Nicolai Pfeffer

Obtaining the orchestra parts for a large number of pieces for clarinet and orchestra is difficult, and is a common problem for clarinet players. As a result, many compositions, including Max Bruch’s1 Double Concerto for Clarinet and Viola2, op. 883, are rarely performed in public. 
 
This situation is quite unfortunate—on the one hand audiences may have the impression that the clarinet does not have a recognisable solo repertoire (besides the wonderful concertos of Mozart and Weber), and on the other hand, some really interesting pieces for clarinet and orchestra tend to be unavailable for listeners and clarinetists alike.
 
Regarding the Bruch Concerto, we are without a doubt talking about a valuable addition to the romantic solo repertoire for both the clarinet and the viola, written by a renowned composer of that period. Listening without prejudice, we immediately hear a warm, romantic score for an unusual soloistical (and even orchestral4) instrumentation that deserves to be performed regularly by professional and nonprofessional ensembles. This assertion is especially true since the alternative scoring for violin (instead of the clarinet) allows for different instrument combinations. 
 
Nevertheless, the Double Concerto in E-Minor was lost for many years in unjustified obscurity. This neglect may be attributed to the work's anachronistic character and the fact that Bruch’s compositions were banned from being publicly performed in Germany during the National Socialist Era5. Even though the conservative Cologne composer Bruch, a true admirer of Schumann and Mendelssohn, and himself a composer of masterly craftsmanship, was seventy-three when he composed the concerto in Berlin in December of 1911, he was still composing in the style of his most popular work, the G-Minor Violin Concerto of 18686. Bruch, who was known during his lifetime mainly for his choral compositions, was a traditionalist and resolutely and uncompromisingly defended his romantic appreciation of art. This defence led to controversial discussions with some of the most eminent composers of his time, including the New Germans Wagner and Liszt, followed by their successors Reger and Strauss, and finally resulted in a decline of Bruch’s recognition towards the turn of the century. 
 
As with the Eight Pieces (op. 837)—a set of trio compositions for the clarinet, viola, and piano—the Double Concerto was written expressly for Bruch’s son Max Felix Bruch8, a gifted clarinetist whose playing was sometimes compared to that of Richard Mühlfeld 9, the famous clarinetist from the Meiningen court orchestra. In 1912, Max Felix gave the first performance of op. 8810 from the manuscript parts together with Bruch’s friend, violist Prof. Willy Hess11, at the seaport in Wilhelmshaven, Germany. Another performance of the work was later given at the Berlin Hochschule für Musik (College of Music) on December 3, 1913. The work breathes the same air as Bruch’s earlier compositions (even borrowing themes and melodies12) and  many works by Mendelssohn and Schumann. But in 1913, music had already moved on to the revolutionary styles of Debussy13, Scriabin14, and the composers of the Second Viennese School, Schönberg15, Berg16 and Webern17. Igor Stravinsky’s ballet Le Sacre du Printemps18 debuted in Paris only two months after the premiere of Bruch’s Double Concerto. Sacre for example, provoked a musical debate such as had never been caused by any of Bruch’s compositions. Moreover, nobody expected a musical sensation from this seventy-three-year-old conservative composer whose creative energies were running low. 
 
Hence, the first performance of the Double Concerto was described as “harmless, weak, unexciting, first and most of all too restrained, its effect is unoriginal and it shows no master-strokes” in the Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung 19, criticism that may be justified in the light of the controversial premiere of Sacre and other works of the time. 
 
Max Bruch’s op. 88 was first published in 1942 by the Simrock successor Rudolf Eichmann in Berlin twenty-two years after the composer’s death. Since then, it has always been rather complicated or even impossible to rent the orchestral parts or a full score, since the publishing company has been sold several times and the number of copies published was quite limited due to the events of World War II. Additionally, it was assumed that the original autographs were destroyed during the last stages of the war. Fortunately, the manuscript of the full score showed up at Christie’s auction house in London in 1991 and was finally bought by the Cologne Max-Bruch-Archiv after the British conductor and Bruch expert Christopher Fifield20 had verified its authenticity. The Max-Bruch-Archiv belongs to the Musicology Department of the University of Cologne and is—believe it or not—in my direct neighbourhood. It hosts a vast collection of important Bruch autographs including, for example, his second Violin Concerto21, the second22 and the third Symphony23 as well as pictures and letters to or from his contemporaries and correspondence with the Simrock publishing company24. 
 
Back in 2004, when I began my clarinet studies at the Cologne Musikhochschule (College of Music), I got the opportunity to perform the Double Concerto with orchestra, but it was still not possible to buy or rent the performance material. This circumstance is why I began preparing a new Urtext edition of the Concerto on my own. Comparing Bruch’s manuscript score from the institute with the Berlin first print of 1942, I realised that there were many discrepancies between the two sources. What was even more surprising was the fact that the editor of the first edition, Otto Lindemann25, had made some significant changes in the manuscript score himself with a green pencil, which were later to be found in the printed editions of both the orchestra score as well as the piano reduction. The reduction was based on Bruch’s lost manuscript but had also been significantly altered by Lindemann.
 
With the autographs of the piano reduction and the solo parts still lost, it seems an impossible task to determine who in the end was responsible for the abundance of different markings regarding dynamics, phrasings, and articulation between the printed editions of the score, the piano reduction, and the parts. The deviations between the manuscript, the first print of the orchestra score, and the first print of the piano reduction are probably due to either a belated revision by the composer himself or to arbitrary engraving at the publishing house. Concerning Bruch’s original intentions, the only remaining reliable document is the manuscript of the full score of the Double Concerto, which therefore served as the main source for my new edition. All major differences between the sources are listed in an editorial comment. 
 
I’m very happy that the first urtext edition of Max Bruch’s Double Concerto26 (including the full score, orchestra parts and a revised piano reduction) is now available through the renowned C. F. Peters publishing company in Frankfurt. The sheet music of the Concerto is now sold and rented worldwide through their website. Thus I hope to provide musicians with a clearly arranged and practically oriented edition that gives justice to Bruch’s original score. A new, revised Edition of the Eight Pieces (op. 8327), following the Cologne manuscripts, has been published by the Munich publishing company Edition Diewa and can be ordered through the German sheet music service from Stephan Zerluth28 in Munich. 
 
 
 
About the writer:
 
Twenty-five year old German clarinetist Nicolai Pfeffer studied clarinet performance with Prof. Ralph Manno at the Cologne Musikhochschule and with Prof. Howard Klug at the Indiana University Jacobs School of Music. In addition to his many chamber music and solo performances, he works as an educator and music editor for various major publishing houses in Germany.
 
Feel free to E-Mail him at [email protected]