Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[relm1]

Leinsdorf also recorded the Third but I don't recall it being anything special.

It looks like there is a sixth too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FShptpKEl8g

[JBS]

Thanks for the recs. I've heard nothing but negativity toward Gergiev's cycle, until this post. I would like to hear more of MTT's Mahler. I have his recording of the 7th with the LSO from the '90s, and it's really damn good actually. (In fact, I like all my recordings of the 7th, with the exception of Klemperer which I just do not get.) I'll keep my eyes peeled for that 2nd. You are speaking of the SFS recording right?



I think I'll plan on listening to the Rattle/Berlin 10th one of these days (if not today). Seems folks like the earlier Bournemouth better; maybe that's the one I ought to have gotten. I'd pick it up as it's really quite cheap but I'm not sure I like Rattle enough as a conductor to own two recordings of his of the same symphony. Oh well.

I do want to check out the Ormandy. It looks great, and I don't think I've heard him conduct Mahler, but I suspect he'd be good at it (as would I expect the Philadelphians to be good at playing Mahler).

Like a lot of us these days, I am on a Mahler bender. But I've been avoiding 2, 6, DLvdE & 9. Those symphonies are special and I'm afraid I may have burned them all out heavily a couple of years back. However I did just pick up the Karajan/Berlin 6th and ought to give it a spin one of these days just to see what it's all about. Kind of a controversial recording for some.

That's the MTT2 I meant. The presence of LHL obviously helps.

I am generally negative towards Gergiev's Mahler. Only this 10th Adagio and possibly the Third are really worth hearing.

I don't have Rattle Bournemouth but I have almost all of Karajan's Mahler and like it a lot. (I only have one of his M9 recordings.)

Two complete 10th recordings to avoid are Zinman and Slatkin, mostly because of the versions they use (Mazetti and Carpenter iirc).

[bhodges]

All the talk about the Tenth, I realized I hadn't listened to Vänskä and Minnesota, so doing that now, and it definitely seems like a contender. The dynamic range is enormous: I had to crank up the volume quite a bit, and now am slightly amused and anxious at how loud the climaxes are likely to be. Never mind. It's a great reading, filled with mystery and surprises.



--Bruce

[aukhawk]

Regarding the 10th, I understand the recording by Barshai (of his own completion) is highly regarded.


Mahler, Symphony No.10 - Rudolf Barshai

[MusicTurner]

(...) Mahler 10 (...)

Rattle/Bournemouth, Wigglesworth/BBC Magazine CD,  also Barshai/brilliant and Rattle/Berlin.

Less so Morris and Ormandy.

[relm1]

Regarding the 10th, I understand the recording by Barshai (of his own completion) is highly regarded.


Mahler, Symphony No.10 - Rudolf Barshai

Like others, for the 10 Adagio alone, I love Bernstein and MTT.  For the completion, I like Barshai too and also Slatkin/St. Louis which is the rarely performed Remo Mazzetti, Jr. completion.



None of these have major changes from Cooke III.  The basis of the different versions is it's not always clear what was intended, and some interpreters make different judgements.  I've frequently posted about this throughout this thread because I believe the full No. 10 should be canon.  But to summarize:

1. Mahler first wrote sketches.  These can be thought of as general ideas, some pan out, some go nowhere, some are developed and worked into...
2. Short score: the music is crafted mostly sequentially and can be considered composed here but not fully orchestrated except that he might include instrumentational details here.
3. Full manuscript: this is the completed orchestral work which includes the first movement in its entirety and most of the scherzo.  There is also 1/3 of Purgatory.  So roughly 1/3 of the work exists completed in Mahler's manuscript where the rest of it is in short score and in some places with instrumental details. 

The challenge is, of what remains, sometimes the sketches are more flushed out than the short score though the short score came later.  This requires some judgement - was Mahler abandoning earlier ideas or just using the short score as a bit of a place holder since he knew where he was going.  Cooke III might rely on the short score, but Barshai might rely more on the sketches for some of those details.  In some cases, those introduce harmonic changes.  All of the music is still 100% Mahler.  I also believe, had Mahler lived to complete the manuscript wouldn't have solved these issues as he's known to have flip flopped himself and frequently second guessed his own ideas throughout his life.  His symphonies are still regularly updated as we find new updates based on contemporary parts having instructions that he must have made that haven't made their way back in the scores.  For example, Symphony No. 4 just got a new critical edition in...2022!!!!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Q9V1xSM6A.  I'll grant it would be authoritative if we knew his ideas when he died but he likely would have kept tweaking it for years had he lived so we never would know his final thoughts on how he wanted it either.  So, I land on it is us who benefit from hearing where he was heading with this work by hearing an approximation of it as it's quite different from just hearing the Adagio alone and incredibly beautiful completion though he almost certainly would have kept tweaking it for years had he lived.

The details of the instrumentation in the sketches are fairly clear, sometimes missing dynamics, sometimes missing doublings, and this is where some liberties are taken but I would say never straying that far from Mahler's late style.  Some are more successful than others.  Cooke III is probably the most reasonable guess, and they did a tremendous number of analyses even showing their completion side by side with Mahler's original and all of this is available online.

[Lisztianwagner]

Von Karajan's is also my favorite, and l turn to Haitink when l want a change.

I've heard a few others including Kleiber's, but l must say none of them impressed me much.

( Corrected an error in punctuation - LKB )

I listened to Haitink's recording for the first time yesterday, and although the Karajan is still my favourite, I agree it's absolutely stunning, such a very powerful, beautifully intense performance.

[LKB]

I listened to Haitink's recording for the first time yesterday, and although the Karajan still my favourite, I agree it's absolutely stunning, such a very powerful, beautifully intense performance.

Indeed. While James King was more than adequate for Haitink & company, Janet Baker was, for me, incomparable in Mahler. I would have paid nearly anything to hear her perform it in concert...

[krummholz]

Like others, for the 10 Adagio alone, I love Bernstein and MTT.  For the completion, I like Barshai too and also Slatkin/St. Louis which is the rarely performed Remo Mazzetti, Jr. completion.

None of these have major changes from Cooke III.  The basis of the different versions is it's not always clear what was intended, and some interpreters make different judgements.  I've frequently posted about this throughout this thread because I believe the full No. 10 should be canon.  But to summarize:

1. Mahler first wrote sketches.  These can be thought of as general ideas, some pan out, some go nowhere, some are developed and worked into...
2. Short score: the music is crafted mostly sequentially and can be considered composed here but not fully orchestrated except that he might include instrumentational details here.
3. Full manuscript: this is the completed orchestral work which includes the first movement in its entirety and most of the scherzo.  There is also 1/3 of Purgatory.  So roughly 1/3 of the work exists completed in Mahler's manuscript where the rest of it is in short score and in some places with instrumental details. 

The challenge is, of what remains, sometimes the sketches are more flushed out than the short score though the short score came later.  This requires some judgement - was Mahler abandoning earlier ideas or just using the short score as a bit of a place holder since he knew where he was going.  Cooke III might rely on the short score, but Barshai might rely more on the sketches for some of those details.  In some cases, those introduce harmonic changes.  All of the music is still 100% Mahler.  I also believe, had Mahler lived to complete the manuscript wouldn't have solved these issues as he's known to have flip flopped himself and frequently second guessed his own ideas throughout his life.  His symphonies are still regularly updated as we find new updates based on contemporary parts having instructions that he must have made that haven't made their way back in the scores.  For example, Symphony No. 4 just got a new critical edition in...2022!!!!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Q9V1xSM6A.  I'll grant it would be authoritative if we knew his ideas when he died but he likely would have kept tweaking it for years had he lived so we never would know his final thoughts on how he wanted it either.  So, I land on it is us who benefit from hearing where he was heading with this work by hearing an approximation of it as it's quite different from just hearing the Adagio alone and incredibly beautiful completion though he almost certainly would have kept tweaking it for years had he lived.

The details of the instrumentation in the sketches are fairly clear, sometimes missing dynamics, sometimes missing doublings, and this is where some liberties are taken but I would say never straying that far from Mahler's late style.  Some are more successful than others.  Cooke III is probably the most reasonable guess, and they did a tremendous number of analyses even showing their completion side by side with Mahler's original and all of this is available online.

The only place I'll disagree with you is calling the 10th canon - and that only because we do not have even a preliminary full manuscript. But yes, what you say agrees with my understanding, that UNlike the case of Bruckner's 9th, Mahler's 10th was fully composed, at least in an initial form, at the time of his death. The main problem is ambiguities due to inconsistencies between the sketches and the short score; otherwise, guesswork is only needed in places for the instrumentation and registration. I have never heard Cooke II, but there were numerous changes of instrumentation between Cooke I and III, especially in the 4th and 5th movements.

And I agree with Cooke that the 10th decisively refutes the idea that Mahler in the 9th was bidding life a final farewell as he (purportedly) knew he was dying. From what I've read, he knew no such thing, and in fact he didn't die of his chronic heart problem (a damaged heart valve, possibly from rheumatic fever) but of an infection that that problem made him more vulnerable to (bacterial endocarditis), that he only contracted the following winter. If Ken Russell is to be believed (and I take his Mahler with a HUGE grain of salt), the 9th was a farewell *to love*... well, maybe. But the 10th's coda is apparently a love song to Alma (attested to by Mahler's scribblings in the sketch), IMO one of the most beautiful things Mahler ever wrote, so who knows? Whatever, the 10th is worth hearing in its entirety for anyone who wants to understand where Mahler was heading in his last year, even if, as you say, we would probably never know his final thoughts on the work.

BTW, I was unaware of the new Critical Edition of the 4th... must check this out!

[Biffo]

Indeed. While James King was more than adequate for Haitink & company, Janet Baker was, for me, incomparable in Mahler. I would have paid nearly anything to hear her perform it in concert...

I heard her sing DLE only once but under less than ideal conditions. It was in the Royal Festival Hall, London and I was in the seats behind the orchestra usually occupied by the choir; I have met people who love these seats but I am not one of them. It was the only seat I could get.

It was the London Philharmonic conducted by Bernard Haitink with the Czech tenor Vilem Pribyl. It was a wonderful experience.

[JBS]

Like others, for the 10 Adagio alone, I love Bernstein and MTT.  For the completion, I like Barshai too and also Slatkin/St. Louis which is the rarely performed Remo Mazzetti, Jr. completion.



None of these have major changes from Cooke III.  The basis of the different versions is it's not always clear what was intended, and some interpreters make different judgements.  I've frequently posted about this throughout this thread because I believe the full No. 10 should be canon.  But to summarize:

1. Mahler first wrote sketches.  These can be thought of as general ideas, some pan out, some go nowhere, some are developed and worked into...
2. Short score: the music is crafted mostly sequentially and can be considered composed here but not fully orchestrated except that he might include instrumentational details here.
3. Full manuscript: this is the completed orchestral work which includes the first movement in its entirety and most of the scherzo.  There is also 1/3 of Purgatory.  So roughly 1/3 of the work exists completed in Mahler's manuscript where the rest of it is in short score and in some places with instrumental details. 

The challenge is, of what remains, sometimes the sketches are more flushed out than the short score though the short score came later.  This requires some judgement - was Mahler abandoning earlier ideas or just using the short score as a bit of a place holder since he knew where he was going.  Cooke III might rely on the short score, but Barshai might rely more on the sketches for some of those details.  In some cases, those introduce harmonic changes.  All of the music is still 100% Mahler.  I also believe, had Mahler lived to complete the manuscript wouldn't have solved these issues as he's known to have flip flopped himself and frequently second guessed his own ideas throughout his life.  His symphonies are still regularly updated as we find new updates based on contemporary parts having instructions that he must have made that haven't made their way back in the scores.  For example, Symphony No. 4 just got a new critical edition in...2022!!!!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Q9V1xSM6A.  I'll grant it would be authoritative if we knew his ideas when he died but he likely would have kept tweaking it for years had he lived so we never would know his final thoughts on how he wanted it either.  So, I land on it is us who benefit from hearing where he was heading with this work by hearing an approximation of it as it's quite different from just hearing the Adagio alone and incredibly beautiful completion though he almost certainly would have kept tweaking it for years had he lived.

The details of the instrumentation in the sketches are fairly clear, sometimes missing dynamics, sometimes missing doublings, and this is where some liberties are taken but I would say never straying that far from Mahler's late style.  Some are more successful than others.  Cooke III is probably the most reasonable guess, and they did a tremendous number of analyses even showing their completion side by side with Mahler's original and all of this is available online.

I have to voice a loud objection to the Mazzetti version. It has one significant difference: it lets the timpani go wild. Too much banging; at points it sounds like a timpani concerto got cut and pasted in to the score.

Supposedly Mahler was inspired to include a prominent drumstroke (or series of drumstrokes) by a funeral procression he saw in New York, but Mazzetti takes it far too strenuously.

[Mirror Image]

Mahler mania has swept GMG --- LOVE IT!

[TheGSMoeller]

Speaking of Mania..

One of my favorite Mahler moments is from the 3rd Symphony, and it's the transition from the third movement Scherzo into the fourth movement. The closing minutes of the third mvt cover so many moods from lyrically soft and subdued, to an intensely dark, then lifted up, to a triumphant fortissimo ending. Only to bring the listener back down to the mysterious atmosphere for the fourth mvt. And hearing the alto slide in with "O Mensch!" never fails to give me chills. 

Gives me an idea for the polling station, "Top 10 Favorite Mahler Moments"!

[LKB]

Mahler mania has swept GMG --- LOVE IT!

+50 

[DavidW]

Gives me an idea for the polling station, "Top 10 Favorite Mahler Moments"!

https://youtu.be/YDjUWH1Ot0o

[relm1]

I have to voice a loud objection to the Mazzetti version. It has one significant difference: it lets the timpani go wild. Too much banging; at points it sounds like a timpani concerto got cut and pasted in to the score.

Supposedly Mahler was inspired to include a prominent drumstroke (or series of drumstrokes) by a funeral procression he saw in New York, but Mazzetti takes it far too strenuously.

Do you mean the drums at the start of the last movement?  One important point - I heard this version live with Slatkin and sometimes, the live performance is superior to a recorded version with the same forces - just a sense of occasion is lacking in the recording that was present in the performance.  So, for me, it is hard to not think of the visceral cathartic experience of that live performance when evaluating Mazzetti.  There is also another performance with Cincinatti/López-Cobos that might be more to your liking.

[relm1]

The only place I'll disagree with you is calling the 10th canon - and that only because we do not have even a preliminary full manuscript. But yes, what you say agrees with my understanding, that UNlike the case of Bruckner's 9th, Mahler's 10th was fully composed, at least in an initial form, at the time of his death. The main problem is ambiguities due to inconsistencies between the sketches and the short score; otherwise, guesswork is only needed in places for the instrumentation and registration. I have never heard Cooke II, but there were numerous changes of instrumentation between Cooke I and III, especially in the 4th and 5th movements.

And I agree with Cooke that the 10th decisively refutes the idea that Mahler in the 9th was bidding life a final farewell as he (purportedly) knew he was dying. From what I've read, he knew no such thing, and in fact he didn't die of his chronic heart problem (a damaged heart valve, possibly from rheumatic fever) but of an infection that that problem made him more vulnerable to (bacterial endocarditis), that he only contracted the following winter. If Ken Russell is to be believed (and I take his Mahler with a HUGE grain of salt), the 9th was a farewell *to love*... well, maybe. But the 10th's coda is apparently a love song to Alma (attested to by Mahler's scribblings in the sketch), IMO one of the most beautiful things Mahler ever wrote, so who knows? Whatever, the 10th is worth hearing in its entirety for anyone who wants to understand where Mahler was heading in his last year, even if, as you say, we would probably never know his final thoughts on the work.

BTW, I was unaware of the new Critical Edition of the 4th... must check this out!

I doubt non-scholars would notice anything different in the new critical edition of the 4th.  There was a new critical edition of the 2nd not long ago maybe in the 1990's and I couldn't hear anything different though it had maybe hundreds of fixes albeit that work has millions of notes.  Earlier changes in his symphonies are much more noticeable - are there two or three hammer blows in the 6th?  What's the 6th's Adagio order?  Blumine in No. 1?  The instrumentation changed a lot in No. 1 as well.  Was sitting next to a friend in a rehearsal of No. 1 and we both had the score.  I had Dover which was the public domain probably first edition and had lots of omissions.  He had Universal Edition which included Horn 7 and trombone 4 part which aren't in mine.  Plus, we know Mahler made lots of corrections throughout rehearsals based on the minutia of his performance indications.  Not all of these alterations make their ways back in to the full score and sometimes they are contradictory.  I think this gives a sense of his personality - he was probably manic, had ideas that he struggled to get right but it does seem subsequent versions always improved on the original.   

The reason I argue this must be in canon is if conductors only play the first Adagio, it gives a very different impression of what he was actually saying.  Especially coming off the heels of No. 9, it paints a very dark and depressive ambivalence to life and that's the complete opposite of what he was saying.  In its final pages, it ends with radiance and catharsis and a very different message - that all the suffering he endured was worth it for the love he had for Alma.  That comes through and that was completed by Mahler.   

[JBS]

Do you mean the drums at the start of the last movement?  One important point - I heard this version live with Slatkin and sometimes, the live performance is superior to a recorded version with the same forces - just a sense of occasion is lacking in the recording that was present in the performance.  So, for me, it is hard to not think of the visceral cathartic experience of that live performance when evaluating Mazzetti.  There is also another performance with Cincinatti/López-Cobos that might be more to your liking.

Thanks, I'll keep it mind.

[Sergeant Rock]

https://youtu.be/YDjUWH1Ot0o

Oh yes, one of my favorite moments. The vid reminds of a live performance I saw (Segerstam conducting the Rheinland-Pfalz).I was seated near the front and could not see past the rows of strings. But when the first hammerblow approached I saw the hammer rise above the strings then disappear with the downward slam. I saw it again of course, and then thrillingly, a third time! Segerstam had restored it. Definitely one of my most memorable concert experiences.

Sarge

[Karl Henning]

+50 

And there's no mania like Mahler mania, like no mania I know!