Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[jlaurson]

I presume that every Mahler biographer has to tackle his life from a different perspective or by using "new" research to be able to have their own niche in the Mahler universe. I suspect that some of these books can be grueling depending on the perspective and writing style.

I would assume that the German writing style would be considerably worse and unpleasant than English... but perhaps not much worse than French? And that a really good English translation could be superior to the original certainly in the German and well possibly in the French as well. Certainly the academic style in Germany is abominable, even if Fischer is, by all accounts, not the worst proponent.

From the New York Times: an excerpt from John Adams' review:

The summa of all Mahler study, the first source of reference for anyone seriously interested in Mahler, is the massive multi­volume biography by Henry-Louis de La Grange. This is a work of exhaustive and exhausting research that does for its subject what similar studies by Joseph Frank did for Dostoyevsky and Leon Edel for Henry James. But de La Grange's study amounts to several thousand dense pages in which genuinely important information is mixed in with tedious data about long-forgotten singers, ticket sales and contract negotiations, along with more footnotes than a David Foster Wallace novel (and nowhere near as much fun).

For those who desire a more manageable overview of this artist's extraordinary life and work, Jens Malte Fischer's "Gustav Mahler" (translated from the German by Stewart Spencer) is a good place to start. At 700-plus pages, Fischer's book is no bagatelle either, but it is the work of a sympathetic writer who takes pains to establish the historical and cultural milieu that informs Mahler's music. His affection for his subject is palpable, the descriptions of the rural setting of the composer's Bohemian childhood are evocative, and the discussions of the symphonies and song cycles are original and refreshingly opinionated. He frequently cites Theodor Adorno's writings on Mahler, for both their positive and their pejorative appraisals, and in reading them one is yet again reminded of how musically penetrating that philosopher's statements can be, despite the often ­koan-like perplexities of their expression. It was Adorno who addressed what was for many a persistent and uncomfortable issue about the banality of some of Mahler's musical ideas by pointing out that he had turned "cliché" into "event."

I'm browsing German reviews and will post about them later.

[ritter]

In June 2016, at the Théâtre des Champs-Elysées in Paris (and elsewhere, I would presume), the Vienna Philharmonic under Daniele Gatti will be performing Das Lied von der Erde, with the peculiarity that star tenor Jonas Kaufmann will sing all the lieder of the piece 



http://2016.theatrechampselysees.fr/la-saison/orchestre/orchestres-residents/orchestre-philharmonique-de-vienne-1

I much admire Mr. Kaufmann's artistry, but this looks more like a circus act than anything else. Furthermore, I think that robbing DLvdE of the alternation between two voices can make it reeeeally tedious 

The question is, of course, will they be doing the version for tenor and mezzo, or that for tenor and baritone? 

[kishnevi]

I much admire Mr. Kaufmann's artistry, but this looks more like a circus act than anything else. Furthermore, I think that robbing DLvdE of the alternation between two voices can make it reeeeally tedious 

You are probably right.  But Kaufmann is one of the few singers who might be able to pull it off.  Gerharer is another one.

[jlaurson]

In June 2016, at the Théâtre des Champs-Elysées in Paris (and elsewhere, I would presume), the Vienna Philharmonic under Daniele Gatti will be performing Das Lied von der Erde, with the peculiarity that star tenor Jonas Kaufmann will sing all the lieder of the piece 



http://2016.theatrechampselysees.fr/la-saison/orchestre/orchestres-residents/orchestre-philharmonique-de-vienne-1

I much admire Mr. Kaufmann's artistry, but this looks more like a circus act than anything else. Furthermore, I think that robbing DLvdE of the alternation between two voices can make it reeeeally tedious 

The question is, of course, will they be doing the version for tenor and mezzo, or that for tenor and baritone? 

Kaufmann's fee is so bloody high, they couldn't afford a decent mezzo anymore.

[Pat B]

From the listening thread:

I would like to see Immerseel take up Mahler with a smaller more period authentic band.  This is kind of in that style.

You may know this already, but Herreweghe has done 4, Das Lied, and the Wunderhorn songs, the latter also with Connolly. Slowik and his Smithsonian group have also done 4 (in a chamber arrangement) and Das Lied. I have Slowik's 4 and like it. I sampled Herreweghe's 4 but was really turned off by the soprano.

In the case of Mahler, I'm not sure that smaller is period authentic. Regardless, I'm all for exploring different performance styles and configurations.

[Pat B]

I thought of that as I was posting, but would like to hear Mahler done with more transparency anyway.

Sorry for the semantic quibble -- I knew what you meant.

[PerfectWagnerite]

In the case of Mahler, I'm not sure that smaller is period authentic. Regardless, I'm all for exploring different performance styles and configurations.

With Mahler there is no question what his intentions were as his scores and directions are meticulous. Invariably he calls for a huge orchestra with the largest complement of strings. It might be interesting to hear his works performed by a smaller ensemble but there is nothing HIP or authentic with these performances.

[kishnevi]

With Mahler there is no question what his intentions were as his scores and directions are meticulous. Invariably he calls for a huge orchestra with the largest complement of strings. It might be interesting to hear his works performed by a smaller ensemble but there is nothing HIP or authentic with these performances.

In the case of DLvdE, the arrangement was by Schoenberg within a few years of Mahler's death, so it certainly meets the HIP test. Do not know about the Fourth.

I have both the Herreweghe and Smithsonian DLvdE recordings.  The smaller forces underwhelmed me, which is why I did not check into the chamber version of the Fourth.

[Pat B]

With Mahler there is no question what his intentions were as his scores and directions are meticulous. Invariably he calls for a huge orchestra with the largest complement of strings. It might be interesting to hear his works performed by a smaller ensemble but there is nothing HIP or authentic with these performances.

Oh, it sounds like you know a lot about this. What size string section did Mahler specify for the 4th symphony?

[PerfectWagnerite]

Oh, it sounds like you know a lot about this. What size string section did Mahler specify for the 4th symphony?

An excellent question ! But we can do some simple math to figure out one out. In works like sym 2, 3, or 7 where Mahler wanted "The largest possible contingent of strings" I have seen live performances where the string section is 12/12/10/10/8 so that would be considered "large". You can even argue that Mahler wanted more strings if they are available based on "largest possible". Comparing the orchestration of No. 3 and 4 shows that symphony no. 4 has 4 less horns, 1 less trumpet 4 less trombones, one less tuba, one or two less clarinet, and maybe one less percussion player. So disregarding the strings symphony number 4 has 12-13 less players on stage but mostly the reduction is in the brass section. The woodwinds are more or less the same. So one way would be to proportionally reduce the number of strings to maybe 8/8/8/8/6. You can also argue that since the reduction in the orchestra in number 4 is by entire sections (no trombones, tubas, 4 less horns) the basic balance should stay the same in that case you keep the 12/12/10/10/8 string numbers.

In any case a good Mahler performance IS already very transparent, you don't need to reduce the size of the orchestra to achieve that.

[Pat B]

An excellent question ! But we can do some simple math to figure out one out. In works like sym 2, 3, or 7 where Mahler wanted "The largest possible contingent of strings" I have seen live performances where the string section is 12/12/10/10/8 so that would be considered "large". You can even argue that Mahler wanted more strings if they are available based on "largest possible". Comparing the orchestration of No. 3 and 4 shows that symphony no. 4 has 4 less horns, 1 less trumpet 4 less trombones, one less tuba, one or two less clarinet, and maybe one less percussion player. So disregarding the strings symphony number 4 has 12-13 less players on stage but mostly the reduction is in the brass section. The woodwinds are more or less the same. So one way would be to proportionally reduce the number of strings to maybe 8/8/8/8/6. You can also argue that since the reduction in the orchestra in number 4 is by entire sections (no trombones, tubas, 4 less horns) the basic balance should stay the same in that case you keep the 12/12/10/10/8 string numbers.

In any case a good Mahler performance IS already very transparent, you don't need to reduce the size of the orchestra to achieve that.

I see. I was hoping that by "his directions are meticulous" and "invariably he calls for the largest complement of strings," you meant something other than "I can estimate sizes proportionally based on a live performance I saw of a different work."

Regardless, Herreweghe's 4 uses string sections of 12-12-9-8-6 which fits right in with your estimates.

And of course, orchestral size is only one of many performance decisions.

[PerfectWagnerite]

I see. I was hoping that by "his directions are meticulous" and "invariably he calls for the largest complement of strings," you meant something other than "I can estimate sizes proportionally based on a live performance I saw of a different work."

Regardless, Herreweghe's 4 uses string sections of 12-12-9-8-6 which fits right in with your estimates.

And of course, orchestral size is only one of many performance decisions.

No I saw live 4th also. It was 12-12 first/second violins. Where I was sitting I couldn't count the exact number of cellos, violas and basses so it was comparable to the orchestra size of other "larger" works.

There is a M4 on youtube also with Haitink and the orchestra size is about 12/12/10/10/8 also.

12-12-9-8-6? Is that for 1st vln/2nd vln/violas/cellos/basses? 9 is a weird number for cello or violas ?

[Pat B]

No I saw live 4th also. It was 12-12 first/second violins. Where I was sitting I couldn't count the exact number of cellos, violas and basses so it was comparable to the orchestra size of other "larger" works.

There is a M4 on youtube also with Haitink and the orchestra size is about 12/12/10/10/8 also.

Those are conventional string-section sizes for orchestras these days. I was trying to understand your assertions in post #3272.

If you're interested, Herreweghe's liner notes (available online here) touch briefly on what HIP means in Mahler, among other things.

12-12-9-8-6? Is that for 1st vln/2nd vln/violas/cellos/basses? 9 is a weird number for cello or violas ?

Yes. Yes. Even numbers are the norm but odd numbers are not unheard of.

[PerfectWagnerite]

If you're interested, Herreweghe's liner notes (available online here) touch briefly on what HIP means in Mahler, among other things.

Nice article. Herreweghe isn't very specific though. He mentions respect for the 'style' of instrumental practice, but didn't give a single example as to what that style might be. Or maybe there isn't a defined style since those of Klemperer and Walter are so different like he said. He mentions the bowing of his orchestra tries to maintain the way a vocal line is maintained and not equalization, which is really nothing new. And I fail to see how "nurtured by baroque and classical practice" has any relevance to performing Mahler, and Herreweghe doesn't explain. The only concrete item related to performance is the use of guy strings and different wind and brass, which again is not new.

I don't have that recording. So what does he do differently?

[Pat B]

Nice article. Herreweghe isn't very specific though. He mentions respect for the 'style' of instrumental practice, but didn't give a single example as to what that style might be. Or maybe there isn't a defined style since those of Klemperer and Walter are so different like he said. He mentions the bowing of his orchestra tries to maintain the way a vocal line is maintained and not equalization, which is really nothing new. And I fail to see how "nurtured by baroque and classical practice" has any relevance to performing Mahler, and Herreweghe doesn't explain. The only concrete item related to performance is the use of guy strings and different wind and brass, which again is not new.

I don't have that recording. So what does he do differently?

I wish he had gone into more detail, but the performance and the lack of wild theories are consistent with Herreweghe's reputation as an HIP moderate. If you think gut strings and a different approach to bowing are "nothing new" for a Mahler recording, then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

I just listened to it in full on spotify. It's pretty great aside from the soprano.

[PerfectWagnerite]

If you think gut strings and a different approach to bowing are "nothing new" for a Mahler recording, then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

I just listened to it in full on spotify. It's pretty great aside from the soprano.

I meant using gut strings is nothing new. Without going to at least some level of detail Herreweghe comes across (at least in the notes) as one that tries to make gut strings, shrill winds and brasses as somehow tantamount to "authenticity". Did he try to duplicate the instruments of Mahler's time or is it a one-size-fits-all thing? We would never know. Instead of spending valuable time digressing on Mahler's orchestration of Beethoven's 9th or what Mahler would have thought when someone messes with his scores Herreweghe should have spent more time on "period instrument Mahler" which is exactly what he is seeking out to do in this recording.

What I find particularly astonishing (coming from a Baroque specialist like him) is what exactly does a culture cultivated in playing Baroque music has anything to do with playing Mahler. That in itself is an interesting subject. By that extension ensembles like the Academy or Ancient Music or Tafelmusik would make great Mahler orchestras.

FYI the entire work can be heard free on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mh3nwx3MAI&index=2&list=PL4RzGT98rL9Am32s-p0dCIm0_MSQhfHLg

[kishnevi]

Herreweghe did a very good Bruckner 7 with the Orchestre d'Champs Elysee, so late 19th century is not a foreign country to him.

[Karl Henning]

Golly;  I find that I love, but love Lenny's recording of the Fifth with the NY Phil!  And, of course, now I have all the remaining eight still waiting for me in The Box . . . .

[Moonfish]

Golly;  I find that I love, but love Lenny's recording of the Fifth with the NY Phil!  And, of course, now I have all the remaining eight still waiting for me in The Box . . . .

+1

[Minor Key]

I want to preface my comments by saying that I'm a musical moron. I have absolutely no talent or musical education whatsoever. The reason I'm on this forum is due to a recently discovered passion for classical music. So what I say means nothing. But I would like to hear your learned opinions and comments.

Recently I purchased the Barshai recording of Mahler's 10th. And I love it!
What are your thoughts on this recording or on the reconstructed Mahler 10's out there? Is one better than the other?

FWIW, I love all Mahler's symphonies except the 3rd and 8th, which I haven't really given a chance yet. I particulary love Abbado's 6th, 7th and 9th and Maazel's 2nd.
I look forward to learning from your comments.