
with Sondershausen | 22. Oct. 1867. | M. B.; the piano reduction
made in his own hand, along with the score, did not appear in print
until the end of March, however. 12 Already previously, on 7 January
1868, the extraordinarily successful world premiere had taken place in
Bremen under the direction of the composer and with Joseph Joachim
as soloist. The work soon went on to enjoy “a most fantastic career” 13
and was placed on the programs of all renowned virtuosos in Europe.
Angelbachtal, Spring 2015
Michael Kube
1 Letter from Max Bruch to Fritz Simrock of 26 November 1887, quoted from
Wilhelm Lauth, Entstehung und Geschichte des ersten Violinkonzerts
op. 26 von Max Bruch, in: Max Bruch-Studien, ed. by Dietrich Kämper,
Cologne, 1970, pp. 57–66, [= Lauth, Entstehung], here on p. 65.
2 Letter from Max Bruch to his family of 24 November 1903, Lauth, Entstehung,
p. 65
3 Letter from Max Bruch to Hermann Levi of 26 April 1868, Lauth, Entstehung,
p. 63.
4 The facsimile of the first 20 measures of the second movement enclosed in
the periodical Die Musik 7 (1907/08), vol. 5, does not stem from the autograph
but represents a fair copy prepared by Max Bruch apparently to this
end. – The autograph piano reduction of an earlier version of the second
movement is found in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München (shelfmark:
Mus. ms 6559).
5 See Uwe Baur, Max Bruch und Koblenz (1865–1867). Eine Dokumentation,
Mainz, 1996, [= Baur, Bruch in Koblenz], pp. 53–56.
6 The review (see the complete print in Baur, Bruch in Koblenz, pp. 54f.) signed
solely with S. and published in the Coblenzer Zeitung on 29 April 1866 was
reprinted in a slightly altered version as Bericht in: Leipziger Allgemeine
Musikalische Zeitung 1 (1866), p. 162 (16 May 1866; quoted hereafter).
7 Letter from Joseph Joachim to Max Bruch of 17 August 1866, quoted after
Briefe von und an Joseph Joachim, ed. by Johannes Joachim and Andreas
Moser, vol. 2: Die Jahre 1858–1868, Berlin, 1912, pp. 391–394. – Concerning
the genesis see also Christopher Fifield, Max Bruch. Biographie eines
Komponisten, Zurich, 1990, pp. 58 –73, as well as – much more detailed
and encompassing all available sources – Uwe Baur, Der Vollendung entgegen:
Neue Erkenntnisse zur Entstehung des Violinkonzertes Nr. 1 g-Moll
op. 26 von Max Bruch, in: Bruch in Sondershausen (1867–1870), ed. by Peter
Larsen, Göttingen, 2004, [= Baur, Der Vollendung entgegen], pp. 137–211.
8 Letter from Max Bruch to Joseph Joachim of 26 September 1866, quoted
from Lauth, Entstehung, pp. 58–60, here on p. 58. In this very lengthy letter,
Bruch went on with such meticulousness about the alterations suggested
by Joachim that – concerned about his own reputation – he still refused
to grant permission to print this letter even decades later; see Lauth,
Entstehung, p. 61.
9 See Baur, Der Vollendung entgegen, pp. 174 –211.
10 Letter from Max Bruch to Hermann Levi of 6 December 1866, Lauth,
Entstehung, pp. 61f.
11 Letter from Max Bruch to Hermann Levi of 19 February 1868, Lauth, Entstehung,
p. 63.
12 See the letter from Max Bruch to Laura von Beckerath of 23 March 1868,
in: Max Bruch. Briefe an Laura und Rudolf von Beckerath, ed. by Petra
Riederer-Sitte, Essen, 1997, [= Riederer-Sitte, Bruch Briefe], p. 67: “Finally
the concerto has been published. I received my copies yesterday […]”
13 Letter from Max Bruch to Rudolf von Beckerath of 20 April 1868, quoted
from Riederer-Sitte, Bruch Briefe, p. 69.