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 <strong>Bruch</strong> 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, <strong>Bruch</strong> 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, <strong>Bruch</strong> 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 <strong>Bruch</strong>’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, <strong>Bruch</strong> revised the piece in the following weeks. He dispatched his new version to the eminent soloist on <strong>26</strong> 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 pr<strong>op</strong>er, 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 pr<strong>op</strong>erty of the Palace Museum of Sondershausen. With entries by Joachim (in pencil) and <strong>Bruch</strong> (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. <strong>Bruch</strong> then added the note “altered by Joachim” to a new formal devel<strong>op</strong>ment which he, <strong>Bruch</strong>, 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 devel<strong>op</strong>ment better suited to the instrument. The original parallel thirds (mm. 201 and 203) which <strong>Bruch</strong> 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 <strong>op</strong>en 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 –<strong>26</strong>3. 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, <strong>Bruch</strong>, 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 <strong>Bruch</strong> 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 <strong>Bruch</strong> 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 <strong>Bruch</strong> 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 Eur<strong>op</strong>e. Angelbachtal, Spring 2015 Michael Kube 1 Letter from <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong> to Fritz Simrock of <strong>26</strong> November 1887, quoted from Wilhelm Lauth, Entstehung und Geschichte des ersten <strong>Violinkonzert</strong>s <strong>op</strong>. <strong>26</strong> von <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong>, in: <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong>-Studien, ed. by Dietrich Kämper, Cologne, 1970, pp. 57–66, [= Lauth, Entstehung], here on p. 65. 2 Letter from <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong> to his family of 24 November 1903, Lauth, Entstehung, p. 65 3 Letter from <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong> to Hermann Levi of <strong>26</strong> 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 c<strong>op</strong>y prepared by <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong> 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, <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong> und Koblenz (1865–1867). Eine Dokumentation, Mainz, 1996, [= Baur, <strong>Bruch</strong> in Koblenz], pp. 53–56. 6 The review (see the complete print in Baur, <strong>Bruch</strong> 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 <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong> 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 Christ<strong>op</strong>her Fifield, <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong>. 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 <strong>Violinkonzert</strong>es <strong>Nr</strong>. 1 g-Moll <strong>op</strong>. <strong>26</strong> von <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong>, in: <strong>Bruch</strong> in Sondershausen (1867–1870), ed. by Peter Larsen, Göttingen, 2004, [= Baur, Der Vollendung entgegen], pp. 137–211. 8 Letter from <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong> to Joseph Joachim of <strong>26</strong> September 1866, quoted from Lauth, Entstehung, pp. 58–60, here on p. 58. In this very lengthy letter, <strong>Bruch</strong> 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 <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong> to Hermann Levi of 6 December 1866, Lauth, Entstehung, pp. 61f. 11 Letter from <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong> to Hermann Levi of 19 February 1868, Lauth, Entstehung, p. 63. 12 See the letter from <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong> to Laura von Beckerath of 23 March 1868, in: <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong>. Briefe an Laura und Rudolf von Beckerath, ed. by Petra Riederer-Sitte, Essen, 1997, [= Riederer-Sitte, <strong>Bruch</strong> Briefe], p. 67: “Finally the concerto has been published. I received my c<strong>op</strong>ies yesterday […]” 13 Letter from <strong>Max</strong> <strong>Bruch</strong> to Rudolf von Beckerath of 20 April 1868, quoted from Riederer-Sitte, <strong>Bruch</strong> Briefe, p. 69.
V Notenbeispiele / Music Examples 1 99 * 6 6 * von Joachim geändert. M. B. 6 etc. wie oben 2 8 va 10 194 200 3 3 10 3 3 3 etc. wie oben 206 3 259 3 3 cresc. e string. cresc. e string. 4 10 cresc. e string. rit. Aenderung von David in Leipzig verworfen! M. B.
Change language