Gustav Mahler
Born July 7, 1860, Kalischt, Bohemia.
Died May 18, 1911, Vienna, Austria.
Symphony No. 1 in D major, (1884-8, rev. 1893-6)
HISTORY
Mahlers Symphony Number One. What can be said about it which has not already been said, apart from this was his most troublesome Symphony?
Well, we can start with the revelation that it is not a Symphony per se. Mahler already had his first Symphony in mind when he was composing Songs of a Wayfarer (1884), a complimentary accompaniment for Der Trompeter von Säkkingen by Joseph Victor von Scheffel, and it is from these origins and a broken love affair with Soprano Joanna Richter (a singer at the Kassel Opera which Mahler commanded) that his first Symphony emerged. Songs of a Wayfarer became hugely successful in its own right, but Gustav Mahler was determined to forge his destiny in the Symphonic form. Mahlers earlier song music thus found its considered way into his first Symphony, revised and changed to fit the Symphonic format. So it is safe to say that Mahler did not sit down and write the First from scratch. He did in fact gather much of it from what had gone before (without the lieder) and 'arrange' it to fit. The original 1st had been arranged with five movements, one of which (the score of which was 'discovered' in 1966) was the second movement known as 'Blumine'. But Mahler dropped this in 1896, seven years after its first performance, presumably so that the symphony would follow the classic four movement structure.
His completed (but not final) draft of the score was finished in the first six weeks of 1888, at which time he said to a colleague: "It has turned out so overwhelming it came gushing out like a mountain torrent!"
The first performance of the Symphony was in Budapest, 20/11/1889. At this stage it had 5 movements, no program, and was titled "Symphonic Poem in Two parts" – the first part holding movements one and two (Blumine), and the second part holding the rest. Mahlers "mountain torrent" was met by confusion and some hostility because it was so different (as we shall see) to what audiences of the day expected from the form.
By the time it came to its following performances in Hamburg and Weimar (1893, 1894), Mahler had tinkered some more and called the work 'Titan – Tone poem in Symphonic form.' In truth, he did this because he didn't really know how else to theme or programme the work, as he knew his audience needed something to refer to so they could better understand what the music meant. He'd plucked 'The Titan' from a novel by German writer and romanticist Jean Paul. The only thematic thread in common with the Symphony and Jean Pauls Titan is the story of a broken heart, but Mahler himself accepted the association was too loose to be properly coupled. By the time Mahler came to conduct the work himself in Berlin, two years after Weimar, he'd dropped the 'Blumine' second movement, messed around with the score some more, dropped the reference to 'Titan' and instead ventured out with the work repackaged as 'Symphony in D major, for large Orchestra'. Well, this didn't work either, because as late as 1899, the work was hissed at by the audience in Vienna. Mahler finally had the work finalised and published as we know it today between 1898 and 1900, settling on a four movement symphony with no programme called 'Symphony No. 1 in D major'.
So why was the work so unappreciated by audiences, and what caused Mahler to become so perplexed by it?
THE SYMPHONY
First Movement.
Langsam, schleppend - Immer sehr gemächlich [Slow, held back - Always very leisurely]
The major orchestral influences of the late 1800's were Berlioz, Wagner, Schumann and other great orchestral masters, and the audiences of the day expected to hear such coming from the likes of their contempory composers, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner et al. Mahler, however, had other ideas.
Mahlers first opens in a fundamentally different way from what one might expect from the period. Strings play seven octaves of 'A' natural in a quiet, somewhat magical opening. The Octaves are split – some of the double basses play a low A, but the rest of the strings are in higher harmonics. It is the humming of the Universe around us, and it suggests a springboard for life to come. The woodwinds join in, developing a theme, but suddenly a contrasting military like theme is played by offstage trumpets, announcing something different. The clarinet then ushers in some cuckoo birdsong, and from this an airy sauntering melody like a walk in Springtime emerges. The walking is here is clearly done by the wayfarer from the second song of 'Lieder eines fahrenden Geselln', (Songs of a Wayfarer) "I went this morning over the field." This theme continues and the wayfarer continues his walk in a blaze of happiness, interrupted only by some threatening tones from the basses, tuba and bass drum. The threat fades quickly, giving way to the clarinet birdsong and the wayfarer continues his happy journey. By the end of the movement, Mr. Wayfarer is near ecstatic, and a herald of horns announce a positive end to his delightful walk.
Second Movement.
Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell - Trio: Recht gemächlich [Moving strongly, but not too fast - Trio: leisurely]
This is the Scherzo. The birdcall theme is picked up again, but this time not by a delightful clarinet, but by ominous cellos and basses. The cellos and basses are not in a good mood with this, and turn the birdsong into something of a stomping dance. This builds to an exciting fanfare before giving way to echoes of "I went this morning over the field", and again, our happy wayfarer is on his journey again. From his influence, the scherzo becomes a joy unto itself, building to and reaching a giddy climax. This is all good and well for Mr. Wayfarer, but what comes next is one of the biggest puzzles in symphonic history...
Third Movement.
Feierlich und gemessen, ohne zu schleppen - Sehr einfach und schlicht wie eine Volksweise [Solemn and measured, without dragging - Simple, like a folk melody]
The song known to Mahler in its Austrian guise as Bruder Martin enters in a minor key. We know it as Frere Jacques, and the theme is asked by Mahler to be played as a 'parody'. The lyrics of Frere Jacques can be paraphrased in translaton as "Wake up to the bells!" and one wonders if Mahler is trying to wake the wayfarer up from his dizzying walk, to get him to 'get real'. Frere Jacques minor key presents it as a funeral march of sorts, definitely not the delightful song we often hear sung by school children. This dirge is joined by all but the trumpets and trombones which seem to be holing themselves back for something to come. Our wayfarers Universe is no longer the harmonic 'A' which started him off, and he tries to consolidate himself by taking up a poor mans drum and cymbal, once referred to 'like a one man band in a funeral march.'
Still, there are very faint echoes of the first movement here until a new melody emerges. This melody is in fact the final song of 'Lieder eines fahrenden Geselln', the pain of a lost love and the recovery from that through the joy of nature. A wistful longing for death and a mock at the futility of life are parodied throughout this movement...so where does that leave Mr. Wayfarer?
Fourth Movement.
Stürmisch bewegt - Sehr gesangvoll [Tempestuously - Very melodious]
In the opening of the fourth movement, the trumpets and trombones make up for their previous absences by crashing in with what Mahler called "the cry of a wounded heart." Interestingly, this cry of a wounded heart is again Frere Jacques, only this time with two extra notes at beginning and end and played a third lower. This gives way to a lush romantic theme, a reminiscence of love once held. There is some discussion as to what comes after the love theme – it is pretty close to "And he shall reign" from Handels Messiah, maybe indicating a recovery from the heartbreak – this rises from horns and an orchestral fullness reflects upon much of the Symphony which has gone before, reaching a massive climax which ends...perhaps unexpectedly...with two notes, which hark back to natures birdcall heard in the first movement.
In Summary.
This Symphony shows us the travels of a lovesick wayfarer. Mahler started this work when he was 24 years old, and it is no wonder the work was met by such hostility. It is a modern, multi-layered, challenging and thought provoking piece which didn't sit well with the conventional classical palate of the era it was composed. Its themes and ideas are so paradoxical that it is no surprise that Mahler dropped the programme he initially wrote for it. Mahlers Symphony No. 1 in D major can only be explained through ones personal experience of it – its theme isn't linear and its parallels are always trying to become one.
Today, it still unfairly carries the 'Titan' tag, which Mahler himself dropped in 1896, three or four years before his truly final score was published. We can make up our minds what its all about ourselves, which was Mahlers final intent when it was published with no program in 1900. For me it is a Symphony describing one mans death of love and nature, and the clawing of his sensibility back in an infinite but unpredictable Universe.
Sample, beginning of fourth movement from one of my favourite Mahler cycles... the late Klaus Tennstedt with the LPO - the one to get if you want to hear Mahler in full glory!
Thanks for these program notes. You know we need more of this kind of thing. I do score studies all the time and it would be nice to have threads dedicated to the musical analysis of works (including measure numbers, themes, forms, etc). Professor Greenberg from the Teaching Company calls them "Word Scores".
Thanks, this is good.. ;)
Mahler10th,
Thank you very much for this walkthrough. It would be helpful if more of these were available.
What a nice read. Thanks very much!
Dr. Hanslick frowns upon this thread.
(http://www.geocities.co.jp/MusicHall/8456/hanslick0001.jpg)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 13, 2008, 06:26:48 AM
Dr. Hanslick frowns upon this thread.
(http://www.geocities.co.jp/MusicHall/8456/hanslick0001.jpg)
Your picture isn't showing up here. Here's the pic of the crabbit Hanslick.
Seeing if you'll get a more productive response from the Riff Raff here M? ;D
I'm still waiting for the next installment at the Upper Chamber!!
Quote from: Rod Corkin on June 13, 2008, 07:59:27 AM
Seeing if you'll get a more productive response from the Riff Raff here M? ;D
I'm still waiting for the next installment at the Upper Chamber!!
Yes a better response here as the RIFRAF from where it was originally posted.
John I read this essay from you before, but since I was in the process of leaving the house, so to say, I want to compliment you on the beautiful and well expressed piece, that I read with great pleasure, very much producing the images that belong to this symphony.
Rod, Not a clue what your post was about. As a two-liner, perhaps over-distilled.
mahler10th, thanks for the effort, I enjoyed the read. I have just got hold of the Gergiev LSO version. Hitherto my listening has mostly been to the Kibelik studio recording and much loved it is. I need more time to absorb the Gergiev, only had one listen so far, and that was interrupted several time.
Initial reaction is that, as might be guessed, Gergiev goes full tilt at it and to the maximum he brings out the contrasts between the bucolic pastoral and the hysterical.
Mike
Quote from: MN Dave on June 13, 2008, 08:17:09 AM
"Riff Raff": One who does not pucker up to Rod Corkin's Beethoven-loving ass with Handelian lips.
Ehhhh, coffee spilled :o :P ;D
Well, thanks for all the positive responses.
The thing is, I took to this writing a walkthrough (working on another now) from Rod himself, because he published a few of his own Beethoven ones in another forum, and liking the structural approach and being a writer I decided to emulate the process. I discovered that listening, researching, listening again and researching and writing about a piece is fantastically benificial to the enjoyment of it.
I did post this on 'the' other forum ("the upper chamber") FIRST, but the responses were...well, there wasn't much to say in response to the few responses it got! It needed a better home, that's for sure, which is why it's been published here. I am surprised that no-one has taken issue with anything or offered an alternative on any of my comments, only compliments, and from some very well informed people here at that - I must be quite good at this sort of thing, so I'll publish another HERE soon to see 'what happens' again.
To my knowledge, there is no riff raff here - there ARE some people like me getting into the process and enjoying it very much, but on the whole the opinions and information here are wider, better informed and sometimes more colourful, coming from people enjoying and participating in the VAST spectrum of Classical Music rather than (in the main,) the late Classical era.
I will be publishing lots of stuff like this over time because I have found I enjoy the process very much.
Mike, I have only heard Gergiev do 1 & 6 and wasn't too happy with his treatment. However, his set will be out soon, I'll get it, and hopefully it's better than I've heard. (Shame, cos I love Gergiev.)
Thanks everyone else for their compliments on my "effort"! :o ;D
Quote from: knight on June 13, 2008, 08:09:10 AM
I have just got hold of the Gergiev LSO version.
Initial reaction is that, as might be guessed, Gergiev goes full tilt at it and to the maximum he brings out the contrasts between the bucolic pastoral and the hysterical.
'Rushed', 'Forced', 'No Flow' 'Out of ones Comfort Zone', 'Run through' & its 'Lunchtime' before any shimmerings of 'Dawn & Daybreak' are allowed to mature. With Gergiev its sandwich time, before cornflake time...it is that fast and this, to me, puts the rest of the symphony out of natural sync.
His 6th fares much better ;)
Tony, How good to see you lured to post again. Do please expand your thinking for us. I very much enjoyed his fix on the 6th which I think yields well to the hyper approach. I have never seen the 1st in that way. Thus my love of the Kubelik. So I will have to have another listen over the weekend. Initially I got the impression of gear changes that were too violent...we shall see.
Mike
Quote from: mahler10th on June 13, 2008, 09:15:09 AM
I am surprised that no-one has taken issue with anything or offered an alternative on any of my comments, only compliments, and from some very well informed people here at that - I must be quite good at this sort of thing, so I'll publish another HERE soon to see 'what happens' again.
You are good, and it is so well laid out, that I for one, could not add one ioata to give more insight!
And that's the honest truth. :)
Quote from: knight on June 13, 2008, 09:26:33 AM
Tony, How good to see you lured to post again. Do please expand your thinking for us. I very much enjoyed his fix on the 6th which I think yields well to the hyper approach. I have never seen the 1st in that way. Thus my love of the Kubelik. So I will have to have another listen over the weekend. Initially I got the impression of gear changes that were too violent...we shall see.
Mike
Well yes, let me start listening to them too, before they gather to much dust!
It has been said many times before...the Kubelik studio recordings (and most of the rest, some if them better) are pure poetry. Kubelik brings an aesthetic lyricism to Mahler which cannot be found elsewhere, and he's in my top three Mahlerians! When it comes to the tenth adagio, Kubelik is STILL my man.
Quote from: knight on June 13, 2008, 08:09:10 AM
Rod, Not a clue what your post was about. As a two-liner, perhaps over-distilled.
No it was not a two liner, please let me elaborate... Mahler10th's fine essay, inspired as has been mentioned by my own fine essays on Beethoven's 9 Symphonies, was actually was first presented to the world at my site.
Quote from: knight on June 13, 2008, 09:26:33 AM
Tony, How good to see you lured to post again. Do please expand your thinking for us. I very much enjoyed his fix on the 6th which I think yields well to the hyper approach. I have never seen the 1st in that way. Thus my love of the Kubelik. So I will have to have another listen over the weekend. Initially I got the impression of gear changes that were too violent...we shall see.
Mike
Mike,
Yes the PC's been on but I've seldom been at home ;D A friend of mine who has his LSO Season Ticket came away gutted over the 1st Symphony. He couldn't believe how Gergiev performed this, his words were somewhat stronger than mine, 'short changed' were highly touted words. To me this performance is the fastest I have ever heard and it once the start of this work is marred then its all downhill (maybe that's too strong) perhaps at the same level from then on. The speed at which Gergiev arrives at the 'ging heut morgen' theme is amazing, this too, rushed.
I can't fault the sound recording, very good but the performance bored me (which seldom happens with Mahler). As a contradiction in terms it was so fast that I was glad when it was over but it seemed an age to be so.
I have lost track of many persons names on the forum, nice to know that most of the people have kept their original names.
As to the theme of the post, who sees his 1st symphony as his most problematic....surely the 2nd and the time it took to create an ending?
Very nicely reviewed though. Its time to move on and play the LSO/Solti, not 'LSO Live' but 'LSO much better' ;)
Cheers,
Mahler was right to drop the program. Useful, perhaps, in structuring a piece during creation, but otherwise a useless impediment to appreciation.
Quote from: mahler10th on June 13, 2008, 09:15:09 AM
It needed a better home, that's for sure, which is why it's been published here.
You wound me M10th, after all the nice things I have said about this essay. :(
And still you are not satisfied with the response even here, in this
better home, as I could have told you. I recommend you search out a dedicated Mahler forum if you want more critical feedback.
So we will not be seeing your next installment at the upper chamber?
Quote from: mahler10th on June 13, 2008, 09:36:02 AM
It has been said many times before...the Kubelik studio recordings (and most of the rest, some if them better) are pure poetry. Kubelik brings an aesthetic lyricism to Mahler which cannot be found elsewhere, and he's in my top three Mahlerians! When it comes to the tenth adagio, Kubelik is STILL my man.
Kubelik, I have heard often described as 'safe' Mahler. Which I totally disagree, his approach to Mahler is for me pretty near the finished article 'as I like to hear Mahler' personally.
And his live recordings are every bit as natural and delightful, they show me how one conductor can find Mahler every bit a challenge second time around without losing any drive.
Rod, thank you, ultimately I got the allusion.
I do hope I am not derailing the thread as I have moved away from discussion of the piece itself onto discussion of performances. I will have to have a think if there is anything I can contribute about the symphony.
Mike
Tony, I bought the Kubelik DG set on LP when I was about 17. I think he was too deep as an interpreter for me and I was more attracted to the flashy interpretations. It has taken me a lot of years to begin to really appreciate how musical his fix on the music is.
When I was listening to the Gergiev 1st I was thinking I would compare the running time as the first movement is so obviously fast. Of course there are many occasions when speed tells us very little, but excessive speed is crippling.
Mike
"I did post this on 'the' other forum ("the upper chamber") FIRST"
Yes, that is true, I have said that so as not to mislead anyone that this is completely exclusive.
A dedicated Mahler forum is out of the question for me, because I am not exclusively a Mahler lover, nor do I want to hear from people who like only Mahler. I am (and always have been) more a lover of Sibelius, and I asusme the Mahler guise only because his tenth (adagio) played by Kubelik is the ONLY PIECE OF CLASSICAL MUSIC WHICH HAS MADE ME SHED TEARS. I also do much of other composers.
Rod: "And still you are not satisfied with the response even here, in this better place, as I could have told you..."
Rod, that is daft, my post was an appreciation and a shocking display of my growing big head because this Mahler walkthrough has been met so well here by such well informed people.
Rod: "So we will not be seeing your next installment at the upper chamber?"
There is no exclusivity, but I'll put it here first this time.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on June 13, 2008, 09:42:12 AM
You wound me M10th, after all the nice things I have said about this essay. :(
Good for you to feel, what you did to others!
Quote from: Harry on June 13, 2008, 09:53:56 AM
Good for you to feel, what you did to others!
You wound yourself Harry. ::)
Enough please. No more with the off topic remarks, I am intent this thread not be derailed. I am off out for the evening now....so I am trusting you....but I will be back.
Mike
Quote from: mahler10th on June 13, 2008, 09:53:22 AM
Rod: "And still you are not satisfied with the response even here, in this better place, as I could have told you..."
Rod, that is daft, my post was an appreciation and a shocking display of my growing big head because this Mahler walkthrough has been met so well here by such well informed people.
We'll I've looked though all the responses so far and apart from a few 'good's and 'thankyou's there is only
one respondent who has made an in any way technical response, on
one occasion. I'd say so far you should still be expecting MUCH more! Certainly there is little or no more substance here so far than in your thread at CMM. I asked you to post a movement or two at my site for some common frame of reference for debate but it seems you have abandoned your own topic there. The ways of men are strange indeed!
Quote from: mahler10th on June 13, 2008, 09:53:22 AM
Rod: "So we will not be seeing your next installment at the upper chamber?"
There is no exclusivity, but I'll put it here first this time.
Well I can't say I'm too concerned with exclusivity, you can send us your cast-offs from now on M. I must say you seem to attach a certain pride to this publication. You behaviour has changed somewhat because of it.
So returning to the Mahler 1, it is one of my favorite works, and thank you, mahler 10, for posting your thoughts on it. I find it an audacious symphony, one that uses a rather traditional structure (i.e., four movements) but finds countless new ways to surprise listeners. And it certainly foreshadows his even more audacious creations to come.
I'd be interested to hear Gergiev's take on it. He does the Sixth quite well (IMHO) but somehow I could imagine the springlike, pastoral elements of the First eluding him. And the First isn't nearly as neurotic, violent or (seemingly) chaotic as some of its successors.
--Bruce
Quote from: Rod Corkin on June 13, 2008, 10:34:37 AM
Well I can't say I'm too concerned with exclusivity, you can send us your cast-offs from now on M. I must say you seem to attach a certain pride to this publication. You behaviour has changed somewhat because of it.
Well, that's a right strange response, I must say! I have no pride in it oher than it has been well met by some here who may know infinitely more than I do on the subject. I am sorry you choose to see my happiness as pride and that I have changed. As someone once
said to me on another subject, you are talking hair singeing nonsense with this.
Your choice words 'cast-offs' is equally hair singeing. I am casting nothing off. I'm merely distributing information as I see it and wondering what kind of feedback will result. This inspires me to go further with the format you inspired me with, and of that, I
am proud.
Quote from: bhodges on June 13, 2008, 10:58:57 AM
So returning to the Mahler 1, it is one of my favorite works, and thank you, mahler 10, for posting your thoughts on it. I find it an audacious symphony, one that uses a rather traditional structure (i.e., four movements) but finds countless new ways to surprise listeners. And it certainly foreshadows his even more audacious creations to come.
I'd be interested to hear Gergiev's take on it. He does the Sixth quite well (IMHO) but somehow I could imagine the springlike, pastoral elements of the First eluding him. And the First isn't nearly as neurotic, violent or (seemingly) chaotic as some of its successors.
--Bruce
Yes Bruce, it is much a multi faceted symphony and debate goes on about its meaning. It's four movement structure is also mysterious, as it was initially composed with five. We can only wonder what made him take that Blumine movement out - if no-ones heard it, I'll post it on Box.net to be heard, let me know.
My problem with Gergiev and his Mahler first is that as has already been said, it is as fast as hell, and somehow out of context, and even in the sixth Gergiev has not really understood the core of Mahlers voice, and while I'd admit it is well played (the sixth, that is) I do not feel it is well conveyed in its purpose.
I'll have to listen to it again to figure out why this may be so as I may be horribly wrong, but I don't think so.
Mahler 1 is also one of my favourite works Bruce, moreso because it's a real riddle unto itself. ???
Just to be a little clearer, I haven't heard Gergiev's recording of the Sixth; he did it live with the New York Philharmonic awhile back, and it was terrific (IMHO). Not "better than" other versions, necessarily (and these days there are a lot of them) but it stood up well. But I'd like to hear his recording.
And if he's taking the First too fast, that would seem to me to be a mistake, since there is much to savor in that piece. I think the first movement, in particular, has many "stop and smell the roses" moments, and if they are a bit slower, it makes the cataclysmic parts even more effective. I like lots of First's, but (just to cite a slower one) I do like Chailly's rather leisurely tempi here. For some he's too slow, but I think he makes his choices work, similarly to his generally slower versions of some of the other Mahler symphonies.
PS, last time I heard this was just a few weeks ago with Haitink and Chicago at Carnegie Hall--excellent.
--Bruce
Fair enough. Ironically by coincidence someone has taken up your topic at 'the place that is not better', I hope you will find time to respond to it! Patience is a virtue in this game. Sooner or later someone usually comes along with something to say.
Quote from: bhodges on June 13, 2008, 11:46:38 AM
Gergiev's recording of the Sixth; he did it live with the New York Philharmonic awhile back
Did he do the piece with them, or they with him, if you know what I mean?
Quote from: bhodges on June 13, 2008, 11:46:38 AM
and it was terrific (IMHO)
Could you point me to a critical review of a concert you went to? I don't recall ever having read anything but "terrific", "outstanding", "marvelous", "excellent". At some point, these words then lose meaning.
I would like to know what the OP (or anyone else) has to say about the very last two notes of the symphony - that unison octave drop D to D. I have my own theory about its role in the composition, which I'll post a little later when I'm fully awake. But how about performance? Should the last two notes be taken strictly in tempo (which accelerates towards the end, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the conductor), or should there be a slight stentando? Should the downbeat receive a stronger accent than the second beat (a trochee), or should both notes receive more or less equal accents (a spondee)? I think I've heard it all these ways.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 14, 2008, 02:26:57 AM
I would like to know what the OP (or anyone else) has to say about the very last two notes of the symphony - that unison octave drop D to D. I have my own theory about its role in the composition, which I'll post a little later when I'm fully awake. But how about performance? Should the last two notes be taken strictly in tempo (which accelerates towards the end, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the conductor), or should there be a slight stentando? Should the downbeat receive a stronger accent than the second beat (a trochee), or should both notes receive more or less equal accents (a spondee)? I think I've heard it all these ways.
Not keen on the 'slight stendando' approach, the end of the fourth movement should be filled with hope and optimism. Equal accents are ok, but sometimes are out of proportion with what has gone before. I like the trochee aproach because it seems to give it a more rounded (but still sudden) finish.
I have the 1,2,3 conducted by Abbado, and find his interpretation highly approachable, and attention to details, that is at times phenomenal. However Tennstedt and Neuman, and also Inbal have their say in the matter, so I find them all enjoyable. Since Kubelik is highly praised, this set will be the next on my list.
I owned the Naxos version for forever and just recently added Lenny/Concertgebouw. I've always enjoyed this symphony even though I don't consider myself a Mahlerite (yet). It has loads of personality. Or at least that's the overall impression for me. Here was someone who had something to say and said it in interesting and unique ways--unique in my symphony-listening experience anyway.
If you guys want to try a decent recording of this work in good, modern sound i recommend Pesek Litton. A real surprise from such an obscure name.
As two names though, not nearly so obscure.
Mike
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 14, 2008, 04:30:14 AM
If you guys want to try a decent recording of this work in good, modern sound i recommend Pesek Litton. A real surprise from such an obscure name.
Sure you're not talking about this one?
QuoteAmazon.com
Don't sneer at these performances simply because the orchestras and conductors may not be the biggest names. They are both exceptionally fine. Litton's Mahler Symphony No. 1 is a fresh, impetuous performance in the grand Romantic tradition, played with tremendous gusto. Pesek's Ninth is one of the very best around. Not only does the orchestra play like their lives depended on it, the interpretation has numerous imaginative touches--particularly the rapt treatment of the third movement's quiet central section, with its foreshadowing of the melody of the great final Adagio. And best of all, both performances are captured in splendid sound. At budget price, this is a steal and a half. -- David Hurwitz
Quote from: knight on June 14, 2008, 05:09:10 AM
As two names though, not nearly so obscure.
Mike
Erm, sorry. Andrew Litton is what i meant. I just copy/pasted the information from my hard drive because i had forgotten the name and also didn't remember that the CD contains two different names.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 14, 2008, 05:16:17 AM
Sure you're not talking about this one?
Yep. I don't know if the performance compares with the truly big horses. Not entirely familiar with this work, but it sounds pretty good so far and the sound quality is outstanding, which is important to enjoy the orchestration to it's fullest. Figured it was worth mentioning.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 14, 2008, 05:54:48 AM
Yep. I don't know if the performance compares with the truly big horses. Not entirely familiar with this work, but it sounds pretty good so far and the sound quality is outstanding, which makes is important to enjoy the orchestration to it's fullest. Figured it was worth mentioning.
Thank you. It's top of my list.
Top of my list, among the few I have, is Boulez. One of the first records I ever bought was Bruno Walter's recording of the First...after which I, too, became a teen-aged Mahlerite. (A lot of water has passed under the bridge--and over the dam!--since then.) I'm also fond of Kubelik's, which I had independently on CD before springing for the DG cycle.
Quote from: mahler10th on June 14, 2008, 06:03:04 AM
Thank you. It's top of my list.
Er...below I mean top of my "To get" list. Top of my Mahler 1st List is...a very old recording by Dimitri Mitropolous and the NYPO - had it been recorded with modern equipment, methinks it would sweep the board, first only to Kubeliks take.
I rarely ever listen to this piece anymore since I have heard (and played) it way too many times, but when I do want to hear it, I usually reach for CSO/Giulini. Giulini brought out the best in the CSO while under Solti they usually sounded thin and blaring, under him, they sounded slender and warmly glowing. A very lyrical version of the symphony which doesn't underplay the many quiet passages in order to get to the next "highlight". But the big tuttis have impact and weight, too.
Quote from: M forever on June 14, 2008, 11:33:59 AM
I rarely ever listen to this piece anymore since I have heard (and played) it way too many times, but when I do want to hear it, I usually reach for CSO/Giulini. Giulini brought out the best in the CSO while under Solti they usually sounded thin and blaring, under him, they sounded slender and warmly glowing. A very lyrical version of the symphony which doesn't underplay the many quiet passages in order to get to the next "highlight". But the big tuttis have impact and weight, too.
Just want to thank you M for your contributions in a recently locked thread.
As for Mahler 1, my only disc is an old LP of Walter/CSO....which I havne't heard for 25 (I guess) years. I need a CD and ponder this thread.
Quote from: erato on June 15, 2008, 12:11:11 AM
Just want to thank you M for your contributions in a recently locked thread.
Which one?
Quote from: M forever on June 15, 2008, 12:27:25 AM
Which one?
Not that many locks here - thankfully. About a certain Korngold concerto.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 14, 2008, 02:26:57 AM
I would like to know what the OP (or anyone else) has to say about the very last two notes of the symphony - that unison octave drop D to D. I have my own theory about its role in the composition, which I'll post a little later when I'm fully awake. But how about performance? Should the last two notes be taken strictly in tempo (which accelerates towards the end, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the conductor), or should there be a slight stentando? Should the downbeat receive a stronger accent than the second beat (a trochee), or should both notes receive more or less equal accents (a spondee)? I think I've heard it all these ways.
What is your take on this Sforzando, a very interesting question.
There is no musical point in slowing down at the end. When the last bars are reached and both sets of timpani and the percussion rumble, the movement is already at its musical end. The last two notes just cut that off with a dashing gesture. The first note should, and normally also is, a little stronger because it's on the bar line. Mahler had probably experimented with all the typical endings, single chord, long chord etcetc and found this brief but affirmative gesture to be the most effective. There is no point in reinterpreting that with ritardandi, accents on the second note etc.
Quote from: M forever on June 15, 2008, 03:51:41 PM
There is no musical point in slowing down at the end. When the last bars are reached and both sets of timpani and the percussion rumble, the movement is already at its musical end. The last two notes just cut that off with a dashing gesture. The first note should, and normally also is, a little stronger because it's on the bar line. Mahler had probably experimented with all the typical endings, single chord, long chord etcetc and found this brief but affirmative gesture to be the most effective. There is no point in reinterpreting that with ritardandi, accents on the second note etc.
Yes, but if you check your score (I can't find an online copy, and I'm feeling too lazy to scan a JPG into this post, but will do so if requested), Mahler has given the identical strong accent
^ and staccato mark to both final notes. (In the winds, that is. The staccato marks but not the accents are written for the strings.) He also writes "Drängend bis zum Schluss" starting 12 bars before the last unison. Hence I don't support a ritardando, but I can see the accent on the final note as legitimate, even if a stronger accent will probably fall on the downbeat.
One thing I consider important M10 is missing in his analysis is a discussion of how the symphony is unified by a few dominant melodic motifs, the primary ones being a descending perfect 4th and an ascending half scale. A chain of these perfect fourths is heard at the start of the introduction* and a single p. 4 in isolation becomes the little bird calls heard frequently in the upper woodwinds. The p. 4 plus the ascending half scale is heard first when the exposition proper begins in D major: D A | D E F# G | A. The p. 4 dominates the big horn chorale midway through the movement, and, being the natural tuning for the timpani, is also heard in the timpani solo notes in the coda of this first movement.
You do hear how the p. 4 motif is used in the scherzo: "The birdcall theme is picked up again, but this time not by a delightful clarinet, but by ominous cellos and basses." But the half-scale is used again in the main melody: E | A C# E | A__ E | A A B C# D | E____ .
The slow movement takes these two motifs up again: first the timpani thudding D+A D+A over and over; then the solo bass taking up the half-scale, slightly disguised, in the minor: D E F E D | D E F E D | F G A | F G A.
The allusion to Handel's Hallelujah Chorus in the finale is convincing for me, but you seem to miss the more important point that the big horn theme is a transformation in major of the chain of p.4's first heard in the introduction to the symphony. And the countersubject in the trumpets picks up the rising half scale!
As for that descending octave unison at the end, I can't think offhand of any ending exactly comparable. It sounds definitive and inevitable, but does it relate to anything else in the symphony? For me, it is the final, definitive expansion of that important perfect 4th motif into a perfect octave.
-------
*I have a private theory that the composer of the Star Trek theme - the slow section when Shatner intones "Space, the final frontier" - had this moment in his ear when writing that bit of music.
Quote from: M forever on June 15, 2008, 03:51:41 PM
There is no musical point in slowing down at the end. When the last bars are reached and both sets of timpani and the percussion rumble, the movement is already at its musical end. The last two notes just cut that off with a dashing gesture. The first note should, and normally also is, a little stronger because it's on the bar line. Mahler had probably experimented with all the typical endings, single chord, long chord etcetc and found this brief but affirmative gesture to be the most effective. There is no point in reinterpreting that with ritardandi, accents on the second note etc.
I think the first of the two last notes should be heavier/stronger not only because of the reason you mentioned, but also because it's the "cuck" of the "cuckoo" so dominant in the symphony (especially the first movement). At the end of the entire piece Mahler resolved all the drama and tension of the piece with one final, huge CUCK-KOO!.
Thank you for your very interesting notes below Sforzando. This kind of feedback is great.
The essay is presented a certain way without too much technical stuff to make it easily understood by the layman (or even the wayfarer), so it was not my intention to make it any more technical than it is (if technical at all.) However, it is precisely this kind of feedback which something like this NEEDS, so bona fide musicians etc can connect and asess with their ideas of the Symphony.
Lots of good points.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 15, 2008, 06:45:57 PM
*I have a private theory that the composer of the Star Trek theme - the slow section when Shatner intones "Space, the final frontier" - had this moment in his ear when writing that bit of music.
Possibly. I made the connection myself, too.
Thanks sfz, that was very interesting and it brought to the surface some things I had heard, but not consciously. I can hear some of those passages in my head, though I had not connected the dots.
It is certainly packed with verdant nature sounds and this sets the tone for those first four symphonies. He was a deeply sophisticated man, he moved in the artistic circles of the time. But he was clearly rooted into the countryside, folksong and beyond folksong, art-song. So much sounds like melody for singing out loud, even when that melody is chopped up. The first symphony also has allusion to Klezmer near the start of the third movement. Roots in the countryside, in what he heard as well as what he saw and in his culture. I don't think that anyone has so far mentioned in this thread that every Mahler symphony seemingly has a funeral march in it. Here, it is at the start of the third movement, then it returns two thirds of the way through. His preoccupation with death is therefore in his symphonic literature right from the start. It also indicates that his music is not utterly abstract, it contains ideas about life...and as often, death. The nature sounds may be about more than simply the obvious. Innocence is certainly invoked.
I have now just started listening again to the Gergiev.....I did suggest that timings are deceptive.
Here they are:
Kubelik: 14.31 6.56 10.37 17.40
Gergiev: 14.40 8.14 10.32 19.15
So any feeling of rush is not because he goes at the whole thing headlong, there clearly must be some passages that have been taken very fast, others leisurely. In the first movement things seem to me to go very well until about a minute before the end, when he speeds up and the music rushes by as though there was a train to catch. It is an astonishing ending to a movement and I feel he trivialises it with this approach. But, for my ears, most of the movement was beautiful.
The second movement is over-rusticised and the opening peasant dance is too clodhopping....I wonder what the markings are here?
Again, it does not sound fast until he really speeds up at the end, but it is a 30 second burst of speed.
The third movement is very beautiful with gentle, graded dynamics, especially round about the six minute mark the strings are so tender. The opening march sounds at the right tempo and after the ecstatic interlude I mention above, when the opening returns sounding like a slow marching funeral procession, the woodwinds are especially piquant. There is plenty of ebb and flow, it does not sound like there are sudden gear changes.
We hear the material he subsequently used in his orchestral songs. Here and in the Second symphony, he mined them assiduously to produce his song cycles. So we need to think of the cycles and the symphonies as handing battons of thought back and forth. He was not merely picking up on songful tunes and reusing them, his song output germinates within the symphonies. The symphonies are part commentary on the songs.
The forth movement is more of a problem, at around the two minute mark, it becomes very hectic, exaggerated I think, but that is transitory. Later in the movement the contrasts are also too hectic. There is a difference between tempestuous and hysterical. I think the interpretation mauls this movement too much. Nervy and neurotic.... we perhaps impose these aspects of Mahler on pieces where it is not really evident. It is often exciting music making though and very well played. Around the 13 minute mark, the music making sounds dull, nothing is happening, stasis and here is where time is bought to allow for the speed changes. I also think he sledgehammers some rhythmic passages, vulgar.
Then we move towards the peroration, galloping heaviness, Kubelik is transcendental here. It becomes dramatic rather than uplifting. The final two notes are taken quickly, with a slightly greater accent on the downbeat.
So, a mixed result for me and not quite what I had expected. Overall, I enjoyed it and was engaged with it. I don't think it is a maverick interpretation, I still prefer Kubelik, but there is a lot I enjoyed about Gergiev's fix on the piece.
Mike
Quote from: meh on June 15, 2008, 09:56:23 PM
I think the first of the two last notes should be heavier/stronger not only because of the reason you mentioned, but also because it's the "cuck" of the "cuckoo" so dominant in the symphony (especially the first movement). At the end of the entire piece Mahler resolved all the drama and tension of the piece with one final, huge CUCK-KOO!.
Ah - so you are hearing the endng as motific in exactly the same sense I suggested.