Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[greg]

Are you sure it's the original version *1880).  Wiki has this to say about the tortured compositional history of the work:

Although it's unmistakably mahlerian, I wouldn't say it's worth losing sleep over. French critics have long advocated the original version, maybe because Boulez recorded it. There's a very strong Mahler streak among French critics, and they happen to have quite particular views of what constitutes an authentic Mahler sound or performance. On the evidence of recorded history and the evolution of tastes, I'd say they have a point, if not chapter and verse. Haitink has staunchly favoured the revised version. In its original garb, I'd say Mahler's Klagende Lied is not that much different form Sibelius' Kullervo symphony.

Yes, I'm sure unless the person who uploaded the video is lying. It's too small to see from my post, though. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eto2qXJhuQ

and the scores says this, btw:

Publisher Info.:

Vienna: Universal Edition, n.d. [1901].
Reprint - Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2001.
Copyright:

Public Domain

I had a hard time following along until I remembered  that he rewrote it a bunch of times 
Do no one should try to put too much effort to follow along, although there are some interesting spots where you can see he didn't do much else besides reorchestrate it, so you might see an oboe line in the score being played by strings in the video.

But yeah, supposedly the jury to which he sent the score to for a competition was headed by Brahms. Just listen to the first video, and imagine Brahms going crazy about it...... hmmm, is it just me or is that hard to imagine? 

[greg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/KVd7NToZiaw

Mahler Plays Mahler

"Ging Heut' Morgens ubers Feld"
"Ich ging mit Lust durch einen grunen Wald"
Symphony # 4 (4th movement)
Symphony # 5 (1st movement)

Gustav Mahler, piano
Pickwick CD GLRS 101

treble clef graphicGustav Mahler represents one of the keenest losses to early classical recordings. Despite his present fame as the last of the great German symphonic composers, during his lifetime Mahler was better known as a profoundly influential conductor. His obsessive intensity on the podium fueled headstrong, expressive performances of huge individuality. Mahler was the last and perhaps most extraordinary of all the authentic late-romantic conductors, who never hesitated to mold or even rewrite music to their own taste. Mahler records would provide an enormously valuable key toward reconstructing and understanding the lost performing style of his era. And yet, Mahler died in his prime in 1911, at age 51, without having recorded.

So what's this? Nothing less than Mahler himself at the keyboard--and in digital stereo!

True, these are piano rolls, a medium with a deservedly bad reputation. The integrity of many rolls was compromised by extensive doctoring, both to correct wrong or mistimed notes and to "enhance" the original with new harmonies, runs and doublings. Even when uncorrupted, standard rolls had no quality, as all notes sounded at the same volume and with the same flat, staccato tone. Fine for a barroom, but hardly genuine art.

Mahler's rolls, though, were made in the new Welte-Mignon system, perfected in Germany in 1903. How did it work? We really don't know, since the proprietary process was a closely-guarded secret and the equipment was secured after each session. Apparently, the master was made with ink markings that were then punched as two sets of holes--one for each note and the other for its volume. The latter was a crucial component which transformed the bland mechanical clanking of the traditional piano roll into a genuine performance which replicated the accents, dynamics and overall atmosphere of the original.

Reproduction is achieved not through a player piano, but with a so-called "vorsetzer" unit, which actually plays a concert grand using felt-tipped "fingers" activated by varying degrees of pneumatic pressure triggered by the sets of holes. The result is uncannily realistic and far superior to the limited range of the acoustic disc in conveying the "touch" of an artist. Except for a slight pumping background sound of the pneumatic bellows, the present disc has the full nuance of a genuine performance.

Mahler recorded all four of his rolls in a single session on November 9, 1905. He chose two of his songs, the vocal finale to his Symphony # 4 and the first movement of his Symphony # 5 (which he had completed the previous year), all in arrangements for piano solo. The readings are fast, impulsive and full of highly individual touches, presumably suggesting the manner in which Mahler intended his own works to be interpreted--far more akin to the hysterical passion of Horenstein or Bernstein than the cool modern approach of von Karajan or Haitink.

It may be unfair to infer Mahler's podium style, particularly with respect to other composer's works, from his piano rolls. It is far easier to whip up instantaneous interpretive extremes using only your own hands on a piano than to impart such impulsive desires to an entire ensemble. But whether or not Mahler actually conducted this way, the rolls are our only tangible evidence of his artistic ideals and thus provide invaluable guidance to modern performers who strive for authenticity. And such authenticity is important, as composers of every era wrote with the intention that their works would be performed by artists familiar with the aesthetic norms of their time.

The Mahler rolls themselves consume only 26 minutes of the CD. Also included are performances by modern vocalists using Mahler's rolls as accompaniment. The disc concludes with a half-hour 1960s program of reminiscences of Mahler by retired associates. While this extra stuff is interesting to hear once, it's hardly of the same import as Mahler's performances. The CD would have been a far better value had it included Welte-Mignon rolls by Debussy, Saint-Saens, Grieg or other crucial but underrecorded masters whose performing styles defined their era.


Copyright 1994 by Peter Gutmann

non-piano roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/gdMWb8l3MP0&NR=1

[greg]

it's tough out there, being a trumpet player.


http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/fgzsPoTp2iA&feature=related

[knight66]

The new Gergiev 7th is getting excellent reviews. I rather thought I would stop at his 1st and 6th....but I can see the piggy-bank will get another little raid. It sounds like it will be an excellent contrast with the Bertini and Abbado Chicago versions. Has anyone heard the Gergiev yet?

Mike

[Sergeant Rock]

The new Gergiev 7th is getting excellent reviews. I rather thought I would stop at his 1st and 6th....but I can see the piggy-bank will get another little raid. It sounds like it will be an excellent contrast with the Bertini and Abbado Chicago versions. Has anyone heard the Gergiev yet?

Mike

I haven't heard Gergiev's Seventh, but if you want a performance that really contrasts with Bertini and Abbado, let me suggest Klemperer 

Sarge

[knight66]

Sarge, Thanks....I am such a sucker in this corner of the market. I always think I have enough, then another enticing suggestion comes along. I have Klemperer's DLvDE and 2nd, I don't know why I have not sought out more, I found both of those performances to be as good as any.

Mike

[M forever]

I have the live recording from March 7, 2008, at the Barbican, which is where this CD is sourced from, I believe, although I wonder if they also did touchup sessions because there are some serious accidents in some places. The most "obvious" is at the beginning of the finale where the trumpets try to play it like Star Wars, but fail rather heroically...after all, Murphy retired last year.
Still, overall, the playing is predictably very good. The booboos that are there can be excused because it is a very "live", very flexible and involved performance. It is also rather well directed which, I have to admit, suprised me since this is a piece which many conductors have a hard time figuring out and making it work coherently. Gergiev, with his well deserved reputation of being everywhere, but also leaving some of the prep work to assistants and showing up at the last minute, is not someone who I would have expected to be able to shine some light into this complex and, at times, a little incoherent score. But he holds everything well together and makes his musical points.
So overall, this is a rather good performance. But then again, especially when you listen to it a second time, you notice that as good as things look, they mostly happen on the surface and there is little attention to the fine inner detail and the layering of textures. Rather, the melodic surfaces are cleverly shaped and highlighted, but there is not much probing into the depths of the music.
The high level of playing, despite the occasional live booboos, is not really something which makes this performance particularly interesting since that kind of playing is pretty much standard in many places today.
This must have been a nice concert to go to, but it is not really a recording I "need" to have to refer to. There are a number of overall much more interesting ones.

[Daedalus]

Good evening all,

I was wondering what you all make of Mahler's 10th Symphony (Deryck Cooke performing version)?

I have been saving the 10th Symphony as the last piece of Mahler's music that I discover. To be honest, I have been putting it off for a long time now and finally decided to give it a go after listening to other composers and having a little break from Mahler.

I knew the first movement very well already as it has been an extra in some of the recordings of the 9th that I have purchased. I understand this to be the only movement of the symphony that was fully orchestrated by Mahler.

The question I have is, how much of the rest of the symphony is actually Mahler?

From what I've read, the symphony has been rejected (bar the first movement) by a majority of Mahler interpreters, such as Walter, Bernstein, Abbado, Haitink, Boulez, Kubelik. Some even refuse to perform the opening movement.

I have only listened to the piece once and have yet to make my mind up on the issue. On the whole, I feel that there are some very Mahlerian moments and his musical idiom occasionally shines through. There are some great passages of music although I have yet to get a feeling for how the overall piece ranks in comparison to the rest of his symphony cycle (i.e. in my personal opinion).

As a huge lover of Mahler's music, I had to hear this symphony. I do wonder about Mahler's intentions for the symphony and about Cooke's decision making process for the choices he has made in terms of orchestration in the movements that were scarcely completed.

I would be really interested to hear some of your opinions about this controversial symphony.

D.

[bhodges]

I'm a huge fan of the Tenth Symphony, even if to my brain and ears it feels like (roughly) "90 percent Mahler."  (Or maybe 80%.)  To me the bottom line is: would I rather "not hear" the score?  No, since as you note, there is plenty of Mahler buried in there.  I just listen with the process firmly understood: that it is a second person's fleshing out of Mahler's notes.  After hearing the piece over time, I have gotten to like it immensely.

Although I can totally empathize with those who debate whether the Tenth is "real" Mahler, personally I just like the music, especially since it hints at even more radical developments if he were to have lived and written more symphonies.  So in addition to the musical pleasure, there is some historical value, even knowing that Cooke made some choices that Mahler probably wouldn't have.  (And of course, we will never know.) 

I initially heard the first movement and think it stands fine on its own (for those who want to perform only the completed one), but I do like (and respect) what Cooke achieved.  As long as I'm aware that what I'm hearing is basically "Mahler-Cooke," I don't mind that it's essentially a collaborative project. 

--Bruce

[karlhenning]

That's so po-mo of you, Bruce 

[bhodges]

I should add that I've heard the Tenth live at least twice that I can recall, by two conductors who make a very good case for it: Chailly and Rattle.  The latter, especially, makes it sound incredibly modern, really emphasizing its weird sonorities and structure.  

Just saw Karl's post...

--Bruce

[greg]

The only other non-Cooke recording I've heard is this:


Just stick with the Cooke. 
The only differences I remember hearing were orchestration and a few dynamic adjustments, like near the end, when you hear that powerful F# major chord with the G# on top, it's actually quiet in this version, which seemed odd to me. The inner movements are probably very different, but I don't listen to them much so I'm not sure. They don't seem that great, but since they're so incomplete I'm sure he could've made them as good as anything else given time.

[PerfectWagnerite]

I would be really interested to hear some of your opinions about this controversial symphony.

D.

I think it is a great work, regardless of whether it is Cooke, Wheeler, or anyone else putting the finishing touches on it. The ideas and themes are all by Mahler and no one can disguise the genius, the symmetry, and the spontaneity of the music. If you don't think Mahler is capable of matching the level of inspiration he had shown in the 9th symphony then this work will convince you otherwise.

[Senta]

I like the 10th a LOT, as long as you appreciate it for what it is, you will discover there are a lot of amazing ideas, with some some differing opinions on where they lead in the various completions. Beside the often used Cooke version, I enjoy Barshai's recontruction attempt, recorded with the JDP and paired with M5. I find it well-thought out and it is also very well-played, very involved.

Just saw this:

A new 5th out last month :



Short review here, off the Times :

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/cd_reviews/article4248791.ece

Well, huh...I didn't know this existed. I'd be curious to hear it. I saw van Zweden do this recently for the Dallas season opening ...my first time to hear the 5th live.

I didn't know what to expect never having heard van Zweden's work, but it was an incredibly thrilling performance live, often for the sheer derring-do. If the 2nd mvmt is "moving stormily"...these sailors must have gotten rather seasick, because I have perhaps never heard such extremes of tempo there. He pushed them very hard tempo-wise in the outbursts, but the orchestra matched every bit of the energy...their chemistry was great. The 1st mvmt had these turn-on-a-dime tempo changes too, and I thought the opening especially was rushed, I prefer a slower Trauermarsch myself. The last 3 mvmts were excellent though, very musical and not as frantic, the Adagietto was taken at a comfortable tempo and had great dynamic work.

My only real complaint was just this feeling of oh-so-closeness in the 1st two mvmts, as he would accelerate so much, and generate such energy from the orchestra...but then get carried away and not pull back at the end of phrases to let that energy pummel you...lots of tension with little release. But on the whole, it was pretty darn good, and played extremely well too, with lots of exuberant and colorful sound from all sections.

Is that 5th only available at the LPO website? I saw his Beethoven mentioned, he has already recorded LvB 5th and 7th with the Dallas SO, sold at their site. I didn't get it while there, as those pieces are just so overrecorded, but it might be something to check out.

[karlhenning]

So these are "completions" and not 'simply' orchestrations of complete Mahler compositions?

But the first movement of the Tenth is entirely Mahler's work?

[Sergeant Rock]

So these are "completions" and not 'simply' orchestrations of complete Mahler compositions?

But the first movement of the Tenth is entirely Mahler's work?

"Mahler's original manuscript consists of all five movements laid out and numbered, with every bar continuous from first to last, in four-stave open score with a few instrumental cues. The first half of the symphony, up to the thirtieth bar of the Purgatorio is also set forth in orchestral score." Jack Diether, from his notes on the Ormandy CD.

Cooke didn't consider his work to be a "completion" but a performing version of the sketch. He did flesh out parts (particularly the last two movements) and orchestrated the parts that Mahler hadn't. I've never had a problem with this. It sounds like Mahler to me (because it is, essentially) and I'm very glad Cooke and others have given us the opportunity to hear, if not Mahler's final thoughts, his first thoughts anyway. And thanks goes to Ormandy, too, who bucked the trend within his generation of conductors and gave us the first and (to my ears) still the best performance of this astonishing symphony.

Sarge

[karlhenning]

Many thanks for the info, Sarge!  I think I was misled by PW's "ideas and themes" comment, which suggested to me that other hands were dithering with 'em.

[lukeottevanger]

Yes, I was going to type much the same as Sarge did, so instead let me simply emphasize it: Cooke explicitly said that he didn't want to offer 'his' version or 'his' completion of Mahler 10 - all he wanted to do was to provide the bare minimum to make Mahler's short score audible in an orchestral garb of the general sort Mahler wrote. He was well aware that if Mahler had finished the piece it would bear little resemblance to his [Cooke's] rendition. So to be fair to Mahler and to Cooke it's best to listen to Cooke's version with this in mind.

I have the full score to Cooke's edition, which includes, at the bottom of the page, Mahler's original sketch, exactly as he wrote it, crossings-out, arrows and all, but type-set so that it's easily legible. From the relationship between this and the full score above it it's clear how restrained Cooke was. What's more, the Cooke score simply doesn't look like Mahler - it's much barer, sparser, and often scanty on the figurations that Mahler would undoubtedly have devised for the interior parts. Cooke was well aware of this, of course.

Barshai fleshes things out a lot more, which is probably why some people seem to prefer him on a visceral level as a listening experience (I do myself). But in order to do so he takes more liberties with Mahler's incomplete short score - very musical ones, of course. There's no problem with this imaginative filling-out, but it's important to understand that it was never the direction which Cooke, with his more musicological attitude, wished to take.

[lukeottevanger]

For illustration, a page of my copy of the Mahler-Cooke, as used long ago on the mystery scores thread:

[karlhenning]

And, many thanks to you also, Luke!

I have some form of the Mahler Tenth at home, thanks to a kindly neighbor.  And I recall vividly how well I enjoyed the Ninth when Levine led the BSO in that 'un, last season . . . I should make some time for the Tenth soon.