aspects of mahler's fifth symphony performance practice and interpretation

7/17/2019 Aspects of Mahler's Fifth Symphony Performance Practice and Interpretation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aspects-of-mahlers-fifth-symphony-performance-practice-and-interpretation 1/9

Aspects of Mahler's Fifth Symphony: Performance Practice and InterpretationAuthor(s): Paul BanksSource: The Musical Times, Vol. 130, No. 1755 (May, 1989), pp. 258-265Published by: Musical Times Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/966312

Accessed: 28/07/2010 15:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unl

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mtpl.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or prin

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new fo

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Musical Times Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to T

http://www.jstor.org/stable/966312?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mtpl

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mtpl

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/966312?origin=JSTOR-pdf



Aspects

o f

Mahler s i f t h

Symphony

e r -

formance

practice

a n d

interpret tion

Paul Banks

On

12 November 1899

Mahler

attended a

perfor-

mance

of his Second

Symphony played

through

in

Heinrichvon Bocklet's

arrangement

or

two

pianos,

eight

hands,'

but

despite

the fact that the

performers

were enthusiastic about

the

piece

and had heard

Mahler conduct it, he was dismayed by what he

heard:

The

tempi

were

wrong,

nd he

expression

nd

phrasing

were often so incorrect hat

everything

dissolved

nto

chaos. And hatwasdirected

ndrehearsed

y

someone

who

will

magine

ndclaim

hathe inheritshe "tradition"

straight

romme From

his,

you

may

earnthat truth

about

very

o-called

tradition":here s

no

such

hing '2

It

is

worth

recalling

Mahler's

scepticism

when

we

consider issues

of

performance

practice

and

interpre-

tation

in

relation o

his

oeuvre,

not least because

his

relativelyearly

death

might

otherwise-

ncourage

an

acceptance

of

'traditions'

preserved

and transmitted

by

conductors

and orchestras with whom he was

associated.Hadhe lived into the 1920s Mahler like

his

longer-livedcontemporariesElgar

and Strauss

-

might

have made some

recordings

which could

serve

as the basis for later

interpretative pproaches

o

his

music. As it

is,

the

surviving

evidence

of how Mahler

conducted

his

own

music

is

fragmentary,

nd some-

times

difficult o assess and

interpret.

Nevertheless,

as Gilbert

Kaplan

has shown

in

connection

with

the

Second

Symphony,3

n

examination

of

such informa-

tion reveals that

some

interesting

'traditions'have

taken root

in

less

than

a hundred

years.

The

appearance

f LeonardBernstein'snew

record-

ing

of

Mahler's

Fifth

Symphony

with the

Vienna

Philharmonic

DG

423

608-2)

invites a

preliminary

ur

vey

of

performancepractice

ssues as

they

relate to

the work. Unlike

his

earlierMahler

cycle

which,

with

the

exception

of the

Eighth

Symphony,

was

recorde

with a

single

orchestra

(the

New York

Philharmoni

Bernstein'sre-recordingsof the symphoniesinvolv

three

orchestras

-

NYPO,

VPO

and the

Concert

gebouw

-

all

of

which

can claim

some associatio

with Mahlerand

his

music

dating

back

to

his

lifetim

Yet the orchestras

today

differ from one another in

sonic

profile,

and have

changed

their

corporate

oun

over

the

years.4

urthermore,

heir

relationships

with

Mahler's

music were ratherdissimilar

and it

is

all too

easy

to refer

glibly

to

'the' Mahlerian

radition nheri

ed

by

these

ensembles.

A

more critical

and

sophist

cated assessment of the

validity

of

the claims

nheren

in

such a

label would have to

be founded

on

an

elabo

rate

and

far-ranging

study

of

the

history

of

these

orchestras' nvolvementwith Mahler and his music

the

changes

in their

size,

performance

practice

rehearsal

echnique,

he

types

of instrument

used,

a

well as a

knowledge

of their

recruitment

policies

and

traditionsof

training.

In

the absence of such research it is nonetheles

possible

to

point

to

at

least one issue which

certainl

ensures that the

way

we

hear Mahler'smusic

today

s

significantly

different

from

how his audiences

per

ceived it: orchestral

ayout.Many

variations

are

possi

ble,

and not all have an

aesthetically

ignificant

mpac

on

our

experience,

but

(perhaps

because of the

pres

sures towards standardisation

enerated

by

a

globa

media

industry)

most orchestrasnow

adopt

a

seatin

arrangementor the stringsuntypicalof that adopte

during

Mahler's

lifetime,

andcone

which

effectivel

obliterates ome

of

the most

characteristiceatureso

Presumably

layed

rom

a

manuscriptopy,

ince

the

arrangement

as

not

published

ntil

1914.

2

Natalie

Bauer-Lechner,

ecollections

f

Gustav

Mahler,

D.

Newlin, tr.,

P

Franklin,

d.

(London, 980),

141.

De

La

Grange

dentifies he conductor s

Bruno

Walter,

lthough

s

he

admits here

s

no evidence hatWalterwas

in

Viennaat the time

(GustavMahler,

hronique

'une

ie I

(Paris,

979),

p.776).

3

'How

Mahler

performed

his Second

Symphony',

MT

cxxvii/1718

(May

1986),

266-71.

4

This

is

particularlypparent

f

the

distinguished

986VPO

recording

f

th

Fifth

Symphony

s

compared

with

the

different nd

perhaps

morecharacte

ful sound

(particularly

he

nasal

oboes)

of

their 1968

recording

with

Bernstein f Das Liedvon

derErde

Decca

417

783-2)

258



his

writing

for

violins."

By placing

all

the violins

together

on

the

conductor's

eft,

instead

of

locating

the

second violins to his

right,

current

practice

ignores

the

way

in

which Mahler's

maginative

cor-

ing

often

exploits

the

expressive

and architectural

potential

of

stereophonically separated

violins.

Robbed

of

any

antiphonal

ffect,

Mahler's

scoring

of

the violin

parts

in

passages

such as

bars 348-406 and

521-581 of the third movement of the Second

Symphony6

nd bars 142-173

of the

first movement

of

the Ninth is

rendered

pointless,

and

the

expressive

device

of a

fragmented

melodic

line

ignored.

Fortunately

a

few

conductors,

notably

Klemperer

nd

Raphael

Kubelik,

have recorded Mahler

with

the

authentic

seating

arrangement,

ometimes with reve-

latory

results.

Admittedly

he violin

writing

of

the Fifth

Symphony

makes

no

use

of

spatially

fragmented

melodic lines

and has

relatively

few

examples

of

antiphonal

exchanges.

Particularly

n

the first

two

movements

Mahler

exploits

instead

the 'radical

mprovement

n

the tone-quality f the violinsection,givinga thrilling

brilliance

of tone ... achieved

by

letting

the second

vio-

lins

play

n

unison

with the firsts

in

vivid and dominat-

ing

passages';'

but

later,

as the

polyphonic

density

of

the textures becomes

greater

and the violin

parts

are

given independent

ontrapuntal

ines,

the

gain

in clari-

ty

possible

when the two strands within the

string

ensemble

not differentiated

by

timbre or

(usually)

register

are

spatially

separated

and

equally

balanced

becomes

clear

n

Kubelik's

ecording

of the

work.8

The

Symphony

also

presents

a

special

seating prob-

lem: where to

place

the

obbligato

horn called for in

the third movement.Mahler

gives

no

instruction

and

no alteration of

the

existing

layout

is

usual

today.

However, one of Mengelberg's conducting scores

(NL-DHgm:

ee below

for

details)

bears the note 'Das

Horn

solo/immer

hevortretend/u.

vorne beim

I.

Concertmeister/zu

placieren

als

soloist'. Whether

this

layout

has

any

authority

s not

clear,

but

Robert

Threlfall

nforms me that at

the

first

English perfor-

mance

of

the work

given

by

the LPO conducted

by

Heinz

Unger

on

21

October

1945,

the first

horn,

Charles

Gregory,

moved forwardand sat next

to

the

front desk of

first

violins

(the

seconds were to

the

right).

For Mahler 'instrumentation

is

not there

for

the

sake of sound

effects,

but

to

bring

out

clearly

wha

one has

to

say';9

ut as his

comments on

the

perfor

mance of

the classical

repertory

make

clear,1"

uch

clarity

s

also

dependant

on

tempo,

as

well

as

phras

ing,

articulation nd

dynamics

(always

he

subject

o

explicit

direction

n

his own

scores,

and

painstakin

revision).

In

the case of

the

first

movement of the

Fifth

Symphony

here are some

tantalising

nsights

to

be gainedinto how Mahlermighthavehandledsome

of

these

aspects

in

performance,

hanks

to the

pian

roll

he made

for the

company

of

M.

Welte

&

Sthne

on

9

November

1905.

This,

like

the other

three

rolls

made on the

same

occasion,

is

a

document of

quit

exceptional

importance,

but when

assessing

it

as

musicological

evidence it is

essential

to be

aware o

the

ways

in which

the

information

t

can

convey

to us

may

be

circumscribedor

distorted

by

a

host of

fac

tors.

To

begin

with the

reproduction

ystem

itself is

no

without

imitations,

most

notably

n

mattersof

dynam

ics:" the volume of

the treble and bass halves

of

the

keyboardcould be gradated ndependently, ut within

these two

registers

no

further

gradation

was

possible

Moreover

n

order

o ensure an

accurate

eproductio

of

a

roll

it is

essential that

the

reproducing

mecha

nism

should be

appropriately

egulated:

of

the

variou

recordings

of the

roll'2

he

most recent

(INTERCOR

160.855,

rec.

May

1985)

is

by

far the

most

convincing

in

this

respect.'"

A further

complicating

actor inheren

in

the

process

of

recording

the

performance

on the

roll was

that either

through

error or

intent t was

pos

sible to

modify

he

transcription

f the

pianist's

actua

rendition.

If

the

reproducing

echnique

of

the

system

was

sus

pect,

what

about

Mahler's

pianistic

technique?

Pian

had been his first studyat the ViennaConservatoir

during

his

first

two

years

as

a

student

there,

and in

the

1870s and 80s he had

appeared

in

public

as a

pianist

on a

number

of

occasions. But

thereafterhe

rarelyplayedpublicly

and one

might

wonder

whethe

the

demands of rehearsal

and

domestic

playing

kep

his

technique

at its most

fluent.

Perhaps

he

practise

specially

for

the

recording,

but

we

do

not

know how

seriously

he

took

the

whole

process:

for

all his

reliance on

posterity

to

vindicate

his

music,

did he

have

any

notion of the

importance

hese

piano

roll

5

The photographs f Mahlerrehearsing he EighthSymphonyn Munich

offer

fascinating

ocumentation

f orchestral ndchoral

ayout

(admittedly

for

an

exceptional

work).

6

This

was

not an issue

discussed

by

Gilbert

Kaplan,

ndhis

recording

f

the

Symphony

Pickwick

DPCD

910)

adopts

he

standard

ayout.

Interestingly

Sinopoli

ivides he violins

or his

recording

f the work

(DG

415

959-2GH2).

7

Bauer-Lechner,

p.

cit,

p.142.

8

DG 2543

535;

unfortunately

his has

not

been

transferred o CD. Sur-

prisingly

Sinopoli

uses

the

standard

layout

for his

recording

of

the

Symphony

DG

415

476-2GH).

9

Bauer-Lechner,

p.

cit.,

p.178.

'o

bid,

pp.94-5

ffersone

example.

"Fordetails ee de LaGrange, p.cit.,vol.III, .1025-28,nd he notesbyG

Pitzig

for

TelefunkenSIA

25057-T/1-5,

and H.-W.

Schmitz

for Intercor

160.855.

12

For a detailed

ist,

see P.

Fiilp's

indispensible

The

Discography

f

Gusta

Mahler's

works',

Studia

Musicologia

cademiae

cientiarum

Hungaricae

6

(1984),

219-418.

'3

The

main

problem

ncountered eems

to have been

to

establish

a

correc

and constant

unning

peed:

hus the

duration f

Reger's

performance

f hi

Intermezzo

p.45/3

which

appears

n

boththe

Telefunken nd

Intercord om

pilations

s

4'10"

nd

3'43"

espectively,

not

nsignificant

iscrepancy.

25



would have

for later

generations?

This

uncertainty

about

Mahler's

attitude to the

recording

process

ought

to

encourage

caution

when

drawing

conclu-

sions from the

end-product.

Mahler

might

also have

been inhibited

by

the mechanics of

adapting

the

music to

pianistic

performance.Presumably

he used

either

his Particellor a full score as his

text,

and had

to extract

from

one

of these a

plausible piano

ver-

sion:'4he resultincludesfeatures- notablypedalling

effects,

deliberate

rhythmic

anticipation

by

the

left

hand,

and

spread

chords

-

which

presumably

eflect

Mahler's

pianism

rather

han his

practice

as a conduc-

tor.

Even

in

the

face of

such reasons for

maintaining

critically

awareattitude

when

listening

to the

roll,

it

is

difficultnot

to

be

impressed

and

fascinated

by

what

it

preserves. Admittedly

he

opening

may

seem rather

prosaic,

but

the

lyrical

continuation

bar35ff.)

is char-

acterful,

and the

performance

bursts into life at the

onset of the first

episode

(bar

155ff.).

In

terms of

articulation

t

is

notable

how

the

composer emphasis-

es the contrast

between the

dry, abrupt

staccato

of

bar20ff. and the

legato

of bar

35ff.,

a

distinctionhe

maintains

lsewhere

in

the movement.But the roll

is

most

revealing

n

its treatmentof

pace

and rubato

and

the

following

table

attempts

to

summarise the main

features

of

Mahler's

tructuring

f

tempo

n

the

move-

ment:

Bar

Material

Tempo

Marking15

Metronome

marking

adopted approx.)

1

A1

Im

gemessenem

chritt.

J=

76

Streng.

Wie

in

Kondukt

35

A2

Etwas

ehaltener

J

=

58

61

A1

Wie

u

Anfang

J

=

72

(-76)

89

A2

Wieder

twas

ehalten

=

63

(103 J=

58)

(125

J

=

69)

(133

J=

60/58)

155

B

Pldtzlichchneller

J

=

92

233

B/A1

Allmdhlich

ich

beruhigend

J

=69

254

A1

Tempo

J=

76

262

A2

Schwer J

58

323

C Immerdasselbe

Tempo

J

60

(345

J

=

69)

Mahler

did

not

always

follow his own

instruction

as the sudden

adoption

of a slower

tempo

at bar

233

indicates;

nterestingly

he

unmarked

accelerando n

bars

125-33 is hinted at in some later

recordings

(most

obviously

in

Bernstein

I).16

But more

instruc-

tive is Mahler's

esponse

to the treatment

of

tempo

he

did indicate in his score. In the first

edition of the

Symphony

(the

study

score issued in

September

1904)there was no tempos markingat bar 323, indi

cating

that

no

tempo

change

was

required;

n

the firs

edition of the full score issued two

months later the

composer

made his

intention

explicit

by

adding

Immer

dasselbe

Tempo

and the

piano

roll

reveals

only

a

fractionalncrease n

speed

at this

point,

ollowed

by

a

controlled accelerando later in the

episode.

This

explicit

demand or

continuity

of

tempo

is

ignored

by

Bernstein,

Kubelik and

Tennstedt,

who thus fail

to

allow

the faster

tempo

of

the

central

portion

of the

episode

to

grow naturally

ut of the slower of the

two

tempos

of

the

main

section. In

any

case

Mahler's

ery

clearly

articulated

tempo

differentiationof the two

thematic

elements

in

the

main section (myA1andA,)

is

hardly responded

to at all in

most of the

perfor

mances

surveyed;

Bernstein, Haitink,

Kubelik and

Sinopoli

more or less

maintain

or re-establish)

heir

initial

tempo,

and

only

Walter,

Mitropoulos

and

Barbirolli

come close to

the

change

in

speed

appar

ently

intended

by

the

composer.

On

a smaller

scale,

and more difficult o

describe

accurately,

he roll offers

evidence of

Mahler's

rhyth

mic

flexibility,

subtle rubato

memorably

ecalled

by

New York

musicians

who

played

under his

baton

whose

reminiscences

were recorded

by

William

Malloch.'7

Often his rubato

applies

within he

bar

(so

that

the

placing

of

the

downbeats seems to

be

in

tempo): a slight re-alignment to allow for special

emphasis

of

some

sort,

such as a

fractional

holding

back

of the

up-beat.

Such

comments about the

relationship

between

tempos

and

rubato

have

a

validity

despite

the

slight

uncertainty

aused

by

the

problems

of

establishing

a

correct

speed

for a

reproduction pparatus,

ut as far

as

the absolute

tempos

adopted by

Mahler are con-

14

MariusFlothuis's

ssumption'Mahler

lays

Mahler',

Newsabout

Mahler

Research

(1981),6-7)

hat

Mahler

used Otto

Singer's

rrangement

or

piano

solo

is

erroneous:

Peters

Edition

irst

suggested

such

an

arrangement

n a

letterof

28.10.1920

see

E.

Klemm,

Zur

Geschichteder Fiinften infonie on

Gustav

Mahler',

ahrbuch

eters

1979,

71),

and it

was

listed

in

Hofmeister's

Musikalisch-Literarischer

onatsbericht

euer

Musikalienn November 921.

It is

interesting

o

compare

Mahler's ecisionsabout

whatto leave out with

Singer's.

1

Taken

rom

he firsteditionof the fullscore

(November

904).

16

I

have

not undertaken

an

exhaustive

survey

of all

recordings

of

the

Symphony Fiili6p,p.

cit.,

ists

30

up

to

1984),

but have

istened

o the

follow

ing

cross-section f

recordings

rom he

last fourdecades

(the

numbers efer

to current

CD

issues

[or

where

no

transfer s

available,

he

LP

ssue

used]

and

date

of

recording):

J. Barbirolli,

New

Philharmonia

(EMI

CDM7

69186 2:

16/18.7.69);

L

Bernstein,NYPO(CBSMK 42198:7.1.1963);L. Bernstein,VPO(DG423

608-2:

.1987);

B.

Haitink,ConcertgebouwPHIL

16

469-2PH:

/6.12.70);

R

Kubelik,

Bavarian

RSO

(DG

2543

535:

5/11.1.1971);

.

Levine,

Philadelph

(RCA

RD89570:

.1978);

D

Mitropoulos,

YPO

HUNT

CD

523:

2.1.1960

?)

H.

Scherchen,

ORTF

Harmonia

MundiHMA

1905179:

1.1965);

G.

Sinopol

Philharmonia

DG

415

476-2GH:

.1985):

G.

Solti,

Chicago DECCA

14

321

2DH:

3.1970);

K.

Tennstedt,

LPO

(EMI

CDS7 47104-8:

0.1978);

B.

Walte

(PHIL

ABL

3188-9:

0.2.1947).

17

Issued

as

the

fourth

side

of

Bernstein's first

recording

of

the Sixth

Symphony

CBS77215).

260



cerned some

lingering

doubts

might

persist.

His

basic

speed

in the

Intercord transfer is

swifter than

any

adopted

n

the

surveyed recordings

(Solti

and

Walter

seem

nearest,

at least at the

outset)

and it would

be

easy

to dismiss this as the result

of a

faulty adjust-

ment to the

reproducing

mechanism. But there is

some

documentary

vidence

which,

while not

conclu-

sive,

does lend some

support

to the

notion that

Mahler'srelatively lowing nitial empoin this move-

ment

was

not

unusual

at

the time.

Mengelberg's

copy

of the first edition of the full

score'8

was in

part

cor-

rected

by

the

composer,

and includesnumerousanno-

tations

by

Mengelberg concerning

technicaland

pro-

grammatic

matters.

Mengelberg's tempo markings

for the

opening

of

the

first

movement are:

J

=

69-72-76/j

=

69/j

=

80. He

probably

adopted

the

latter since bar

35

is marked

unambiguously

J

=

72-76.

The

first

episode

also has

a

marking

aster

than that

adopted by

Mahler on the

piano

roll

(per-

haps

he was

understandably

nhibited

by

technical

problems):

J

=

108.

A

second full score used

by

Mengelberg,

and now

belonging

to the

Concert-

gebouw

Orchestra" offers

a

further

confirmatory

detail:

Mengelberg's

timing

for

the movement is

11

minutes. That of the Intercord transfer of Mahler's

piano-roll

s

12'51"

and all

but

four of the

surveyed

recordings

take

between

11'43"

and

12'56".

So,

although

Mahler's initial

pulse might

be

slightly

quicker

than is

now the

norm,

the scale and

duration

of the movementoverall

n

his

performance

are com-

parable

o those

of modern

readings.

However

n

the case

of the

Adagietto

here

is sub-

stantial

evidence that the

tempo,

and hence natureof

this

movement,

has been

greatly

distorted;

as a

result

the overall structure

of

the

Symphony

has been

altered. The earliest recordings of the movement

were made

by Mengelberg

and Walter

(in

1926

and

1938

respectively),20

two

conductors

closely

associat-

ed

with

Mahler

during

his

lifetime,

yet they

offer

readings

which

in

most

respects present very

differ-

ent visions

of

how

the

movement should be

per-

formed. The

Concertgebouw

performance

exploits

rich

string

tone,

with warm vibrato and extensive

exploitation

f

portamento,

n

conjunction

with a wide

range

of

tempo

and

very

flexible

rubato;

by

contrast

the

VPO

string

tone is

silvery

and

clear,

with

compar-

atively

unobtrusive

vibrato and

less

portamento

Walteruses

a narrower

ange

of

tempos,

and more

re

strained

agogic

modifications;

e

has

the

advantage

f

a

very accomplished

harpist.

Such

contrastsoffer fur

ther hints

- if

any

were

necessary

-

that

more than

one 'Mahler radition'

racing

its

history

back to

the

composer

was

possible.

To modern

ears,

though,

there

is one

significant

espect

in

which

both

record

ings will sound unusual:their durations,which are

(Mengelberg)

7'04"

and

(Walter)

7'57".

Of

the

sur

veyed

recordings

the

shortest

is Barbirolli

(9'51")

most take

between ten

and eleven

minutes,

though

the

longest

(Scherchen) s,

at

13'07",

nearly

twice

as

long

as

Mengelberg's

eading.

The

discrepancy

is

considerable,

and

it

might

be

tempting

to offer

arguments

hat would

discredit

the

Mengelberg

and Walter

recordings

as

significant

doc

umentary

evidence.

Perhaps

the

restricted side-

lengths

encouraged

brevity,perhaps

the

abstractio

of the

movement from the

symphonic

context

had a

similar

effect;

in

any

case it

might

be

doubted

whether Mahlerwould have sanctioned his aspectof

their

readings.

The first

two

types

of

argument

are

undermined

by

Walter's

magisterial

recording

of

the

whole work

made

in

1947,21

nd

uninhibited

by

techni

cal

limitations:he

tempos

he

adopts

are

broadly

imi

lar to those of

1938,

and at

7'46"

the

Adagietto

is

slightly

shorterthan

the earlier

reading.

Even

more

compelling

and

provocative

s

the

fact

that

by drawing

on a

frequentlyneglected

source

of

information we

find

strong

evidence

that Mahler

would

have

thoroughly approved

the

Mengel-

berg/Walter

approach.

The

bibliographical

impor

tance of

orchestral

parts

is well

known,

but

it is

some-

times

overlooked

hat

by

the

late-19th-century

rches

tral musicianswere beginningto markand annotat

parts22

hus

providing

ascinating

glimpses

into vari

ous

aspects

of

performance

practice,

and also

into the

players'

attitude

towards the

music

they

performed

In

addition

some

players

noted

timings

of

works

parts,

or

movements.

In

the

case of

Mahler's Fifth

Symphony

orchestral

materialused

by

the

composer

survives,

including

the

string parts

employed

at the

performance

he

conducted

at St

Petersburg

on 11

November1907

(N.S.).23

One of

the

players

at the sec-

18

NL-DHgmMengelbergArchive437. Mahlerconducted he Amsterdam

premiere

with the

Concertgebouw

n

5.3.1906.

According

o

S. Wilkens

see

fn.27),

this

copy

remained n the

composer'spossession

until

at least the

autumnof 1906.Some of

Mengelberg's

nnotations

ertainly

laim o have

the

composer's uthority

see below).

My

thanks

o Dr

EW.

Zwart,

Archivist

at the DutchMusical

Archives,

or

his

generoushelp

n

assisting

my

workon

the

Mahler

material

n

the collection nd o the British

Academy

or ts

grant

whichenabledme

to

visitthe Archives.

9

This may

also

contain

ome

annotations

y

Mahler.

20

EMI

CDH769956

2;

WRCSH

193/194

(nla).

21

When

t first

appeared,

his

recording

was

praised

or

its

clarity

G.

Engel

Chord nd

Discord

/5

(1948),

69)

and

although

he

sound s

dated,

dry

and

unflattering

withobvious

compression

of

dynamics,

t

does

have a

natura

claritywhich few modern recordings can match, a tribute to Walter'

unerring

eel forMahler's

extures.As

an

interpretation

t

ranks

as one of his

most

compelling

Mahler

ecordings.

22

This

development

eflected

hanges

nrehearsal

echniqueduring

he

peri

od,

a

subject

n

urgent

need of

serious

study.

23

This

performance

was attended

by

Stravinsky see

I.

Stravinsky,

Craf

Conversations

ith

gorStravinsky

London,

959),p.38).

he

part

set

is

spli

between woViennese

collections:he

majority

f

the

parts

are n

A-Wst

U.E

Deposit),

but some

(including

lso two

flute

parts)

are

in

the archiveof

the

Internationale ustavMahler

Gesellschaft,

N/V/23.

261



ond

desk of double basses

(probably

L. Slova-

tschevsky)

recorded our

timings:

lhr

10'

PartI 27'

Part II 17'

Adagietto

7'

On

their

own,

such

figures

have

to be treated

with

caution.

There is no

guarantee

of their

accuracy,

we

haveno indicationwhetherthere was anyconsistency

in

rounding

up

or down

to the nearest

minute,

and it

is

not clear

whether

the

total

playing

ime includes or

excludes

pauses

between

movements.24

Notwith-

standing

these

problems,

it is

striking

that whereas

the

figures

for Parts

I and

II

are

hardly

different rom

the current

norm,

that

for the

Adagietto

confirms he

readings

of

Mengelberg

andWalter: he

implication

s

that most

modern

performances

ake

the movement

50%

lowerthan Mahlerand his immediate

disciples.

Examination

f similarannotations

n

early

part

sets

for other

works

by

Mahler

suggests

that modern

per-

formances

generally

tend to be

slower;

what is strik-

ing here is that whereas the othermovementsof the

Fifth

Symphony

seem not

to have been

significantly

affected

by

this

process,

in

the case

of

the

Adagietto

t

has been taken

much

furtherthan usual.

The results

are dramatic.

The

movement

s inflated

rom

being

a

pendant

o the Finale

nto an almost static

slow move-

ment in its own

right.

This

alters the

disposition

of

musical

weight

within

the

Symphony,

and tends to

dissipate

more

completely

the

rhythmic

momentum

generated

by

the Scherzo.

The extreme contrast

in

tempo

between the

last

two movements

in

more

recent

performances

lso

seems

to

make it

more diffi-

cult to

integrate convincingly

he

Adagietto

material

when it

reappears

n

the

Rondo.

The modern trend towardsa very slow Adagietto

also modifies

its

expressive

qualities

-

but

in

raising

this issue

one

reaches

the

point

at which

subjective

response

and

the

inadequacy

of

language

make fur-

ther discussion

difficult.

My

own

crude

characterisa-

tion

of the differences

would

be that the

bitter-sweet

yet

passionate

utterance

of the

Mengelberg/Walter

readings

has

been

replaced by

a more

melancholic

and

nostalgic

view

of the

movement

which

gives plau-

sibility

to

Visconti's association

of

the music with

images

of

longing,

dissolution

and

decay

in his

film

of

Death in Venice.Yet

in the

Symphony

he movement

is a

prelude

not

to the renunciation

f

life,

but a

cele-

bratory inale,and that is certainlyhow Mengelberg

understood he

meaning

of these two movements

as

his

programmatic

nnotations

some

of

which

appar-

ently

stem from

Mahler)

make

clear:

[Part

I]

Most

deep, pain,

sorrow, sadness,

and

tears

A

face distorted

weeping

so

much

and

changed

by

outbursts of

despera

tion,

anger, outrage,

to the

borders of

madness.

(Laughing...)

At

the end: half

mad,

ghostly.

[Part

II]

Forced

happiness

over

the

past

aim in

life,

it

is

not

yet

possible,

sounds

forced

sad undertones/underlying sadness,

here and there even a death-dance.

[Adagietto]

Love,

a

smile

enters

his

life ...

[Finale]

Exalted

happiness beginning

with a

happy

[...]

and contentment

[;]

yet

more

exalted.At the end mad with

feelings

of

happiness

and

feeling

of

comfort.

The

description

of the

Adagietto

is reinforced

by

Mengelberg's

notes on the first

page

of the move-

ment:25

N.B.

This

Adagietto

as

Gustav

Mahler's

eclaration

f

love to Alma nsteadof a letter he sent her this in

manuscript;

o

accompanying

ords. heunderstood

nd

wrote o him:

he

should ome oth

old

me this

As ConstantinFloros has

pointed

out,

this accountof

the

movement's

origins helps

to

explain

the

para

phrase

of

the 'Glance'

motif rom

Tristanund Isolde

n

bars

61-71.26

In

addition,

the

opening

seems to be a

'Song

without

Words',

he text of

which

Mengelberg

gives

in

the

left-hand

margin:

VI.1:

Wie

ch dich

iebe,

Du

meine

Sonne,

ichkann

mit

Worten ir'snicht

agen

Nur

meineSehnsucht

kann chDir

klagen

undmeineLiebe

MeineWonne

The

interpretation

f the

Adagietto

as

a

substantia

melancholy

slow movement

probably

draws suste-

nance from the

late-20th-century's perception

of

Mahler's

oeuvre,

which has tended to

place

emphasis

on the elements

of

despair,

existential

angst

and nos-

talgia

in

his music.

Although

the movement

clearly

can be made to conform

more

to this

view,

t

not

only

runs counter o what we can

cautiously

econstructof

the

composer's

ntention,

t also creates a

problem

out

of

the

finale: the

joyous

good-humour

of that

move-

ment all too often seems unmotivated

and

out of

place.

The brief introduction to

the

finale was

not

designed

as

a

transition

rom a self-absorbed

ymn

to

nostalgia

to a

happy,

outward-looking

finale,

but as the

bridge between a love song and a sparkling celebra-

tion of love

(the

references to the

Adagietto)

and art

(the

flamboyant display

of

contrapuntal mastery).

In the musical culture of

today

there

is

a

growing

24

That t does not

is

suggestedby

two

other

parts

rom the set which have

timings

for the whole

work:

71'

(Viola 5)

and 1hr

12'

(Violin II/1).

Nevertheless

hese

timings

ould

refer

o other

performances.

25

NL-DHgmMengelberg

Archive 473

p.178, reproduced

n R.

Stephan

Gustav

Mahler,

werke nd

Interpretation

Cologne,

1979),

p.86

Mengelber

annotated

onducting

core

of

Mahler's

ifth

Symphony,

dagietto.

26

see C.

Floros,

Gustav

Mahler

II. Die

Symphonien

Wiesbaden,

985)

p.149.

262



4. Adagietto."'

&aHarfe..

S e h r

l a n g s a m .

t m p o

m o t t o

*,,

*

6V

iolinen.

Iz4'

weiteViolinen.

_-

iolen.

Violoncelle.

_

B&Use.

?ii

Viol.

Mengleberg's

annbtated

conducting

score

ofMahler's

Fth

Symphony,

Adagietto

263

M e n g e b e g sn b a f e d c o n u c t i g

s o v e

f ~ a l e r

i t h S m p h n y ,

w g A t



tendency

to renew the historical

repertoire

by

seek-

ing

a

rapprochement

etweenour

knowledge

of earli-

er

performance

practices

and

contemporary

ensibili-

ties.

In

part

the resistances

to historical

authenticity

are those

which

always

confront he

new. Whetheror

not

thirty years

into the

Mahler

boom

we are

ready

for or

need that sort of cross-fertilisation n

perfor-

mances of

his

oeuvre,

it is as well to be

aware of the

waysin which ourassumptionsabouthow to perform

Mahler'smusic differ rom

his own.

Two

Postscripts

1:

Text

One

of

the

decisions which

Mahlerand his

contempo-

raries considered

infrequently,

but

which is now an

essential element

in

any

conductor's rea

of

responsi-

bility,

concerns

the choice of edition.

In his unremit-

ting

search

for

clarity

of

expression

Mahler was

an

inveterate

reviser,

and

in

the

case of the Fifth

Sym-

phony

the

history

of refinement

of the work'sorches-

tration is

of

labyrinthine

complexity."

Before 1964

conductors had in practicea choice of two versions

out of

the

three that

had been

published

by

Peters:

1.First

version,

issued

only

in

study

score format

n

September

1904

(ed.no. 3087,

pl.no.

9015,

251pp.)

and therefore

of no

practical

se.

2.Second

version,

issued

in

full

score

(ed.no.

3082

pl.no.

8951,

251pp.)

and

parts

(ed.no.

3082,

pl.no

8952)

in

November1904.

3.Third

version,

issued

in

parts

(ed.no.

3082,

pl.no

8952:

'Zweite...Ausgabe';

December

1913),

full

score

(ed.no. 3082,

pl.no.

8951: 'Neue

Ausgabe'

246pp.;November 1919) and study score (ed.no

3087,

pl.no.

9015,

246pp.;

April

1920.N.B.

this score

does

not

quite correspond

o the full score.

As

might

be

expected

Walterand Bernstein

I

use

the

third

version,

but

for some

inexplicable

reason

Mitropoulos

employs

the second.

Despite

the

dim

colourlessand

dynamically

estricted

mono

recordin

this

CD

does

offer a

fascinating

opportunity

o hear

the work

in

its intermediate

guise.

In

February

1911

Mahler

wrote to

Georg

Gtihler:

I

have inished

my

Fifth it had o be

almost

omplete

reorchestrated...

It

s clear hatall the

experience

had

gained

n

writing

hefirst

our

ymphonies

et me

down

n

this

one

-

for a

completely

ew

style

demanded new

technique.)2"

Mitropoulos's

ecording

reveals some

fascinating

dif

ferences

between

the

second and

thirdversions

(also

27

Fortunately

he Berlin

musicologist

SanderWilkenshas undertaken he

herculean

ask of

unravelling

he thread

apologies

or

the

mixed

myth).

For

some

preliminary

esults

see his article

Mahler's

Trieste conduction

sic]

score',

Newsabout

Mahler

Research 9

(March 988),

11-14.

21

Selected etters

f

Gustav

Mahler,

E.

Wilkins,

E. Kaiser ndB.

Hopkins,

r.

K. Martner,

d.

(London, 979),

372.

UNIVERSITYFHONG ONG

Chair

o f

Music

Applications

re nvited or

appointment

o theChair f Music.

nternationalistinction s a

musicologist,

heorist r

composer

will

be an

advantage

s

will

previous xperience

n

a

University

nda

proven

ommitment

n

administration,

teaching

ndresearch.t is

expected

hat he

appointee

illbe headof the

department

hichwas

established

n

1981and

presently

asfive

staff,

40

undergraduate

nd10

postgraduate

tudents.

he

department

as

a

strong

nterest

n

new

developments

n

Music

echnology

nd

computer

music

applications.

The

University

ould

prefer

o make

a

permanentppointment,

utconsideration

ay

alsobe

given

o

applications

or

appointment

n fixedor secondmenterms f

preferably

ot ess than hreeacademic

ears.

The

University

eserves he

right

not o

fill

theChair r to

fill

theChair

y

invitation r to

make

an

appointment

t a

lower evel.

Annual

alary

superannuable)

ill

be within he

professionalange

nd

not ess

than

HK$457,140

approx.

33,860

sterling quivalents at March , 1989).Atcurrentates, alariesaxwillnotexceed151/2%f gross ncome.Housing t

a

charge

f

71/2%

f

salary,

hildren's

ducation

llowances,

eaveandmedical enefits re

provided.

Further

articulars

nd

applicationormsmay

be obtained

rom:

Appointments

36165),

Association

f

Commonwealth

niversities,

6 Gordon

Square,

LondonWC1H

OPF,UK,

OR

from

he

Appointments

Unit,

Registry,University

f

Hong Kong.

Closes

31

May

1989.

1360

264



including

unfamiliar

tempos

and

dynamics),

but

Mahler's

claim

of

a

complete

re-orchestration

s,

in a

literal

sense,

misleading:

it

implies

a more radical

rethinking

than was

actually

nvolved,

but this

over-

statement makes

it clear how crucial the

composer

felt the

gains

in

clarity

he achieved

in the third

ver-

sion to

be.

In

1964

the Internationale

Gustav

Mahler

Gesell-

schaftissued its editionof the work,editedby Erwin

Ratz

(hereafter

GA).

This

incorporated readings

which failed to

appear

n

the

third version."Most are

concerned

with orchestral detail but one

audibly

changes

a melodic detail

in the firstmovement.

In all

versions

before 1964

the

up-beat

to

the second

episode

was:

Ex.

1

Erste-Viol.

Cm

V.1S

-I

the GA ext reads:

Ex.

2

Erste-Viol.

b

IW

1,-

h= IA

Some

ofthe

recordings

which otherwise

appear

o

fol-

low GA nevertheless

retain

the earlier

reading

of

the

passage,

notably

Barbirolli,Haitink,

and Tennstedt.

On the

other

hand,

Sinopoli,

who

appears

o

be

using

the GA

text at this

point

and

elsewhere,

nevertheless

incorporatessome features from the 1919 version,

most

noticeably

he

timpanipart

in

bars

357-61 of the

first

movement.

Far

more

bizarre

than

such

textual

peccadillos

is

the

travesty perpetrated

by

Scherchen

in

his 1965

recording,

n which he removes

ten

minutes of music

from the scherzo

(i.e.

bars

174-489

and

579-763)

and

also abbreviates

he Finale

(cutting

bars 329-537

and

749-758).30

To

their

credit

a

few

members

of the

Parisian

audience this was

the

work's ourth

perfor-

mance

in

the

French

capital3'

make it

quite

clear at

the end that

they

were well

aware of the fraud which

had

been

perpetrated.

What

a

pity

that, apart

from the

timings of the two movements involved, Harmonia

Mundi

gives

no hint that

they

are

offering

a short-

ened version of the

Symphony.

2:

Aesthetics

The issues raised

by

Scherchen'sParis

recording

are

profound

and

complex,

and concern the

very

natur

of a work

of

art and its

individuality.

f

the

uniquenes

of a work of art is

grounded

in

the

particular

way

it

fashions

its

materials,

hen what

Scherchen

perform

is not, in any significant sense, Mahler's Fifth

Symphony,

though

it

might

be

thought

of as some

other

work of art based on Mahler'sFifth

Symphony

which

shares

all its materials with that

work,

but

which

has

formed

them into a

different and

unique

structure.32

However the

problem

is

more

complex

After

all,

to

take

only

examples

near

to

hand,

many

operas

are

performed

n

versions

at least

as

truncate

as Scherchen'sMahler

5,

and

in most

cases the

ques

tion

of what it is that is

being

heard would not

be

raised:

the

identity

of such

a

work is

not

felt to

be

called

into

question by

the

abbreviation.

Perhaps

the

nature

and/or

complexity

of

the

fashioningprocesses

in a Mahlerian ymphonyare such that evenrelativel

minor modifications

f them are felt to

threaten and

subvert

the work's

unique

character.

Less

fundamental,

but

equally

fascinating,

is

the

aesthetic

problem

posed

by

the CD issue

of

Barbirolli's

ine

performance

of the work. The

facts

are

explained by

EdwardSeckerson

in

Gramophon

(November1988),

p.780:

Among

minororchestral

mishaps

n

the

Scherzo,

wer

four

bars

of

missing

horn

obbligato

at

nine

barsbefor

fig.20).

Not

any

more.The

original

olo

horn

playe

Nicholas

Busch,

has returned to the scene

of

this

momentary

berration

Watford

own

Hall)

and the

absent bars have been

ingeniously you

wouldneve

know) einstated.

If,

as some

philosophers

of art have

done,

you

consid

er that

knowledge

of an

object'shistory,

the natureof

the

process

of which

it

is the end

product,

s as

impor

tant as

its

finished form

in

determining

our assess-

ment

of

its

aesthetic status

and

value,33 ou might

be

inclined to feel that this

tampering

with a

perfor

mance

in some

ways

invalidatesor

compromises

he

authenticity

of the new release. A more

pragmati

view

merely

welcomes the

aurally imperceptible

repair

of one minor

blemish in

what

is

-

despite

Barbirolli's

ery idiosyncraticapproach

one

of

the

finest

recorded

performances,

and wonders

why

the

missing trumpet part

in bars 278-286 of the first

movement wasn't added at

the same time.

"

See

Wilkens,

op.

cit.,

11-12.

30

From

he

description

n

Fiil6p,

op.

cit ofScherchen's 962

recording

f the

workwith

the

RAI

Symphony

Orchestra,

t seems that

he conductormadea

habit

of

such

butchery.

31

ee

Guilhem

Tournier,

La

arrieere

n France

des

oeuvres

pour

orchestre'

in

Mahler

t

la

France,

oint

ssue of Musical

Revue

de

Chatelet)

ndRevue

Mahler

Review

February

989),

98-104

32

Mahler's

heavily

cut versions of

Bruckner's

Fourth,

Fifth

and Sixth

Symphonies

re

comparable.

33

see Mark

Sagoff,

On

Restoring

nd

Reproducing

rt',

ournal

f

Philosop

lxxv/9

(1978),

453-470,

or one

example

of such

views, including

some

provocative

omments

n

the aesthetic tatus

of

sound

recordings.

26

aspects of mahler's fifth symphony performance practice and interpretation

Documents