BRAHMS - Clarius Audi

BRAHMS 

Concerto in D major 

for Violin and Orchestra 

op. 77 

Edited by 

Clive Brown 

Critical Commentary 

Bärenreiter Kassel · Basel · London · New York · Praha 

BA 9049

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the co- operation 

and assistance of a number of people and organisations 

in the preparation of this edition. 

My first thanks go to the staff at Bärenreiter, 

for their helpfulness and support. I am particularly 

grateful to Irene Schallhorn for painstaking 

efforts in obtaining material and facilitating 

access to collections and to Douglas 

Woodfull-Harris for his consistent encouragement 

and advice. 

I am indebted to the following archives for providing 

material and permissions: the Gesellschaft 

der Musikfreunde, Vienna; the Library 

of Congress, Washington DC; the Staatsbibliothek 

zu Berlin; the library of the Universität der 

Künste, Berlin; the Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, 

Hamburg; the library of the Tonhalle, 

Zürich. 

Clive Brown 

4

SOURCES 

Lost or conjectural material is given in italics 

A 0 

Autograph sketches and drafts 

As 

Autograph draft of the solo violin part (Berlin, 

Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin) 

Six folios, -stave music paper (. × . cm), 

without watermark, containing the first movement 

(pp. –) and the beginning of the finale 

(pages –). 

Ap 

Brahms’s autograph full score (Washington, Library 

of Congress) 

folios of -stave music paper (. × . cm). 

The music begins on page ; f. v is unnumbered 

and blank. 

Ks o 

Solo violin part used by Joachim for the early 

performances 

Kst 0 

Manuscript orchestral parts 

Ks 

Copyist’s manuscript of the solo violin part 

(Washington, Library of Congress) 

folios, -stave music paper (. × . cm.) 

with plain paper cover. Manuscript title page 

(evidently added when filed in Simrock’s archive): 

Johannes Brahms / op. Violinconcert / 

Prin cipalstimme / Stichvorlage. 

Ak 

Autograph piano reduction with copied violin 

part (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek) 

folios -stave music paper (c. . × . cm.) 

plus inserted folio (f. ) -stave music paper 

(. × . cm.); title page and pages of music; 

folios v and v blank; folios r, r, v, 

v have slips of paper, of the same type as f. , 

pasted in. Manuscript title page (in the same 

hand as that of Ks): Johannes Brahms / op. Violin 

concert / Clav. Ausz. / Manuscript. 

Ds 

Published solo violin part 

CONCERT / für / VIOLINE. / Solo-Violine. 

printed pages; Pl. no. 

There were at least three further impressions 

of the original edition between and , 

none of which involved any alteration to the 

text. 

In a new edition, edited by Joachim, was 

printed largely from the same plates with revisions 

(see Js below). 

Dk 

Published piano score 

JOSEPH JOACHIM / zugeeignet. / CONCERT / 

für / VIOLINE / mit Begleitung des Orchesters 

/ von / JOHANNES BRAHMS. / Op. . / 

CLAVIER – AUSZUG. / Preis M. _ / Ent. d Stat. 

Hall. / Verlag und Eigenthum / N. SIMROCK 

in BERLIN. / . / Lith Anst. v. C. G. Röder, 

Leipzig 


There were a number of later impressions with 

variant title pages, but no changes were made 

to the original plates of the music. 

Brahms’s personal copy (Handexemplar) is in 

A-Wgm. It contains no corrections. 

Dp 

Published full score 

JOSEPH JOACHIM / zugeeignet. / CONCERT / 

für / VIOLINE / mit Begleitung des Orchesters 

/ von / JOHANNES BRAHMS. / Op. . / 

PARTI TUR. / Preis M. _n. / Ent. d Stat. Hall. / 

Verlag und Eigenthum / N. SIMROCK in BER- 

LIN. / . / Lith Anst. v. C. G. Röder, Leipzig 


A number of later impressions were issued 

without any alteration of the musical text. 

Two copies that belonged to Brahms are held 

in A-Wgm (XI and IX ): an ordinary 

copy of the score (Handexemplar) and a decorated 

and richly-bound copy, presented to him 

by Simrock, which Brahms later gave to the 

young violinist Marie Soldat in . In both 

these copies Brahms made a blue crayon cor- 

6

ection at I – which he also indicated in 

the margin (see Critical Commentary); in the 

Handexemplar the marginal annotation has 

been crossed through in pencil. 1 

Dst 

Published orchestral parts 

parts: Fl. I, II, Ob. I, II, Clar. I, II, Fag. I, II; 

Cor. I–IV, Tromb. I, II, Timp.; Viol. I, II, Va., Vc. 

e B. 

No title page. Pl. no. 

Later impressions were issued without alteration 

of the musical text. 

1 Robert Pascall ‘Brahms and the definitive text’ 

Brahms: biographical, documentary and analytical studies 

ed. R. Pascall (Cambridge, , p. ) argues that the 

pencil crossing out is to be seen as a restitution of the 

original text. 

Js 

Published solo violin part revised edition 

A new edition of the solo violin part was published 

in volume three of the Joachim and Moser 

Violinschule in as no XVI of the section 

entitled Sechzehn Meisterwerke / der Violinliteratur 

/ bezeichnet / und mit Kadenzen versehen 

/ von / JOSEPH JOACHIM / ==== / Sixteen 

Standard Works / for the Violin / edited 

with original cadenzas / and marks of expression 

/ by / JOSEPH JOACHIM. This contains a 

few small revisions to the articulation and dynamics 

of the original edition (most notably at 

I –, – and II ) as well as changes 

to fingering and bowing directions (see Critical 

Commentary). It also contains Joachim’s 

cadenza inserted, together with the end of the 

first movement, on three newly engraved plates 

(pl. no. – the plate number of the third 

volume of the Violinschule). The text of the 

cadenza differs slightly from that published 

separately by Simrock in , in respect of fingering 

and bowing. The revised edition was 

later reissued with the double plate number 

/, but without Joachim’s cadenza and 

with the final page of the first movement reinserted 

in its original version with the single 

plate number . 

The following stemma indicates the relationships 

between surviving and lost (conjectural) 

sources, and has been taken as a basis for the 

present edition. 

 

August 

A 0 ( st and rd movements) 

November 

A 0 ( nd movement) 

As 

October November – December 

Ap 

December 

Ks 0 Kst 0 

 

February 

Ks 

February – March 

Ak 

October 

 

Ds Dk Dp Dst 

Js 

7

CRITICAL COMMENTARY 

EDITORIAL PROCEDURES 

Brahms did not apparently intend the printed 

full score (Dp) to serve as the definitive text of 

the concerto as a whole. For practical reasons, 

especially ease of use as a conducting score, he 

settled upon a reduced version of the solo violin 

part in the full score, without ossias, fingerings 

or bowing marks; this part does not seem 

to have been revised with the care that was devoted 

to the revision of the separate solo part; 

it was never completely brought into line with 

the revised text in Ds. 

In the present edition Ds, including Joachim’s 

fingering and bowing marks, has been taken as 

the copy text for the solo violin part and the ossias 

are given as footnotes on the relevant pages 

of the full score. Where Joachim added or modified 

bowing and fingering in his revised edition 

of (Js), the additional bowing marks 

have been given in round brackets and the fingerings 

in italics; Joachim’s additional performance 

instructions are also enclosed in round 

brackets; other changes are given in footnotes. 

In the following commentary it is to be understood 

that the text in Js is identical with that in 

Ds, unless otherwise stated. 

Dp has been taken as the copy text for the orchestral 

parts. Discrepancies between Dp and 

Dst are detailed in the Critical Commentary, 

except where markings in Dst are deemed necessary 

to supplement the text of the orchestral 

parts in Dp; in such cases the markings from 

Dst are given in round brackets in the score. 

All editorial markings are given in square 

brack ets. Editorial slurs are given as dotted 

lines. 

One aspect of Brahms’s notation that is rather 

haphazardly represented in the original engraving 

is the placement of staccato marks on 

the final notes of slurred phrases or figures. 

Brahms, like many earlier composers, including 

Beethoven, was largely consistent in his 

autographs in placing these staccato marks outside 

the slur (i. e. making a clear distinction 

between a staccato and portato execution), but 

it increasingly became the practice in printed 

editions to place the staccato mark within 

the slur. In the present edition, Brahms’s predominant 

practice in his autographs has been 

followed. 

The intended placement of crescendo and diminuendo 

hairpins in Brahms’s autographs is 

often ambiguous. Where no reasonable doubt 

as to their intended placement exists, minor 

discrepancies in the autograph have been 

passed over in silence; more problematic cases 

are discussed below. 

Allegro non troppo 

16 Cor1,2: Dp, Dst (Cor2, where 16 begins 

a new line) < ends in 15, but 

clearly to end 16 in Ap, Dst (Cor1). 

31n.3 V1: Dp, Dst no > (present in Ap, Ak, 

Dk). 

36n.1, n.5 V1: Dst 1 (fingering) presumably 

added by a player in Kst. 

37–40 V1: In all manuscript sources the 

notes are written as staccato e s. 

Brahms changed the e s to pairs of 

repeated x s in the proof of Ds; in a 

letter to Keller (c. 23 August, 1879) he 

instructed him: ‘The sixteenth notes 

on the first page of the solo part 

must naturally apply also to the first 

violin part of the orchestra.’ 

65 Wind: Ap dol. added by Brahms for 

Ob, Cor3,4, Tr only; Dp in all wind 

except Fg and Cor1,2; Dst in all except 

Ob2, Cor1,2. 

90n.3 Solo V: Ap, Ak, Dp, Dk no dot under 

slur (present in As, Ks, Ds). 

92n.1, 96n.1 Solo V: Ks, Ak, Ds, Dk no b♭ 1 

tied from previous bar, but present 

in As, Ap; the discrepancy may have 

resulted from a copyist’s error in Ks 0 

that went unnoticed during revision 

and proof reading; but the presence 

of ties on the lower octave in the violin 

part in Ak (subsequently deleted) 

from bars 91/95, without the b♭ 1 in 

92/96, makes it more likely that the 

lower octave had been purposely de- 

8

leted in Ks 0 , without the ties having 

been clearly cancelled; Ks was copied 

without either the lower tie from 

91/95 or the b♭ 1 in 92/96. 

95n.4 Solo V: Dp no > (present in all other 

sources). 

96n.2–9 Solo V: Ak, Dk no staccato (present 

in all other sources). 

102n.2 Solo V: As, Ks, Ds no f. 

103n.1–104n.12 Solo V: Ds, Dk diminuendo/ 

dimin.; Ap, Ks, Dp > ; Ak has a 

partial > above the violin stave 

in 103 only and dimin. on the piano 

RH stave in 103. 

104n.10–12, 104n.13–105n.5 Solo V: Ap, Dp 

slurs; Ks, Ak, Ds slur from 104n.10– 

105n.5. 

105n.6–15 Solo V: Dk separate slurs on n.6–10 

and n.11–15 (all other sources single 

slur). 

128n.1 Cb: Dp no pizz (present in Ap, Dst). 

132n.2–3 Solo V: Dk, Dp no slur; As slur 132 

n.2–133n.1; Ap (added in dark red 

ink), Ak, Ks slur 132n.2–12; Ds slur 

132n.2–3; the long slur was evidently 

removed at proof stage, but the slur 

on n.2–3 was probably omitted from 

Dp and Dk through oversight; Joachim 

will have suggested the slur 

on n.2–3, present in Ds, to arrive at 

the point of the bow at the beginning 

of 133 and its addition was necessarily 

connected with the removal 

of the slur in 133 (see below). 

133n.2–3 Solo V: Ap, Ak, Ks slur, evidently removed 

in proofs, presumably in connection 

with the adjustment of bowing 

in 132 (see above). 

142 Va, Cb: Dst cautionary p perhaps 

added by a player in Kst. 

144n.1–2 Solo V: As, Ap, Dp, Ds no slur; Ks, 

Ak (added), Dk slur. 

146n.1–2 Solo V: As, Ap, Dp, no slur; Ks, Ak 

(added), Dk, Ds slur. 

151 Solo V: Dp, Ds ♮ before tr (rather than 

above as in Ks, Dk). 

152 Vc: Dst cautionary p. 

155–6 Solo V: In Js the original fingerings 

from Ds have been removed and replaced 

by alternative fingerings. 

162 Fg1,2, Cor1,2, V1,2, Va, Cb: Dst < 

starts at beginning of bar in all parts; 

Dp from third beat; Ap inconsistent 

(from near beginning of bar in Fg2, 

Cb, but later in others). 

170/411n.2 Solo V: The 0 (open string marking), 

which Brahms included in As, 

and which was reproduced in Ks and 

Ds, was removed and replaced by 4 

in Js; it is surprising that 0 was not 

changed earlier, since it involves an 

impractical jump across two strings 

between the preceding and following 

notes; with 4 a similar effect can 

be obtained by allowing the open 

string to resonate freely. 

174n.7–12 Solo V: As, Ap, Ak no

217n.2 Js no 1; Joachim’s revised fingering 

indicates a change of position on 

218n.1 rather than 2 nd position for the 

whole phrase. 

223 V1: Ap no p until 224; Dst, Dp p at 

223n.1. 

224n.1 Solo V: Ap, Ks, Ds p; Ak, Dk, Dp p 

on 223n.4 (this probably represents 

a deliberate modification in connection 

with the move of p from 224 to 

223 in V1 in Dst, Dp). 

224n.1 Strings: Ap p in all parts except Vc; 

Dst p in V2, Va, Cb; Dp p only in Va, 

Cb. 

231–2 Cl1,2, Fg1,2, Cor3,4: Ap > starts 

at beginning 231 and extends to 233 

(because of notes in 233 that were 

later deleted); Dst > for Fg2 begins 

in 230; in Dp 231 is at the end of 

a page and > stops in Cor3,4 at 

end 231 with no continuation overleaf. 

231n.2–232n.1 Solo V: Dp, Ds < does not 

cross barline (in Dp there is a page 

break and in Ds a line break); < 

to 232n.1 in Ap (Keller) following Joachim’s 

addition in Ks. 

232 Cor3,4: Dp continuation of > missing 

after page turn. 

237 Solo V: As on n.2; all other sources 

on n.1; in Ak it was originally written 

between n.1 and n.2, but changed 

by Brahms to n.1. 

238 Solo V: As on 239n.1; all other 

sources on 238n.2; in Ak it was originally 

written between n.1 and n.2, 

but changed by Brahms to n.2. 

240 Solo V: As, Ap on n.3; Ks between 

n.2 and n.3; Ak as Ks, but altered by 

Brahms to centre on n.2; all printed 

sources on n.2. 

247n.2 Solo Vl: Ks, Ak, Ds, Dk no staccato; 

Ap (partly obscured by ♯), Dp staccato. 

250 Solo V: In Js Joachim removed the 

4 on n.3 delaying the change of position 

until n.6. 

260n.1 Solo Vl: Dp staccato, probably added 

by engraver corresponding with V1,2 

(not in any other source). 

268–70 Solo V: Js slur from 268n.2 – 269n.13 

(thus reverting to Brahms’s original 

notation in Ap) and the staccato mark 

on 270n.1 (also absent in Ak, but apparently 

added to the proofs in Dk, 

where it occurs above the slur) removed. 

272n.1–6, 280n.1–6 Fg1,2, Vc/Cb: In Ap the 

repeated e s are indicated by abbreviations 

(a h . with a beam through 

the stem); in 272 and 280 Brahms 

wrote six staccato dots above the abbreviation; 

Dst has staccato marks in 

Fg1, 272, 280 and Fg2, 272–5, 280–3, 

but none in Vc/Cb; Dp has no staccato 

marks in any of these bars. It 

is possible, though highly unlikely, 

that Brahms deleted staccato marks 

in the proofs of Dp. 

288n.2 Vc: Dp no ♮ (present in Ap, Dst). 

300 Va: Dp centred between n.2 and 

n.3; Dst centred on n.2 (clearly centred 

on n.3 in Ap). 

305 Vc: Dst contains the instruction 

‘Vcell. solo’ as well as ‘Solo’ in 304 

(this was probably a misinterpretation 

of markings in Ap, where ‘Solo’ 

in 304 indicated the entry of the 

solo violin and ‘V = Cello’ in 305 the 

fact that, because of an alteration, 

the Vc part was written on the Cb 

stave and the Cb part on a stave below); 

the instruction is not present in 

Dp; in the set of parts in the library 

of the Tonhalle Zürich, however, it 

is clear from a player’s manuscript 

mark ing that the instruction has been 

understood to mean that the passage 

should be played by a solo cello, and 

‘Tutti’ has been added at 332. 

309n.1–3, 310n.2–4 Solo V: Ak, Dk, Ds slurs; 

Ap slur in 309 extended to 310n.1 

by Keller; from 310n.2–311n.1 and 311 

n.2–312n.1 slurs also added by Keller; 

Dp follows the revised reading 

in Ap; the slur from 309n.1–310n.1 

is a matter of presentation, implying 

nothing different from a slur on 309 

n.1–3, but a slur from 310n.2–4 rather 

than from 310n.2–311n.1 implies a 

separation of the b♭-b♮; Ks has slur 

from 310n.2–311n.1. 

10

312 Solo V: Ap Keller added grazioso in 

round brackets, following the copyist’s 

text in Ks, Ak (presumably reflecting 

an addition in Ks 0 ); it appears 

in round brackets in all printed 

sources. 

312n.2 Solo V: Ds no p; in Ap, Ks, Dk on n.1, 

in Dp on n.2 (which was evidently 

Brahms’s intended placement). 

314 Fg1: Dp no dolce (present in Ap and 

Dst). 

316n.7 Solo V: Js no 2; Joachim replaced the 

original change of position here with 

a position change on n.5. 

320 Solo V: Ks, Ds, Ak, Dk < starts 

from n.5; Ap, Dp from n.4. 

322 V1,2, Va, Vc/Cb: Ap > from between 

n.1 and n.2; Dst from n.2 in 

V1,2, but from n.1 in Va, Vc/Cb; Dp 

from n.2. 

Solo V: Ap, Dp > from n.2; Ak, 

Ks, Dk, Ds from n.1. 

322–3 Solo V: Ds line break between 322 

and 323, separate > signs from 

322n.1–6 and 323n.1–6. 

332 Solo V: Ks, Ak, Ds cresc. on n.3, Dk 

on 333n.1; Ap between n.2 and n.3; 

Dp on n.2 

336n.2 Solo V: Ap, Ks, Dp no ♮ above trilled 

note; ♮ present in Ak, Dk, Ds (where 

presumably added in proofs). 

336n.3, 337n.3 V1,2: Ap, Dp, Dst h ; altered to 

staccato q by Brahms, with marginal 

annotation in blue crayon, in his 

Hand exemplar and in the presentation 

copy of Dp given to Marie Soldat 

in 1885. In the Handexemplar 

the marginal annotation has been 

crossed through in pencil. It remains 

unclear whether Brahms intended 

the change to be a definitive revision 

of the text or whether he later 

rejected it. In the old Brahms Gesamtausgabe 

in 1926 Hans Gál included 

the revision in his main text, 

but made no mention of the pencil 

deletion in Brahms’s Handexemplar 

in his commentary. Robert Pascall 

(see Sources) argues persuasively that 

the pencil deletion indicates Brahms’s 

decision to revert to the original text, 

and this view has also been adopted 

by the NBA. 

337n.1 Solo V: Ds, Dp >; the > was erroneously 

inserted into Ap by Keller 

because of a misleadingly written 

accent in Ks, which actually applied 

to 332n.1 (on the stave immediately 

above); Ks, Ak, Dp, Dk separate tr 

sign; Ds extension of wavy line from 

previous bar (perhaps changed in 

proofs). 

340n.1 V1: Dp no ♮ before c 3 (pres ent in Ap). 

345n.1 Cl1,2: Unnecessary cautionary ♮ in 

Dp (not in Ap or Dst) probably added 

by the engraver by analogy with 

other woodwind. 

348 Vc: Dp no div. (Ap à 2, Dst div.). 

359n.1–3 V2: Dst staccato; Ap, Dp no staccato. 

365n.1 Solo V: As, Ap double stop b 3 /b 2 ; 

Ks, Ak b 2 deleted and 0 (harmonic) 

added below the note where it could 

easily have been overlooked by the 

engraver; Ds, Dk, Dp b 3 but no 0, 

which was almost certainly omitted 

in error (it is virtually inconceivable 

that Joachim or any other violinist 

of that period would not have used 

a harmonic here); Ak, Dk no staccato. 

367n.1 Timp: Dp no staccato (present in Ap, 

Dst). 

Cl1: Dst f [sic!]. 

369n.1 Solo V: Ap, Ks, Ak, Ks, Dk, Dp no 

staccato; Ds staccato (presumably 

added in proofs). 

377 Solo V: Ap, Dp slur from n.1; Ak, Ks, 

slur beginning changed from n.1 to 

n.2; Ds slur from n.2; Dk slur beginning 

between n.1 and n.2. 

377n.1 Fg1,2: Dst sf; Ap no dynamic (Fg1,2 

originally had notes sustained 

through to 379 with the dynamic fp 

at 377n.1, but when Brahms altered 

the notes to the present version he 

deleted the dynamic and omitted to 

add a new one); Dp f. 

Timp: Dp no staccato (present in Ap, 

Dst). 

379n.4 Fl1,2: Dp cresc.; Ap cresc. above Fl 

stave on n.1; Dst cresc. immediately 

after p on n.1; the position of cresc. 

11

in Dp appears to be a misreading of 

the cresc. for Ob in Ap, which is written 

above the Ob stave. 

380n.1–6 Fl1,2, Ob1, Cor1,2: Ap (Fl and Cor 

only), Dst < (as well as cresc. in 

379); Dp no < (presumably omitted 

from Dp as redundant). 

380n.1–3 Fg1: Ap, Dp no begins on n.2; Dp 

on n.1. 

441 V1: Dst dolce espress.; Ap, Dp dol. 

447 Va: Dp ‰ instead of Œ rest on 1 st beat. 

456–8 Cor1: Dp slur from 256–257n.1 and 

257n.1–258n.1 evidently an imperfect 

correction of the slurring in the 

proofs of Dp (perhaps because of 

the page break between 456 and 457), 

where the similar slurring pattern in 

Ap was corrected to the present version. 

461, 463 Fg, Cb: length of > in sources very 

variable; in Ap Cb in 463 and in Dp 

Vc in 461 and Fg2 in 463 extend to 

n.1 of following bar; others are within 

a single bar. 

464 Ob1: Dp no p (present in Ap [added 

in grey pencil], Dst). 

467n.1 Solo V: Ds p lusingando (previous 

> ends on 466n.4); in Ks > 

ends on 467n.1 and p lusingando begins 

between n.1–2; Ap, Dp as here. 

473 Solo V: Although all MS and printed 

sources have the < in 473 and the 

> in 474, there are several discrepancies; 

in As < begins on 473n.1, 

whereas in Ap it begins between n.3 

and n.4; the revised position in Js 

seems musically more plausible and 

accords with the parallel passage at 

230. 

474–5 Solo V: The < in 474 and the > 

in 475 appear only, as a correction in 

Js. 

480–3 Solo V: The positions of were probably 

meant to match the parallel passage 

at 237–40, as they do in Dp 

where it seems likely that Brahms 

adjusted them in the proofs; in 481–2 

Ap, Ak, Ks, Dk, Ds centred on the 

barline between the two bars; in 483 

Ap, Ks, Ds centred on n.3, Ak, 

Dk between n.2 and n.3. 

481–2 Solo V: Ds has a slur in both voices. 

483 Solo V: Ap slur apparently leads to 

484 (as in As), but there is no continuation 

in 484 (which begins a new 

page); at the parallel passage (240–41) 

the slur crosses the barline in As and 

Ap; in Ks, however, the slur is clearly 

to 240/483n.3, presumably reflecting 

a change in Ks 0 ; a slur across the 

barline in 483–4 would seem unlikely 

to have been intended, since it would 

end the phrase on a long up-bow. 

484–5 Va2: Ap, Dst slur; Dp no slur. 

490n.5 V2: Ap g 1 ; Dp, Dst a 1 ; presumably 

altered in proofs. 

501 Cor1,2: Ap f (probably altered to ff in 

proofs of Dp, Dst). 

12

503n.1 Solo V: As, Ks, Ak, Ds, Dk no staccato; 

Ap, Dp staccato; f in As only. 

505–506 V1,2: Dst cresc. on 505n.9; Ap, Dp 

< from 505n.9–506n.12. 

509n.2–510n.5, 510n.6–10 Solo V: Ap, Dp slurs, 

probably arising from Keller’s misreading 

of Ks when entering a revision 

of the notes during preparation 

of Ap for engraving; an up-bow 

on 512n.1 was certainly envisaged 

by Jo achim. 

514n.2–515n.1 Fl1, Cl1: Fl1 no slur in any 

source; Cl1 slur in Ap, but not Dp; 

slur in Ob2 present in Ap, Dst, Dp. 

514n.2–515n.1 Fl2: Ap no tie (Brahms changed 

from 8va to loco at the barline); Dst 

and Dp tie. 

523n.2 Fl1: Dp upper stem missing. 

527 Solo V: In Js Joachim changed the instructions 

in Ds (tranquillo above the 

stave, and p dolce below the stave) to 

the composite direction p dolce e tranquillo 

below the stave, with in tempo 

above the stave. 

539 Cl1: Dp no p (present in Ap, Dst). 

549, 550, 556 Solo V: In Ap Brahms notated 

each of these bars with a single beam 

for all nine notes, but he later drew 

small pencil lines through the beams, 

dividing the notes into groups of 

three; in Ks, Ak, Dk, Ds the original 

notation was retained, but the revised 

notation appears in Dp. 

551 Cb: Dp no poco a poco cresc. (present 

in Ap, Dst). 

554 Solo V: Ds cresc. on n.7 although it 

occurs on 555n.1 in Ap, Ks, Dp (see 

following note). 

555 Tutti: Ap no stringendo; it is evident 

that there were adjustments here to 

incorporate the addition of stringendo, 

which does not appear in any of the 

MS sources (its addition was discussed 

in Brahms’s correspondence 

with Keller (Brahms – Keller, 28/32); 

in Dst and Dp it has been variously 

added: Dst is inconsistent, with cresc. 

e string. marked in some instruments 

and stringendo poco a poco in others, 

while Vc/Cb has string. in 556 as the 

final part of the instruction poco a 

poco cresc. e string. beginning at 551; 

in Dp the instruction is more consistently 

marked, string. occurring in 

all orchestral parts approx imately 

on beat 2, though it occurs on beat 3 

in the solo violin; in Ds it is placed 

under the second e of the bar. 

563–5 Solo V: Ap retains an earlier version 

of notes 1–2 in these bars (the lower 

note is d 1 instead of f♯ 2 ), although the 

final version, entered into Ks and 

Ak, is present in all printed sources. 

565 Cor1,2, Tr1,2, Timp: Dp, Dst (Cor2) 

mf on n.1.; Ap, Dst (Cor1 [ambiguous], 

Tr1,2, Timp) mf placed between 

n.1 and n.2. 

568–70 Fg1,2: Dp no à 2 or double stem (double 

stem in Ap). 

Adagio 

3 Ob1: Dst, Ks (cue) added by Brahms, 

Ds (cue), Ak, Dk p; but there was a 

well established tradition that dolce 

equated to a soft dynamic and 

Brahms, who was notably conservative 

in such matters, may well have 

considered dolce alone sufficient in 

the score, especially since the solo 

oboe would have been expected to 

accommodate its dynamic to the level 

of the accompaniment; the probability 

that the omission of a dynamic 

in the score was not merely the result 

of oversight is strengthened by 

the absence of a dynamic at b. 78 in 

Ap. 

4, 6, 10, 12, 16–18 Ob1: Brahms provided different 

articulation for the solo oboe 

part in Ap/Dp and Ak/Dk/Ds (see 

piano score for alternative version); 

Ks agrees with Ap/Dp except in b. 6, 

where it corresponds with Ak/Dk/ 

Ds. 

7, 8 Fl1,2, Ob1, Cl1, Fg2: The intended 

placement of is unclear; in Ap it 

appears to apply to Fl1 and to be 

centred on the c 2 (there is no separate 

for Fl2), whereas in Cl1 

is apparently centred both times on 

n.3 and in Fg2 on n.2, while in Ob1 

13

the position of the sign is different 

in each bar, centring on n.2 in b. 7 

and between the n.4 and n.5 in b. 8; 

Dst is equally ambiguous, with 

centring after n.2 in Fl1 and before 

n.3 in Fl2, in Ob1 just before the final 

note, in Cl1 on n.3 and in Fg2 

between the n.2 and n.3; Dp places 

the sign under Fl2, apparently leaving 

Fl1 without a dynamic nuance; 

in Fl2, Ob1, Cl1, the centre of occurs 

on the second q beat of the bar, 

but in Fg2 between the second and 

third e s. 

10n.2–4, 11n.1–5 Cl2: Ap, Dp no slurs; Dst 

slurs. 

11 Fl1,2, Ob1, Cl1,2, Fg1,2: The in tended 

placement of is unclear; in Ap 

there is a single marking for each 

pair of instruments, the majority centring 

between the second and third 

e s, but in Cl1,2 the centre occurs with 

Cl1n.2 and between Cl2n.3 and n.4; 

in Dst Ob1, Cl2 the centre is clearly 

on n.3, while for Fl1, Fg1,2 it is between 

n.2 and n.3, Fl2, Cl2 between 

n.1 and n.2; Dp Fl1, Ob1, Fg1,2 centre 

between n.2 and n.3, Fl2 between n.1 

and n.2, Cl1 no , Cl2 centred on 

n.3. 

Ob1: Dp no dol. presumably engravers 

oversight (present in Ap, Ak, Ks 

(added by Brahms), Dst, Dk, Ds). 

17–18 Wind: Ap and Dp are broadly in 

agreement about the placing of < 

and > (only Fl1 differs, with > 

starting at the beginning of the note 

in 18 in Ap, although < crosses 

the barline between 17 and 18); in 

Dst < stops short of the barline 

in Fl, Cl2. 

22 Fg2: Dst no p. 

24 Fg2: Dst p. 

27n.1–4 Cl1: Dp, Dst no slur (present in Ap, 

Ak, Dk). 

29n.1–2 Cl2: Dp no slur (present in Ap, Dst). 

32 Cb: Dp, Dst no p (present in Ap). 

33n.2, n.5 Solo V: Fingering in Js, also in Ds at 

the parallel passage (81). 

35n.1–2 Solo V: Ap, Ak, Ks, Dp, Dk no slur 

(presumably added in proofs of Ds). 

35 Cor1: Dst espress. (presumably added 

in Kst). 

42 Cor1: Dp no ≈ before n.1 (pres ent in 

Ap). 

43 Fl1,2: Dst p< on n.1 in Fl2; Dp, 

Ap no dynamic; in Ap this passage 

is much altered, the last phase of 

corrections being in grey pencil; a 

< under the Fl2 entry and a > 

after the barline in 44 were added 

in grey pencil, but < was then 

deleted in the same pencil; above 

the stave, where Fl2 enters, Brahms 

wrote rf before the barline and > 

after it in grey pencil; these entries 

in grey pencil were clearly made 

before Brahms deleted the notes at 

the beginning of 44 in red ink and 

rewrote them immediately afterwards 

in the same ink together with 

a new > under the rewritten 

notes; Brahms seems to have been 

wrestling with the problem of satisfactorily 

indi cating the dynamics 

for both instruments; he possibly 

used rf in the old fashioned sense of 

a swelling accent (instead of to n.6; Ap, Ak, 

Dp, Dk to n.8. 

45 Solo V: Dp, Dk > from n.2; Ds 

from n.3 (in Ap the sign begins ambiguously 

between n.2 and 3) 

45n.4–5 Solo V: Brahms seems to have been 

uncertain how the grace notes should 

be played; in Ap they had both dots 

and a slur (portato?) but these were 

later deleted; in Ak they were (and 

remained) slurred; in Ks they had a 

slur which was deleted; the removal 

of the slur (and the original portato 

notation in Ap) may suggest that con- 

14

trary to normal practice they were 

envisaged to be played with separate 

bows, though it is also possible 

that they were intended, according 

to convention, to be slurred in with 

the preceding note. 

49n.6–7 Solo V: Dp no slur (obviously engraving 

error). 

53n.9–14 Solo V: Ds > deriving from carelessly 

added > in Ks, where it 

extends from n.9–16; the positioning 

of Brahms’s added > in Ap (from 

n.11–17) is clear; Dp n.10–17. 

54 Ob1,2: Ap mf cresc. written above Fl 

stave, but evidently intended to apply 

also to Ob; Dst mf cresc.; Dp cresc. 

54n.1 Va: Dp no p (present in Ap). 

54–5 Ds has ritard. instead of poco a poco 

for the orchestral cue just before the 

largamente in 56; the change was evidently 

made in the proofs. This indicates 

clearly that Brahms envisaged 

a broadening of the tempo here, not 

merely a change of mood (in Ks he 

had added then deleted più sostenuto 

at 56). 

60 Solo V: Ks, Ak, Ds, Dk, Dp from 

n.5–7; Ap < from n.4–7. 

61 Solo V: Ds < from n.2–6; Ks, Ak 

from n.3–6; Dp from n.5–7; Ap from 

between n.3 and 4–n.7. 

64n.1 Vc: Dp no p (present in Ap). 

66n.1–3 Solo V: Ds slur from n.2–3; Ap, Ak, 

Ks, Dp, Dk from n.1–3; the slurring 

in Ds is possibly an engraver’s error 

overlooked during proof reading 

rather than a deliberate change in 

the proofs, since, assuming the downbow 

start after the fermata in 63, 

which Joachim marked in Js, this 

pattern of slurring would lead to an 

improbably sequence of bowstrokes 

in the following bars; in Js, rather 

than restoring the phrasing in Dp, 

Joachim added a slur over 66n.7–9 

with a dot on n.9 (i. e. to make the 

beginning of 67 a down bow, which 

it would have been if n.1–3 had been 

slurred). 

67n.4–10, 68n.4–10 Solo V: Dk, Dp slur; Ak, 

from between n.4 and n.5 in 67, but 

clearly from n.5 in 68; Ap, Ks, Ds, 

from n.5–10 in both bars. 

69n.7–12 Solo V: Ks, Ds, Ak, Dk beamed as 

two triplets; changed by Brahms to a 

sextuplet in Ap. 

71 Solo V: Ks cresc., squeezed in under 

slur, begins on n.4; Ak no cresc.; Dk, 

Ds cresc. on n.6; Dp cresc. on n.2; Ap 

cresc. on n. 3. 

72n.5–6 Cb: Dp slur; Ap, Dst no slur; the absence 

of slurs in any source in the 

equivalent figure in 71, together with 

the fact that without slurs Cb corresponds 

more closely with Vc, suggests 

that the inclusion of a slur in 

Dp was an engraver’s error rather 

than a deliberate revision by Brahms. 

73 Solo V: In Js Joachim replaced the 

slur from n.4–9 with a slur from 

n.2–9 and added a down bow sign 

on n.2. 

74n.1–2 Fg2: Dst no slur (present in Ap, Dp). 

74n.1 Cor1,2: Ap >, Dst (Cor1) dim calando 

above note and > below; 

Dst Cor2 > only; Dp dim. only. 

76 Solo V: Ap dolce directly after and 

still under n.1; Dp under n.2; Ks, Ds 

dolce under n.1, directly below . 

76n.2–3 Solo V: Dp no slur; Ap, Ak, Ks, slur 

added; Dk, Ds slur. 

77n.1 Solo V: In Js Joachim removed the 1 

although it is clearly still intended to 

be played with a first finger. 

79n.11–12 In Js Joachim added the slur, which 

he enclosed in brackets, presumably 

as an alternative, without altering 

the original slurring. 

82n.1–2 Solo V: Joachim removed the original 

4 4 fingering, replacing it with 

3 3. 

83n.1 Solo V: Ap, Dp no dol.; present in Ks, 

Ds, Dk (where presumably added in 

proofs). 

85 Solo V: Ak, Ks, Dk, Ds < from 

n.7–12; Ap, Dp from n.1–12. 

86 Solo V: Ak, Ks, Dk, Ds > from 

n.1–6; Ap, Dp from n.1–12. 

89–90 Cor1,2: Brahms’s intentions for dynamics 

in these bars are obscured by 

discrepancies between the sources; 

Dp no < in 89, no in 90; Dst 

15

in 89 and > in 90 in both parts 

(despite the shortness of the note for 

Cor2 in 90); Ap originally had < 

throughout 89 and > throughout 

90, but Brahms later deleted > in 90 

and replaced it with , crushed into 

the available space after the sec - 

ond Cor2 rest and centring on n.4 

(this change was evidently made after 

Kst had been copied); it is probable 

that the omission in Dp of any 

dynamic signs for Cor in these bars 

was an oversight, although it is conceivable 

that they were removed in 

the proofs; Brahms’s placement of 

crescendo and decrescendo signs is 

often somewhat haphazard, and it 

seems probable from the context that 

the in Ap was meant to centre on 

n.3 rather than n.4. 

95 Fl2: Dst (Fl2) cresc.; Ap has cresc. 

above the Ob1 entry (it appears in 

the same position in Dp), which may 

have been taken by the copyist of 

the parts as an instruction for Fl2; 

the instruction is, however, clearly 

necessary for the individual player. 

96 Solo V: Ds slur from n.1 ends ambiguously 

between n.5 and 6; Ks, Ak, 

Ap, Dp, Dk clearly to n.6. 

97n.4 Cor1: Dst p (probably a player’s marking 

in Kst). 

97–9 Solo V: From 95–9 Joachim added 

slurs in Ks, which were later copied 

into Ap by Keller; in the proofs of 

Ds (corrections to the plates are apparent), 

Dk and Dp some of these 

were removed, probably to aid the 

crescendo; in Js Joachim reinstated 

slurs on 97n.8–9 and 99n.1–2. 

98n.1 Solo V: All sources except Ap no 

dim.; probably copyist’s and engraver’s 

oversight (the dim is written 

above the part with espress. dolce 

added below by Keller). 

114 Cl1: Dp no pp (although pp for Fl1 

present); Ap, Dst pp. 

Allegro giocoso, ma non troppo vivace 

1 V2, Va: Ap, Dp poco forte abbrevi ated 

as pf (although written out in full in 

V1, Vc, Cb); Dst poco forte. 

9, 10, 12–14 Fl2: Dst staccato dot on n.2 (perhaps 

a player’s marking in Kst). 

25n.5, 26n.1, n.5 Solo V: In the final version 

of this passage, written by Brahms 

on the cover of Ak (see letter to Keller 

of August 1879), he wrote sf on 

25n.5 then deleted it, and omitted sf 

on 26n.1 and n.5; Dp, Dk, Ks sf ; Ds 

no sf; in Ap sfs were written in connection 

with the ossia version, but 

never applied to the original version 

that was later reinstated. 

25–6 Solo V, Fl1,2, Cl1, Fg1,2, Strings: Dst, 

Ds reflect Ap, Ak, Ks in including 

< after cresc., or, in the case of 

V1,2, having < instead of cresc.; 

as in several similar occurrences the 

signs have been omitted in Dp. 

27n.1 Fl1, Ob1, Cl2, Fg1: Dp ♮ before tr; Ap 

(where Ob marked col Flauti) after 

tr. 

Va : Ap à 2, Dp a 2; Dst div. 

27n.2 Fg1, Cl1, 28n.2 Cl1: Dst staccato dot, 

perhaps reflecting a performance instruction 

added in Kst 0 . 

27–34 Va: Ap, Dp common stems; Dst Va1 

and 2 on separate staves. 

49n.1 Solo V: Dp staccato, probably added 

by Keller or engraver by analogy 

with strings, almost certainly without 

Brahms’s authorisation; although 

its addition by Brahms in the proof 

cannot be excluded. 

Cb: Dst, Dp staccato, presumably by 

analogy with upper strings, but unlikely 

to have been intended in pizzicato. 

49–51 Solo V: Ap positioning of inconsistent; 

Dp from 49n.2–50n.5 

and 50n.7–51n.6; Ks, Ak, Ds, Dk as 

here. 

51–2 Solo V: Ap, Ks, Ak < and cres at 51n.7; 

Ds, Dk < in 51, cresc. at 52n.4 (but 

surely intended for 52n.5); Dp cresc. 

alone at 51n.7; the version in Ds, Dk 

was clearly amended in the proofs, 

as was the version in Dp, but incon- 

16

sistently; probably > was inadvertently 

omitted in Ds, Dk at 52 

n.1–3. 

57 Solo V: Ds, Dp energicament, evidently 

added in proofs; not in Ap, 

Ks, Ak, Dk. 

57–60 Solo V: Ap 57n.2–3, 58n.1–4 staccato 

dots changed to strokes, although 

on 59n.1–2, 60n.2–3 Brahms wrote 

staccato strokes from the first; Ks, 

Ak 57n.2–3, 58n.1–4, 59n.1–2, 60n.2–3 

staccato dots changed to strokes (in 

Ks slurs above the articulation on 57 

n.1–2, 58n.1–4, 60n.2–3 were de leted, 

apparently at the same time the dots 

were changed to strokes; this presumably 

occurred after Brahms’s 

correspondence with Jo achim about 

this passage in May 1879); Ds slurs 

above the strokes in 57, 58, 60 (as 

bowing indications) were evidently 

replaced in the proofs. 

59–60 Fg1,2: Ap, Dst, Dp staccato dots on 

all notes, but the unison passage 

in Vc has staccato strokes on these 

notes in all sources; in Ak Brahms 

wrote dots in the piano left hand, 

but added the instruction marcato 

(which was printed in Dk); clearly 

Fg1,2 were not expected to articulate 

differently from Vc, Cb. 

61n.1 Cb: Dst, Dp no staccato, presumably 

copyist’s/engraver’s oversight (present 

in Ap). 

61–4 Fg2: Staccato marks and accents absent 

from Dp, but present in Dst; in 

Ap Brahms altered the original Fg2 

part, which was in octaves with Fg1 

and shared the same stems; in the 

revised version, using grey pencil, 

Brahms added a e stem to n.1 and 

n.3 in each bar and over-wrote the 

original n.2 and n.4 with ‰ s. Comparison 

with the equivalent passage 

at 154–7, where the passage is written 

without alterations, indicates that 

Brahms envisaged staccato, but not 

accent in Fg2. 

64n.3, 65n.1 Solo V: Staccato dots in all sources, 

but at the equivalent passage (157–8) 

the dots were changed to strokes in 

Ap, Ak, Ks and they appear there as 

strokes in all printed sources; the 

amendment was presumably omitted 

at 64–5 through oversight. 

73–6 Fg1,2, V1,2, Va, Vc: Although all 

sources have staccato dots in these 

bars it seems likely that Brahms envisaged 

the same style of performance 

as at 57–60; Ak, Dk have the 

instruction ben marcato in the piano 

part at 73. 

79, 81, 172, 174 Va, Vc: There is irreconcilable 

confusion in the sources about the 

dynamics here; in Ap p was added 

in dark pencil (except Va in 79 and 

Vc in 174) and in 172, 174 the original 

h notation of the Va part was changed 

to qq with f on the first and p on the 

second (presumably by Keller); Dst, 

Dp f in Va on 172 i, but no p in these 

instruments in any of these bars; in 

Ak Brahms ex tensively rewrote the 

piano part in these bars at both 

places (indicating that he went back 

and altered them after both had 

been written), in cluding > on the q . 

b 1 /a 1 with a general p at the half bar; 

it is conceivable that in the proofs of 

Dp Brahms removed the dynamic 

markings that had been added in 

Ap, thus leaving the Va/Vc notes ff/f, 

but if so he failed to ra tionalise the 

tied q s in Va in 172, 174 that had 

been introduced in Ap in connec - 

tion with the amended dynamics; 

the version proposed in the present 

edition corresponds with Brahms’s 

piano reduction and with the practical 

performance implications of the 

passage. 

85 Cor3,4: Ap, Dst no f (present in Dp). 

89 Vc/Cb: Ap f ; Dst, Dp no dynamic. 

93n.4 Vc: Ap, Dp mf; Dst mf on n.2, which 

was surely Brahms’s intention. 

99 Cb: Ap, Dst, Dp q s, but in Ak Brahms 

notated the passage with staccato e s 

as at b. 7 and it was printed thus in 

Dk; an exact repetition of the earlier 

passage in Cb was surely Brahms’s 

intention, the discrepancy arising in 

Ap from the fact that he notated 

17

only the Cb line and solo violin in 

96–8, indicating the other parts with 

numbers referring back to 6–8; Dst 

no staccato (present in Ap and Dp). 

110–13, 115 V2: Dst staccato on n.2. 

117 Solo V: In Js Joachim added the 1 on 

n.2 and n.5 in brackets as an alternative 

fingering. 

119n.1–4 Solo V: Dp x s, presumably an unnoticed 

engraving error, since all other 

sources have three triplet x s followed 

by a e. 

122–3 Solo V: Ap (added by Keller), Ks 

on 122n.4, n.12 only; Dk, Ds, Dp 

also added on 122n.8, 123n.4. 

125n.6 Solo V: Dp b 2 (or c♯ 3 with missing 

leger line). 

132n.3–4 Solo V: Js Joachim removed the fingerings 

4 3, replacing them with 3 2. 

132–3 Solo V: Ap, Ak, Ks, Dk, Ds on 

132n.4 and 133n.4 only; Dp also 

added on 132n.8, 133n.8, presumably 

intended also on 132n.12. 

136n.1 Solo V: Dp espress.; in all other 

sources on 135n.12 (presumably displaced 

in Dp because 135 comes at 

the end of a page). 

Vc: Dp no p (present in Ap, Dst). 

138n.1–2 Vc, Cb: Dp slur but no portato dots 

(presumably an error overlooked in 

proof reading); Ap, Dst portato. 

141–2 Fl1,2, Fg1,2: Ap f on 141n.1; the sf s on 

n.1, 3, 6 were added later by Brahms 

in pencil; Dp, Dst no f on 141n.1.; 

since it is consistently absent from 

both these printed sources, the f was 

probably removed in proofs as unnecessary. 

143n.1 Strings: Ap no staccato; Dst all staccato 

except V1; Dp staccato on all. 

145 Solo V: Ks, Dk cresc. on n.10; Ds on 

n.11 (Ap, Dp as here). 

148n.1 Fg1,2: Dp no staccato; Ap, Dst staccato; 

the chord is marked staccato in 

Ak, Dk. 

150–53 Solo V: Ap 150n.2–3, 151n.1–4, 153n.2–3 

staccato dots changed to strokes, although 

on 152n.1–2 Brahms wrote 

staccato strokes from the first; Ks, 

Ak 150n.2–3, 151n.1–4, 152n.1–2, 153 

n.2–3 staccato dots changed to strokes 

(in Ks slurs above the articulation 

on 150n.1–2, 151n.1–4, 153n.2–3 were 

deleted as in 57–60, apparently at 

the same time the dots were changed 

to strokes; this presumably occurred 

after Brahms’s correspondence with 

Joachim about this passage in May 

1879); Ds slurs above the strokes 

in 150, 151, 153 (as bowing indications) 

were evidently replaced in the 

proofs. 

152–3 Fg1,2, Vc, Cb: Staccato dots in all 

sources, but perhaps intended as staccato 

strokes; the piano part is marcato 

in Ak, Dk (see note to 59–60). 

154n.2–158n.1 Cb: Dp staccato marks in all 

bars except 157 where n.1 has > and 

n.2 no marking; Ap, Dst no staccato; 

the markings in Dp are surely an error 

by the engraver: the > on 157n.1 

clearly derives from a misreading of 

Ap where, for this note only, Brahms 

wrote the Vc accent between the Vc 

and Cb staves, while the staccato 

marks were probably added by analogy 

with Fg2 (Brahms would not 

normally have added staccato marks 

in pizzicato). 

163 V2, Va : Dp redundant 6 (sextuplet 

indication). 

166–9 Cl1,2, V1,2, Va, Vc: See note to 73–6 

(the piano part is ben marcato at 166 

in Ak, Dk). 

172,4 Va, Vc: See note to 79, 81. 

175n.1 V2: Dp no > (present in Ap, Dst). 

179 Cor3,4: Dp no slur (present in Ap, 

Dst). 

190 Fl1, Ob1: Dp slur but no staccato; in 

Ap (where Fl is in 8) the slur and 

stac cato were added in grey pencil. 

192, 194 V1,2: Dp accidentals before tr. 

195n.2–3 Solo V: Js Joachim removed and replaced 

the original fingering. 

197–200 Solo V: Ap, Ks, Ak, Dp > on n.1 

in each bar; Ds, Dk no >, indicating 

that Brahms removed the accents 

in the proofs; presumably he overlooked 

the discrepancy when checking 

Dp. 

199 Solo V: Ap, Ks, Ak, Dp no cresc.; cresc. 

in Ds (at n.4), Dk (at n.3, in align- 

18

ment with cresc. in the piano part) 

evidently added in proofs, presumably 

intended to be in alignment with 

the orchestral crescendo. 

207 Fg1,2, Cor3,4: Dp no staccato; present 

in Ap, Dst (Fg1, Cor4). 

211 Fg1,2: Dp no à 2 or double stems; à 2 

in Ap. 

Vc, Cb: Dp no staccato (present in 

Ap, Dst). 

214n.1 Solo V: Dp staccato, not in other 

sources or in the parallel figure at 

216, and presumably erroneous. 

222n.3 Solo V: Dp staccato, not in other 

sources and presumably erroneous 

(in the context it would, in any case, 

be superfluous, especially if Joachim’s 

bowing in Js, with three successive 

down bows in 222–3, were 

adopted). 

223n.4–224n.1 Solo V: Dp no slur, evidently 

omitted in error (present in all other 

sources). 

228n.1–6 Solo V: Ks, Ak, Ds, Dk < ; from 

227 half bar in Ap, Dp, probably 

shortened in Ks because of a line 

change between 227 and 228. 

233 Cb: Dst, Dp staccato, but probably 

added erroneously by analogy with 

the other strings; Ap no staccato. 

225n.4–226n.2 Solo V: Slur added in Js somewhat 

ambiguously, without dele - 

tion of original slurs, presumably 

to indicate an optional bow change 

on e 2 . 

237n.1–2 Solo V: Dp no tie, evidently omitted 

in error (in all other sources). 

237n.2 Solo V: Ks, Ds ♮ after tr. 

243n.1 Solo V: Ak, Dp < begins here; Ap 

from second half of 242; Ks, Ds from 

beginning 242; the present edition 

follows Ap. 

245 Solo V: Dp separate tr (after page 

turn). 

Strings: Ap no dynamic (the dynamics 

in Fl, Cl, Cor were added in grey 

pencil and it seems likely that 

Brahms overlooked the need to add 

them in the string parts); Dst, Dp p 

in V1. 

246 Solo V: Dp wavy line after trill probably 

engravers error (not in Ap); Ak, 

Ks, Ds centred on n.1; Dp centred 

on n.2; in Ap the intended placement 

is ambiguous, the being centred 

between n.1 and n.2, but it was probably 

intended to match in Fl, Cl, 

as it does in Dp. 

247n.1 Solo V: Ds no staccato, probably an 

engraver’s error (present in Ap, Ks, 

Ak, Dp). 

248 Solo V: Ks, Ds < only to n.4 (probably 

because of lack of space, caused 

by the following low note). 

260, 262 Solo V: Js Joachim added 3 on n.4 

and removed 1 on n.5 in both bars, 

thus bringing forward the position 

change by one note. 

262 Cor1,2, Timp: Dp redundant cresc., 

stemming from Brahms’s abbreviated 

notation in Ap, indicating the 

repetition of 259–60 at 261–2. 

264 Solo V: Dp ‰ after n.1 (engraver’s error). 

264n.2–7(8) Solo V: Ks contains alternative 

versions by Joachim, one with six qj r s 

ending in f♮, the other, written below 

on a separate stave with the superscript 

oder (or), with seven, ending 

in g♯; the version with seven 

notes was copied into Ap and Ak by 

Keller and appears in Dk, Dp; the 

version with six was printed in Ds 

and is also retained in Js, presumably 

indicating that this was the version 

Joachim played; neither version 

appears anywhere in the sources in 

Brahms’s hand. If Brahms preferred 

the seven-note version he presumably 

did not notice that the solo violin 

part, which he and Joachim proofread 

together in early August 1879, 

contained the six note version. 

271 Solo V: Ks, Ak, Ds, Dk ben marcato; 

the ma was an addition in Ap and 

was included in Dp. 

Fl1: Ap, Dst p, but apparently arising 

from the fact that in Ap Brahms originally 

intended the flute part in 269– 

70 to be given to Fl2, with Fl1 taking 

over in 271; Dp no p. 

272 V1: Dp cresc., as well as in 273, evi- 

19

dently an engraver’s error; Ap, Dst 

cresc. only in 273. 

273 Fl1, Ob1, Fg1: Dp p cresc.; Ap Fl1 part 

indicated by in 8 (i. e. an octave higher 

than Ob1), Ob1 p cresc. (where p 

added in grey pencil), Fg1 cresc., Dst, 

Fl1, Fg1 cresc. Ob1 p cresc.; the addition 

of the unnecessary p in Dp Fl1, 

Fg1 was presumably the engraver’s 

initiative. 

273n.1–3 Solo V: Ak, Ds, Dk, Dp no staccato; 

Ap, Ks staccato; presumably omitted 

erroneously from the copied solo 

part in Ak and from the printed material. 

273 Solo V: Ks, Ds no cresc., evidently 

copyist’s oversight (present in Ak, 

where the violin part was copied 

from Ks 0 , but later deleted, on the 

basis of Ks by Keller, then reinstated 

in Dk, but not in Ds. 

275 Vc, Cb: Dp no 3 (triplet indication); 

present in Ap, Dst. 

278 Cl1,2: Dp no < ; present in Ap, 

Dst. 

279 Fl1: Dp no pp; Ap Fl not written out 

(in 8); Dst pp. 

279n.2 Vc: Dp legg.; follows pp immediately 

in Ap and Dst. 

279–80 Timp: Dp no staccato; present in Ap 

(n.1–4), Dst (n.1–3 only) 

279–283, 284 Cor1,2, Vc: Dp, Dst no staccato 

on n.1–3 in 279–83 or 284n.2–4 (present 

in Ap). 

281n.4–6 Solo V: Ap, Ks, Ak, Ds no staccato 

(present in Dk (also on 282n.1–3), 

Dp). 

281n.1, n.2 Va: Dp erroneous e flags (the single 

‰ s are correctly positioned under 

the e s in V2); Ap has q s followed by 

a ‰ . 

284n.1 Vc: Dp, Dst no staccato (present in 

Ap). 

285n.2 Cb: Dp given erroneously as three 

triplet e s; q in Ap, Dst. 

284–7 Cor1,2: Ap no staccato on n.1 (present 

in Dst, Dp). 

295n.2 Ob1: Dp no staccato (present in Ap, 

Dst). 

297n.2 Ob1: Dp no staccato (present in Ap, 

Dst). 

298–99 Solo V: Ap > begins from n.3; Ks, 

Ds, Dk from n.1; Ak from n.2; Dp 

from n.5. 

302–3 Solo V: Ks, Ak, Ds, Dk no staccato 

(present in Ap, Dp). 

304n.1–3 Solo V: Ks, Ak, Ds, Dk no staccato 

(present in Ap, Dp). 

304 V2: Dp no pp (present in Ap, Dst). 

304–6 Cor1,2: Dp, Dst no staccato on n.1–3 

(present in Ap). 

304–8 Vc: Dp no staccato on n.2–4; Ap staccato 

on n.2–4; Dst staccato in 304, no 

staccato on n.2–4 in 305–8. 

307–8 Cor1,2: Dp, Dst no staccato on n.2–4 


309n.1 Timp: Dp no staccato; present in Ap, 

Dst. 

310 Cor1,2: Dp no staccato; Ap, Dst (Cor1) 

staccato. 

324n.2 Solo V: Js no 2 (made redundant by 

added 2 on 323n.8). 

327, 328 Cor1,2: Dp, Dst no staccato on n.1–3 


Tr1,2, Timp: Dp no staccato n.1–3 

(pres ent in Ap, Dst). 

327n.1 Solo V: Dk, Ds staccato; Ap, Ak, Ks 

staccato, but also with a slur from 

325, in connection with a version 

of 324–5 that was probably altered 

dur ing Brahms’s and Joachim’s proof 

reading of Ds in August 1879; Dp no 

staccato; bars 324–5 were evi dently 

re-engraved in Ds, yet appear to 

have been engraved in their revised 

form from the start in Dk and Dp; it 

is possible that Brahms removed the 

stac cato mark in the proofs of Dp, 

since the new version seems less 

likely to have been en visaged with a 

staccato final note (this is sug gested 

in particular by the absence of staccato 

on the fi nal note of the deleted 

antepenultimate version of bars 325– 

7 in Ap and Ks). 

328n.1 Cl2: Dst no >. 

329 Solo V: Ap, Ak, Ks, Dk, Ds f; Dp ff 

evidently changed in proofs to match 

preceding orchestral ff. 

331, 332 Tr1,2, Timp: Dp no staccato on n.1–3; 

Ap staccato in Timp only; Dst staccato 

in Tr and Timp. 

20

333 Solo V: Ak, Ks, Dk, Ds no f (present 

in Ap, Dp). 

Tr1,2, Timp: Rest in all sources, but 

in Ap Brahms indicated b. 332 with 

repetition signs and left bb. 333–4 

blank (without any indication of 

rests); it seems highly likely that he 

simply forgot to write the first notes 

in b. 333 and that the omission remained 

unnoticed at later stages. 

335–6 Cor1–4, V1,2: Ap < variously from 

n.1 or n.2; Dst from n.1 (Cor3,4n.2); 

Dp from n.2 (Cor1,2, V1,2) and n.3 

(Cor3,4). 

Tr1,2: Dp no < ; present in Ap, 

Dst. 

337 Fl1,2: Ap indicated with the abbreviation 

8 (i. e. an octave above 

Ob1,2 which were originally in unison 

on a 2 ), but Brahms subsequently 

changed Ob2 from a 2 to a 1 and a 

question mark in grey pencil above 

the 8 indicates uncertainty here; Dst, 

Dp Fl1,2 on a 2 suggests Brahms’s 

sanction of this reading. 

337–8 Solo V: Dp slur ends on 337n.11; all 

other sources on 338n.1 

338 Solo V: Ds staccato dot under slur 

(but outside slur in Ap). 

339 Timp: Dst, Dp fp, but marked fpp in 

Ap, in the same grey pencil as the 

alteration of Cor1,2, V1,2, Vc from fp 

to fpp. 

339n.2, 340n.1 Solo V: Dp no staccato (present 

in all other sources). 

340n.2–4 Solo V: Ds, Dp, Dk no 3 (triplet indication) 


21


to Johannes Brahms’s piano reduction 

Allegro non troppo 

10 Dk RH (lower part) no slur (present 

in Ak). 

11 Ak LH n.1–6 no slur (present in Dk). 

24 Ak n.2 no cautionary naturals on b, 

b 1 , b 2 (present in Dk). 

33 Dk RH n.5 erroneous staccato (not in 

Ak). 

36–41 None of the three versions sketched 

in Ak corresponds entirely with the 

version in Dk, which was presumably 

modified further in the proofs. 

36n.2 The accent appears in the first two 

versions of this passage in Ak (written 

in Brahms’s hand) but not in the 

third version, apparently written by 

Keller in the bottom margin. 

53 Viol. in Ak but not Dk. 

86, 87 Ak no arpeggio sign before LH n.1. 

87 Ak first LH x on G; Dk RH n.2 no 

staccato (present in Ak), probably 

omitted in error. 

104–5 Dk no tie; Ak tie, probably overlooked 

by the engraver. 

117–18 Ak. Dk slur extends well beyond 

last note 117 into the margin (there 

is a line break between 117 and 118 

in both sources), but new slur begins 

on 118n.1 in both sources. 

125–6 Ak LH no tie (probably because of 

line break between these bars). 

136 Ak no a tempo; bass note notated as h . 

with no tie to 137. 

141 In Dk the stem of the f♯ on the second 

beat is joined to that of the d 1 

immediately above it, but in Ak it is 

written as a separate q (surely an engraver’s 

error). 

161 Ak LH no slur. 

184 Ak RH the chord on the third beat 

has g 1 instead of b 1 , presumably 

changed in the proofs. 

187 Dk no arpeggio sign before RH n.1, 

probably omitted in error. 

214–17 Ak n.1–2 originally staccato, changed 

by Brahms to slurred; the staccato 

mark on n.2 remains undeleted in 

Ak and was probably overlooked by 

the engraver. 

216 Ak RH n.1 no (evidently added to 

Dk in proofs). 

224 Dk n.1 dim. the engraver’s misreading 

of Brahms’s dol. in Ak. 

233 Ak no pedal release sign (evidently 

added to Dk in proofs). 

243 Dk LH slur from n.1–3 evidently an 

engraver’s error (from n.2–3 in Ak). 

254 Dk RH n.2 no >; in Ak the > is partly 

obscured by an ink blot. 

256 Dk LH n.2 no > (present in Ak). 

260 Ak no arpeggio sign before LH n.1 

(evidently added to Dk in proofs). 

266 Dk LH n.1 no staccato (present in 

Ak). 

284 Dk LH n.1 staccato, probably added 

autonomously by the engraver (see 

RH and 276n.1 where there is no staccato 

in Dk or Ak); Ak no staccato 

(although here and at 276 the cue in 

the violin stave has staccato on this 

note as in the orchestral score). 

296 Dk LH n.2 no staccato (present in Ak 

and probably omitted erroneously 

by the engraver). 

298 Ak RH n.3 has an a in the chord, 

which was probably removed in the 

proofs. 

314 Dk LH n.1 staccato, probably added 

erroneously by the engraver; Ak 

no staccato, nor in the orchestral 

score. 

346 Dk RH n.1, n.7 no staccato (present 

in Ak). 

373–4 Ak Brahms indicated slurs across 

the bar line for all notes of the RH 

chords (perhaps simplified in the 

proofs). 

375–6 Ak Brahms indicated slurs across 

the bar line for the upper two notes 

of the chord (see preceding entry). 

408 Dk LH n.2 staccato probably added 

autonomously by the engraver; Ak 

22

no staccato, nor in the corresponding 

passage (167) in either source. 

409 Dk LH n.1 no > evidently engraver’s 

error; Ak > as in the corresponding 

passage (168) in both sources. 


Ak). 

431 Ak no legato (evidently added in the 

proofs of Dk). 

441 Ak LH n.1 additional e C♯/G♯ (as well 

as h . C♯/G♯), perhaps removed in Dk 

for the sake of clarity, although the 

equivalent notation remains in 451. 

461 Dk no >; Ak >, probably omitted 

from Dk in error. 

457, 459 Ak LH n.1 no staccato, presumably 

Brahms’s oversight (present in Dk). 

467 Ak (pizz) immediately after dolce; Dk 

(pizz) erroneously placed in 468. 

Ak n.2 no staccato; Dk staccato, probably 

added in proof. 

468 Ak LH n.1, RH/LH n.2 no staccato; 

Dk staccato, probably added in proof. 

490 Ak RH n.4 no f 1 in chord; probably 

added in proofs of Dk (present in 

V2). 

508 Dk LH n.1 no arpeggio sign; Ak arpeggio 

(probably omitted erroneously 

from Dk). 

515 Dk RH 3 rd beat no staccato; Ak staccato. 

531 Dk no >, presumably engraver’s 

oversight (present in Ak). 

536 Dk pedal release placed rather earlier 

than in Ak (presumably the engraver’s 

error). 

542, 546, 550, 554 Ak no pedal release markings 

(presumably added in proofs of 

Dk). 

553–8 Ak has poco a poco cresc. in 553–4; the 

marking cresc. e stringendo poco a poco 

was added in the proofs 

555–8 Ak no pedal or pedal release markings 

(evidently added in proofs of Dk 

where they are crammed between 

the RH and LH staves). 

559 Ak f at top of RH stave perhaps overlooked 

by the engraver, but probably 

removed by Brahms to prevent the 

dynamic getting loud too soon (see f 

at 565). 

561 Dk RH n.4 no staccato (present in 

Ak). 


Ak). 

562 Ak RH n.4 no staccato (present in 

Dk). 

Adagio 

3–31 Ak the notes etc. on the solo violin 

stave are in Brahms’s hand. 

8 Dk centred just after n.2, but on 

n.3 in Ak. 

10 Ak RH n.2–3 no slur (evidently added 

in Dk). 

12 Ak RH n.2–4 no slur (evidently added 

in Dk). 

16 Dk RH n.3 Q downward stem on c 1 , 

evidently an engraver’s error. 

18–19 Dk RH beams from 18n.1–3 and 

18n.4–19n.4; in Ak Brahms drew a 

beam from 18n.1–3 but a large blot 

obscures the final chord and any intended 

beam across the bar line; 

Brahms’s intention here remains uncertain, 

but, in relation to the orchestral 

parts and Brahms’s slurring in 

the piano part, any possible significance 

of a beam across the bar line 

seems obscure. 

20–21 Dk RH no slur (present in Ak). 

25 Dk RH slur from n.1–4; presumably 

the engraver overlooked Brahms’s 

rather faint pencil amendment of the 

slur to begin on n.2 in Ak. 

45 Ak LH n.1,2 on 1 st and 3 rd e s of the 

bar; evidently changed in proofs of 

Dk. 

54 Ak LH n.3 notated as E. 

59 Dk n.1–3, 5–7 no slurs; Ak slurs 

surely intended as such, not merely 

as indicators of triplets; Dk LH n.5–6 

(tenor) no slur (present in Ak). 

75 Ak dim., no calando; Ak LH n.3–4 

(bass) q . 

76 Ak LH n.1–2 (bass) q . 

79 Ak RH n.2–3 no portato. 

80 Dk no Viol. (present in Ak). 

86 Ak RH no e stem on 2 nd beat g 1 . 


Ak). 

23

95 Dk LH n.3 no q stem (present in Ak). 

101 Ak no < . 

102 Ak no >. 

105 Ak LH 2 nd q beat no d♭ 1 in chord. 

106 Ak RH 4 th e beat no e 1 in chord. 

108 Dk RH n.1–4 slur probably an engraver’s 

error; from n.2–4 in Ak. 

109 Ak RH n.2 f 1 instead of g 1 in chord. 

Allegro giocoso, ma non troppo vivace 

8 Ak LH n.1–2 no staccato 

9–14 The version of the LH part in Ak 

(see footnote in score) was evidently 

simplified in the proofs; Brahms’s 

placement of the staccato dot on n.7 

is not wholly consistent, but his 

intention seems to have been that 

it occur outside the slur (in Dk the 

staccato is generally placed immediately 

after the end of the slur rather 

than over or under it): he may well 

have intended to make a distinction 

here between a staccato mark (as in 

portato) that separates the note from 

the one before and a staccato mark 

that merely shortens the note above 

which it is placed without interrupting 

the legato connection to the previous 

note. 

10 Dk RH n.2 staccato (not in Ak). 


Ak). 

27–30 Ak LH as in 9–12, but no Ped. marking 

in 27. 

34 Ak RH n.1 chord includes e 1 , n.3 

chord includes g 1 , n.4 chord includes 

c♯ 2 . 


Ak). 

45 Ak RH n.1 b♯ in place of a in the 

chord. 

46 Dk LH n.2 no ♯ (present in Ak). 

55 Dk no arpeggio sign, probably the 

engraver’s oversight, but possibly removed 

in the proofs. 

59 Ak RH slur over whole bar. 

64 Ak RH no slurs. 

65 Ak LH n.1 the upper octave e has 

been deleted by Brahms, but it is 

present in Dk (perhaps reinstated in 

the proofs); the equivalent note is 

present at the parallel passage (158) 

in both sources. 

67–8 Ak RH no slurs. 

71 Ak no pedal release. 

78 Dk RH n.2,4 no staccato (present in 

Ak). 

80 Ak LH n.2,3 staccato; probably removed 

in proofs, since at the parallel 

passage (173) Ak also has staccato 

that does not appear in Dk. 

82 Ak ff, presumably changed in proofs; 

at the parallel passage (175) Brahms 

wrote f in Ak. 

85–7 Dk RH n.3,4 not in Ak (presumably 

added in proofs). 

89–91 Ak LH n.3,4 full-size notes with no 

indication that they should be ‘kleine 

Noten’. 

91 Ak no pedal release. 

101–3 Ak LH as in 9–11. 

117 Dk no ♮ before RH n.4 c 1 (present in 

Ak). 

125, 127 Ak RH n.2 no staccato (perhaps 

added by Brahms in proofs, but if so 

it does not correspond with the full 

score). 

128, 129 Ak LH n.3 no staccato, probably 

added in proofs because of pizzicato 

in the score. 

131 Ak LH n.1–6 no slur (present in 

Dk). 

134–5 Dk cresc. with 134 RH n.4 and < 

from 135 RH n.2–4; Ak < with 

134 RH n.4 and < from 135 RH 

between n.1 and 2 to n.4; in Ak there 

is a page turn between 134 and 135 

and in Dk a line break; Brahms’s 

intention was clearly a continuous 

< from 134–5 as in the full score. 

136 Dk LH n.2 no Ped. (present in Ak), 

probably overlooked by engraver. 

141 Ak f before sf on n.1; perhaps removed 

from proofs as redundant. 

Dk n.3, 5 sf above RH stave and below 

LH stave, evidently because the 

proximity of the RH and LH beams 

prevents sf being engraved between 

the staves; Ak sf only below LH 

notes. 

153 Ak RH n.1–2 no slur. 

24




173 Ak LH n.2,3 staccato, possibly removed 

in proofs of Dk (see above 

80). 

178 Dk n.3 no ff (present in Ak), probably 

omitted in error. 

190–96 Dk places all staccato marks at the 

end of slurs within the slur, except 

on 191n.2; in Ak Brahms consistently 

places them outside the slur. 

196 Dk RH n.2–3 beamed together, n.4 

separate; Ak n.2–4 beamed together 

(the change in Dk seems unlikely to 

have stemmed from Brahms. 


202 Dk RH n.1 >, evidently the engraver’s 

misinterpretation of the > in the 

solo violin part, which is below the 

violin stave. 

207–8, 211–12 Ak no pedal release signs. 

234–5 Ak LH 234n.3–235n.2 beamed together. 

235 Dk LH n.3 no staccato (in Ak). 

237–8 Ak LH 237n.3–238n.2 beamed together; 

RH 237n.3–238n.1 beamed 

together. 

254 Ak RH n.4 e 1 in chord, probably removed 

in proofs. 

267–73 Ak, Dk the staccato on the note following 

the three grace notes is consistently 

placed above the note; this 

is in accordance with Brahms’s typical 

practice of placing the staccato 

mark outside the slur when it indicated 

shortening without separation 

from the preceding note. 

279–288n.2 Ak RH no staccato marks. 

311 Dk LH n.4 no > (present in Ak). 

325 Dk n.1 no f; present in Ak, probably 

overlooked by engraver. 

326 Ak e chord on beat 1: A/a/c♯ 1 /g 1 /a 1 , 

but in connection with the later replaced 

solo violin part. 

331, 332 Dk LH n.1–3 no staccato (present in 

Ak). 

334 Ak LH n.1 additional D and arpeggio 

sign before the chord, presumably 

removed in proofs. 

25


to Joseph Joachim’s Cadenza 

SOURCES 

S1 (original edition) 

Title page 

Cadenz / zum / Concert für Violine / von / Johannes 

Brahms / (Op. .) / von / JOSEPH JO- 

ACHIM / Preis Mk . / Verlag und Eigenthum 

für alle Länder / von / N. SIMROCK G. m. b. H. 

IN BERLIN / London Depôt: ALFRED LENG- 

NICK, Berners Street, W. 

First page of music 

CADENZ / zum / Concert für Violine / von / 

Johannes Brahms. [right] Joseph Joachim. / 

[bottom left] Copyright by N. Simrock, 

G. m. b. H. Berlin [centre] [or] 

Copies in D-Bhm, D-Hs with pl no. (the 

copy in D-Bhm (Signatur RB ) originates 

from Joachim’s personal library) 

Copies in CH-Zz, D-B with pl. no. 

Apart from the plate number these copies are 

identical. 

S2 (revised edition) 

Title page 

JOACHIM / CADENZ ZUM VIOLINCONZERT / 

VON JOHANNES BRAHMS, OPUS 77 / CA- 

DENCE POUR LE CONCERTO POUR VIO- 

LON / DE JOHANNES BRAHMS, OPUS 77 / 

CADENZA TO THE VIOLIN CONCERTO / BY 

JOHANNES BRAHMS, OPUS 77 / N. SIMROCK, 

LEIPZIG / MUSIKVERLAG / [left] Imprimé en 

Allemagne [right] Printed in Germany 

First page of music 

Cadenz / zum / Brahms Violin Konzert, / [right] 

Joseph Joachim / [bottom left] Copyright 

by N. Simrock, G. m. b. H. Berlin [centre] pl. 

no. 

Copy in D-Hs probably dating from the late 

s. 

V (new edition) 

Published as part of Joachim’s revised edition 

of the solo part of the Violin Concerto in Joseph 

Joachim and Andreas Moser Violinschule (Berlin, 

Simrock, ), iii, –, pl. no. 

K1 manuscript copy by Marie Soldat 

No title 

Copied in or shortly before (A-Wgm A 

a/IX ). The copy contains several 

sketches by Brahms, indicating possible abbreviations, 

and an interpretation of these by 

Marie Soldat. 1 

K2 manuscript copy by Anna Löw 

Title page (r) in ink 

J. Joachim’sche / Cadenz / zum Violin Concert / von 

Johannes Brahms / Wien . Mai / Anna Löw 

First page of music (v) in ink 

Cadenz / zum Violinkonzert von Johannes Brahms 

The copy was perhaps made from a manuscript 

copy of the cadenza in possession of Löw’s 

teacher Karl Prill, a pupil of Joachim. As argued 

in the Preface to the full score, 2 the close 

correspondence of the abbreviation with that 

in Soldat’s copy, suggests that the version from 

which Löw made her copy was, in part, derived 

directly or indirectly from Soldat’s copy; 

the differences between Löw’s and Soldat’s 

version, however, especially in the last bars, 

indicate that the abbreviated passage had been 

entered into a copy of the cadenza that originally 

reflected an earlier or later version of Joachim’s 

cadenza. 

COMMENTARY 

When Joachim’s cadenza was published in the 

spring of , a press release referred to ‘numerous 

[manuscript] copies, which, because 

they contain errors of every kind, are worthless’ 

and added that ‘in the future these will be 

prosecuted and punished by the composer as 

pirate editions.’ 3 Some of the divergences referred 

to in this notice are evident in the man- 

1 For discussion of Brahms’s intervention in this 

copy see Preface. A full critical text of the original and 

abbreviated versions of the cadenza, together with a 

facsimile is given in NBA p. ff. 

2 See p. XI–XIII. 

3 Signale für die musikalische Welt lx (), . 

26

uscript copies made by Marie Soldat and Anna 

Löw and these are described in the critical 

commentary. The version of the cadenza in the 

Joachim and Moser Violinschule was probably 

engraved either directly from an annotated 

copy of S1 or from a corresponding manuscript 

(this is indicated by the erroneous omission of 

a ♮ before the f 1 in bar in both S1 and V) but 

V also contains a number of significant differences 

from S1 (identified below); these will 

have derived directly from Joachim and must 

therefore be considered as authorised revisions. 

For that reason the Violinschule version 

has been taken as the copy text for the present 

edition. In the present state of bibliographical 

knowledge, it remains unclear why an otherwise 

identical copy of S1 was issued with a 

different plate number. S2 is printed from the 

same plates as the original edition, but with 

some re-engraving, including the modernisation 

of bowing signs from and to ≥ and ≤ ), 

and the addition of the missing ♮ in bar , as 

well as many more fingerings and bowings. 

The changes will perhaps have been made 

around , in connection with the issue of 

Simrock’s collection of thirteen ‘berühmten 

Kadenzen’, thus having no direct connection 

with Joachim, but it has been impossible at 

present to ascertain the date of the revision. 

A much later reissue of the Simrock edition, 

printed in England, with a title page that gives 

the publisher as ‘N. SIMROCK / London Hamburg 

(D-Bhm DB ), which is printed from 

the same plates (plate number ) without 

alteration to the musical text (the fingering 

is still wrongly placed on the second note of 

bar ), contains the words ‘Rev. Ossip Schnirlin’ 

at the bottom right of the first page; Schnirlin 

(–) edited much violin music and 

was author of the book Der neue Weg zur Beherrschung 

der gesamten Violinliteratur (). It is 

noteworthy that the text of the last five bars in 

the revised version has not been changed from 

that of the original edition to incorporate the 

revisions in V, except for the addition of a fingering 

on the third note of bar . 

The copy text, therefore, is V, which contains 

Joachim’s last ascertainable revisions; additional 

fingering and bowing from S2, which seems 

entirely consonant with Joachim’s practice, is 

given in italics. All other differences between 

≥ 

≤ 

the printed sources are discussed below. Major 

differences between K1 and K2 and the printed 

editions are listed. 4 References below to bar 

numbers in K1 and K2 are to the equivalent 

bars in the printed edition. 

1n.3 S1 no 2; S2 2 incorrectly printed 

above n.2. 

5n.4–6n.1 In all printed sources the tie on a 1 

is present, including the copy of S1 

in D-B (contrary to the indication in 

NBA p. 300). 

19–20 K1, K2 no d 1 on 19n.5 and 20nn.1, 

4, 5. 

21n.2 K1 ritardando. 

21–2 K1 rhythm: e ≈ x q . ≈ x|q . e e e 

K2 rhythm: e ≈ x q . e|q . e e e 

29n.2 K1 riten. e dimin. 

31n.1 K1 ‰ U instead of e 1 . 

31n.2 K1 a piacere. 

33 K1 a tempo. 

53n.4 S2 ♮ before f 1 . 

62/63n.10 V, S1, S2 3, but surely a misprint for 

2, since a third finger here is highly 

implausible. 

63 K1 omitted. 

66n.1 K1, K2 tr. 

72–3 K2 notated as a single bar with three 

q e 3 s; the x s are given as grace notes 

at the same pitches as in the printed 

editions. 

72n.3 S2 no double dot of prolongation. 

76nn.11, 12 K2 e♯ 1 , f♯ 1 . 

77 K1 x s a, b, c♯ 1 d 1 followed by chromatic 

scale in q ë r s from d♯ 

1 

to e 2 and a 

final q ë r f♯ 2 ; K2 x s d♯1, e 1 , f♯ 1 , g 1 , g♯ 1 , 

a 1 , b 1 , c♯ 2 , d♯ 2 , e 2 , e♯ 2 , f♯ 2 . 

78 K1 x s g 2 , d♯ 1 , e 1 , f♯ 1 followed by q ë r s 

g 1 , g♯ 1 , a 1 , b 1 , c♯ 2 , d 2 , e 2 , f♯ 2 by chromatic 

steps to a♯ 2 . 

78n.2 S1, S2 3. 

78n.6 S1, S2, K1 d 2 (V, K2 d♯ 2 ). 

79n.10 S1, S2, K1 b♯ 2 (V, K2 b 2 ). 

80n.1 S1, S2 no fingering. 

81n.3 S1, S2 no fingering. 

82 S1, S2 slurs on n.1–4 and 5–6. 

4 The full texts of K1 and K2 can be seen in NBA 

pp. –. 

27

BRAHMS - Clarius Audi

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?