Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[Roasted Swan]

Continuing from a post on the "recent listening" thread about Wyn Morris and his Mahler recordings with the Symphonica of London.  I recall that on their original double LP release they received quite a lot of comment - mainly positive.  I relistened to his No.5 yesterday and enjoyed it a lot.  Its a weighty 'serious' interpretation, not full of angst and melodrama.  The Symphonica of London were an all-star pick-up band and the playing is very good (Alan Civil 1st horn as I recall?) but it is not the flawless polished offering that seems to be the norm now.  But does perfection come at a price?  Does Mahler need a sense of struggle and the will to overcome to make the final pages of a work such as No.5 even more triumphant and exulting?  I must admit I personally prefer the Adagietto to be flowing and lyrical as here - the emotion is still there but all the better for being held not gushed over the listener. 

I have a couple of his other Mahlers as well as a few recordings from his discography (his LSO/Beethoven cycle was rightly praised on the forum recently) so I think I might go on a little bit of a Wyn Morris retrospective........

[relm1]

I consider Mahler to be quite excellent in his finales.  I think they are all strong even if they end quietly like Das Lied von der Erde.  What I am generally less satisfied with is his first movements.  They sometimes struggle to reach their destination.  What are your thoughts on Mahler's approach to his first movements?  Which do you find most/least successful?  Do you think he was a master at long structure or was that something he seemed to struggle with?

[Brian]

Hmm, that critique is interesting and maybe a little unexpected to me because I immediately think of the range he is able to put into some of his first movements (especially the First)... However, he does use some special formats or "concepts" for first movements (like the Third and Fifth) which may support your suggestion that he struggled with them? And the Seventh is a glaring example for me - my least favorite movement of that symphony, so repetitive in its melodramatic passages.

Structurally for me with some symphonies (2, 3 especially) what I struggle with is the "calm down" movements in between the gigantic beginnings and endings, which don't really seem to serve a broader dramatic purpose in the overall framework, except to give your ears a break. If the second movements of 2 and 3 were reversed, how much would those symphonies really change?

[Madiel]

Well, personally I always like a good sonata form.

[Der lächelnde Schatten]

I think Mahler has some absolutely wonderful first movements. The 5th, 6th, 9th and Das Lied come to mind immediately. I would say that the 9th is truly something special, though. It's almost as if you're staring death right in the face right out of the gate.

[krummholz]

I consider Mahler to be quite excellent in his finales.  I think they are all strong even if they end quietly like Das Lied von der Erde.  What I am generally less satisfied with is his first movements.  They sometimes struggle to reach their destination.  What are your thoughts on Mahler's approach to his first movements?  Which do you find most/least successful?  Do you think he was a master at long structure or was that something he seemed to struggle with?

Well, DLvDE is a good example of a work with a strong first "movement", even though it's much shorter than M's usual symphonic opening movements. Of the numbered symphonies, I'd cite the 6th as the one with the single strongest first movement, with #2 as a close second.

[Jo498]

Continuing from a post on the "recent listening" thread about Wyn Morris and his Mahler recordings with the Symphonica of London.  I recall that on their original double LP release they received quite a lot of comment - mainly positive.  I relistened to his No.5 yesterday and enjoyed it a lot.  Its a weighty 'serious' interpretation, not full of angst and melodrama.  The Symphonica of London were an all-star pick-up band and the playing is very good (Alan Civil 1st horn as I recall?) but it is not the flawless polished offering that seems to be the norm now.  But does perfection come at a price?  Does Mahler need a sense of struggle and the will to overcome to make the final pages of a work such as No.5 even more triumphant and exulting?  I must admit I personally prefer the Adagietto to be flowing and lyrical as here - the emotion is still there but all the better for being held not gushed over the listener. 

the 5th is the only one I have and the CD is faulty although I think I was able to make a copy that still plays. It's full of interesting detail (he takes his time in the scherzo and finale) and the fast adagio is more "correct".

The other Mahler with Morris I have is the Wunderhorn Lieder with Baker and Evans and this is probably even better than the 5th, except for a few language issues (esp Evans). Maybe even more strongly characterised than Forrester/Rehfuss (although they sing at least as well and better German).

[Jo498]

I consider Mahler to be quite excellent in his finales.  I think they are all strong even if they end quietly like Das Lied von der Erde.  What I am generally less satisfied with is his first movements.  They sometimes struggle to reach their destination.  What are your thoughts on Mahler's approach to his first movements?  Which do you find most/least successful?  Do you think he was a master at long structure or was that something he seemed to struggle with?

I think it's the other way round but that's not surprising. Finales are really difficult in epic, narrative music like Mahler's.
In the 1st it basically starts over and is mainly connected to the rest by quotations but it's not very organic or narratively plausible. Very ambitious but rather disappointing

The finale of the 2nd is too long and the first half would be hardly bearable without the external "resurrection" program.

The 3rd is a bit opposite to the 1st and the first movement seems almost a separate piece as the original titles with "Summer begins, Pan enters" for this and "What birds/bees/angels/love tell me" for the others indicate. But the 3rd also shows the way for a successful finale: a slow "transfiguration" instead of drama or triumph. Like in the 4th, 9th, maybe also LvdE and 8th (although there the texts set the scene).

5,6 and 7 face the largest difficulties wrt finales whereas their first movements are fine (I think, in the case of the 5th the first 2 movements belong together). In the 5th the triumphal turn is not clearly "worked out" and the finale a bit too light and comical for that anyway. The 7th's finale has been a point of contention for many with seemingly shallow bombast (whereas the 1st movement is as good as anything by Mahler). The 6th tragic finale is also huge and ambitious and I find it a bit too long and repetitive whereas the 1st movement is great in the combination of "dramatic narrative" and traditional sonata form.

[krummholz]

So many different opinions! The finale of the 6th is, to me, the only fully convincing large-scale finale in all of Mahler's symphonies - despite its length.

I agree about the first movement and Scherzo belonging together, and Mahler reportedly originally intended that the latter follow the former immediately, but the evidence appears to be unassailable that Mahler changed his mind about the movement order during rehearsals and never waffled on that decision. A pity, as I think the Finale makes a stronger impression if it follows right after the Andante. But the composer gets to decide, and Mahler evidently decided.

[relm1]

Hmm, that critique is interesting and maybe a little unexpected to me because I immediately think of the range he is able to put into some of his first movements (especially the First)... However, he does use some special formats or "concepts" for first movements (like the Third and Fifth) which may support your suggestion that he struggled with them? And the Seventh is a glaring example for me - my least favorite movement of that symphony, so repetitive in its melodramatic passages.

Structurally for me with some symphonies (2, 3 especially) what I struggle with is the "calm down" movements in between the gigantic beginnings and endings, which don't really seem to serve a broader dramatic purpose in the overall framework, except to give your ears a break. If the second movements of 2 and 3 were reversed, how much would those symphonies really change?

I think there is evidence for your opinion about the inner calm down movements because he dropped Blumine from No. 1.  It makes me think if he considered these inner movements essential, he might have redid Blumine if he wasn't happy rather than just pull it.

[DavidW]

I consider Mahler to be quite excellent in his finales.  I think they are all strong even if they end quietly like Das Lied von der Erde.  What I am generally less satisfied with is his first movements.  They sometimes struggle to reach their destination.  What are your thoughts on Mahler's approach to his first movements?  Which do you find most/least successful?  Do you think he was a master at long structure or was that something he seemed to struggle with?

Every single symphony and Das Lied von der Erde has some of the strongest first movements out of all orchestral music... so no. I completely disagree. And that includes that amazingly dissonant and mysterious opening of the 10th!

[relm1]

Well, DLvDE is a good example of a work with a strong first "movement", even though it's much shorter than M's usual symphonic opening movements. Of the numbered symphonies, I'd cite the 6th as the one with the single strongest first movement, with #2 as a close second.

What do you think about the 3rd's first movement?

[krummholz]

What do you think about the 3rd's first movement?

Weaker overall than the first movement of #2, but I think it works in the overall scheme of the symphony. My favorite movement of the 3rd is the Adagio finale, which I consider one of his most beautiful.

BTW the 3rd was the very first Mahler symphony that I heard, over the radio, at age 15, and was completely captivated by the lyrical idiom and - especially - the very new-to-me chamber-like use of a huge orchestra in the context of a symphony.

[Brian]

What do you think about the 3rd's first movement?

I think it could be programmed separately in concert (though I'd dearly miss the finale's major-key vision of the same primary theme).