Bruckner: Symphony No.4 (1888 Edition)
Jakub Hrůsa / Bamberg Symphony (Accentus)
(scroll down for English review)
胡薩和班貝格交響樂團將布魯克納《第四交響曲》的三個版本：1874年原版、最通用的1878/80版本，以及布魯克納學者Benjamin Korstvedt近年大力推廣的1888版本一併錄音，連同其他斷章或中途版本，合成4CD發售。不過我沒有時間聽完，只聽1888版本，看它有甚麼厲害。
那個版本並非由布魯克納製作，由他門生修改以後，經他首肯後於1889年出版，是此作的第一個出版版本。不過布魯克納明顯視1878/80版本為他認定的版本，因為他過身前不久，連同其餘七首已完成的交響曲，把1878/80版本的手稿捐贈給奧地利國家圖書館。
看着樂譜聽，雖有一些配器改動，但我不認為這算得上是一個新版本。不是由布魯克納製作之外，未去到重新組織樂曲的地步，我會用文學來比喻，就像編輯去改作家的用詞、標點符號，但原文其實沒錯，只是編輯看不過眼。
令人打個突的改動是在第三樂章，編訂者可能不想ABA結構毫無改變的重複諧諧謔曲部分，於是在AB之間，削短了A的結尾，更令它由本來的熱鬧變成無聲的完。然後B轉回A後，又突然間削短了A的開頭。真的很突兀，而且很bad taste。
我覺得Korstvedt誇大了1888年版的認受性，而且他僭越了學者的本份，當了自己是樂評人去推廣、甚至推銷這個版本。而且變了的配器其實未見得是進步，再加上第三樂章的亂刪，這個版本以及他的推銷員實在太bad taste了。以下的連結就是1888年版的部分。
Jakub Hrůsa and his Bamberg players brought out this 4-CD set of Bruckner’s Fourth Symphony with all its versions and variants. I didn’t go through the full set and concentrated on the so-called 1888 version instead. This version, not made by Bruckner but approved by him, eventually became the first published version of the symphony. But Bruckner clearly indicated his preference for the now-standard 1878/80 version by bequeathing its score to the Austrian National Library.
Bruckner scholar Benjamin Korstvedt edited the 1888 version as a critical edition and he’s been championing this version for the past 20 years. He also wrote the liner notes for this album and made no secret of his preference for this version over the others.
Having listened to this recording with the score, my chief objection to this version isn’t about its non-, or pseudo-authenticity, but that the amendments are too trivial to make this a genuine “version”. The orchestral retouchings are clearly not aligned with Bruckner’s habits and taste. To me it’s like a literary editor changing words and punctuation marks of a novel, feeling that these would improve the work, but the offending parts really aren’t errors and shortcomings.
The real surprise is in the third movement, which is a scherzo-trio movement in ABA structure. Perhaps in an attempt to avoid the verbatim reprisal of the scherzo section, the editors truncated the end of the first “A” section and let it drift into the trio section. The beginning of the reprise was similarly shortened. It isn’t just shocking, it’s bad taste.
Although these changes weren’t made by Korstvedt but he clearly overstep his status as a scholar and overstretched the authenticity of the 1888 version. A critic or a musician might have certain preferences but such value judgments shouldn’t be made by a scholar.