In Search of Mahler's Tenth: The Four Performing Versions as Seen by a ConductorAuthor(s): Theodore BloomfieldSource: The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 2 (1990), pp. 175-196Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/742188Accessed: 28/07/2010 15:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay 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 athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.

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

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The MusicalQuarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

In Search of Mahler's Tenth: The Four Performing Versions as Seen by a Conductor

THEODORE BLOOMFIELD

IT is not generally known that, in addition to the performing version of Mahler's Tenth Symphony by Deryck Cooke

(Associated Music Publishers, Inc., and Faber Music, Ltd., 1976), there are three other realizations, all unpublished: by Joseph Wheeler of England, Clinton Carpenter of Chicago, and Remo Mazzetti of New York. In contrast to the completions of earlier works like the Mozart Requiem or the Bart6k Viola Concerto by composers of their time, the four realizations of Mahler's un- finished draft came not from renowned composers like Sch6nberg, Berg, Krenek, or Shostakovich (all of whom were approached), but from musicologists. Cooke, Wheeler, and Carpenter worked almost concurrently-and initially unknown to each other-between 1946 and 1975 (chronologically, Cooke was the third to start). Mazzetti, having studied their versions, remained dissatisfied and made his own between 1983 and 1985.

These four versions were the focus of a unique festival held in November 1986 in Utrecht, which included performances of three of them. At a four-day symposium, Mahler scholars discussed historical and editorial issues and the process by which these realizations were fashioned from the incomplete draft. The Cooke version was performed by the Concertgebouw Orchestra under Simon Rattle, the Carpenter by the Brabant Orchestra under my direction, and three movements of the Mazzetti by the Netherlands Radio Philharmonic Orchestra under Gaetano Delogu. (The sudden death of the copyist of the orchestral parts prevented performance of the last two movements; the version was heard in its entirety in February 1989.)

175

176 The Musical Quarterly

Experts and critics have not been unanimous that any realization should have been attempted at all. Some of their objections echo the consistent hostility of Erwin Ratz, head of the Internationale Gustav Mahler Gesellschaft in Vienna and editor of the Critical Edition of Mahler's symphonies, including the Adagio of the Tenth. Ratz vehemently opposed the Cooke version; its references to shortcomings in his own edition led him to release a new facsimile of the manuscript (MS) with additional pages not included in the 1924 facsimile and, in 1969, a second Critical Edition of the Adagio. To his death in 1973, Ratz remained adamant that only this one movement should be performed.

Yet not even the first movement can be strictly regarded as complete. If we look at bars 137-140 (bar numbers refer to the Cooke edition) of the orchestral draft (OD), the culmination of a long buildup of intensity, we see that the viola stave is blank and the cellos' sixteenth notes have been abandoned halfway through the phrase. Mahler surely intended to continue this line; he also might have included the violas in the climax and added some woodwinds beneath the flutes. In the Critical Edition, Ratz merely combines the cellos with the basses, ignores the violas, and leaves the other woodwind staves blank. Cooke continues the cellos' counterpoint, reinforced by violas, and adds woodwinds doubling the strings. Wheeler does similarly, but uses violas to reinforce the second violins. Carpenter gives the violas a separate counterpoint above the cellos, whose line he continues in the opposite direction from Cooke's counterpoint; besides woodwind doubling, he adds another counterpoint for the horns. Mazzetti is still bolder, adding rapid descending runs for woodwinds and separate counterpoints for violas and trumpet.

The OD is also unreliable with regard to the notes to be played and the instruments to play them. In bars 170-171 of the OD (and therefore of the Critical Edition), the moving part with thirty- second notes is in second violins. But Cooke, going back to an earlier sketch, finds this part in the bass clef, presumably intended for cellos. He concludes, plausibly, that Mahler, in transferring from sketch to short score (SS) to OD, lost track of his original intention, inadvertently put this part into treble clef, and gave it to second violins. The oversight occurred at the end of a page of manuscript midway in bar 171; at the top of the next page, Mahler continued on the correct staves. Cooke, noting improbable clashes

Mahler's Tenth 177

between the violin groups in this reading, therefore gives the

thirty-second-note line to the cellos and the pizzicato accom-

paniment to second violins and violas. Mazzetti agrees. Carpenter, undeterred by the clashes, retains the original error and gives the line in question to the second violins. So does Wheeler, who even

changes the notes and accompanying harmony. Inasmuch as the MS of the Adagio is neither complete nor

conclusive, any editor or interpreter must add something, change something, or choose between alternative readings. Given this necessity for the first movement, the four enterprising musi- cologists could justifiably attempt to do for the others what Mahler himself had done for Weber's Drei Pintos. They thus not only enable us to hear the wonderful ideas that these movements contain, but also allow us to appreciate the Adagio as the corner- stone of a symmetrical structure of five movements: two outer slow movements each lasting twenty-two to twenty-three minutes, two inner scherzos lasting twelve minutes each, and a central five- minute movement that contains the motivic seeds of what follows. The Finale itself is a symmetrical slow-fast-slow movement, with the last section ushered in by a cyclic return of the symphony's opening motif.

No hand but Mahler's own could truly have completed this work. Deryck Cooke did not imply that his modestly entitled "performing version of the draft" represented what Mahler would eventually have done-or should be accepted uncritically by audiences as "Mahler's Tenth." To decipher Mahler's MS was in itself a daunting task; to fill it out as he might have done, to "get under his skin," impossible. From the point in the third movement (bar 25) where the OD breaks off, the editors have had to depend on his four-stave SS. In the last two movements, there is sometimes only a top line. Again and again, the editors have had to decide whether to employ Mahler's harmony, counterpoint, and instrumentation from an earlier, analogous passage or find something new-as the composer, with his infinite capacity for variation, would doubtless have done. They have had to judge when and what to reinforce according to Mahler's practice in earlier works. They have had to decide also whether the block harmonies of his hasty MS-a kind of shorthand intelligible only to the composer-were meant to be filled out or left as they were. The SS contains very few indications of tempo, dynamics, instru-

178 The Musical Quarterly

mentation, phrasing, or articulation; the editors could proceed only by conjecture. It is hardly surprising that they reached quite different conclusions.

We must recognize, however, that their goals were quite different. Cooke's aim was simply to enable the musical ideas to be heard from beginning to end; he and his collaborators, conductor Berthold Goldschmidt and composers Colin and David Matthews, added mainly the harmonies and counterpoints that they thought necessary toward that basic purpose. They proceeded with exemplary humility and candor. In the first two movements they carefully differentiate between Mahler's notes and their own; and from the bar of the third movement in which his OD ends, they scrupulously print his SS beneath their realization. They accompany their score with meticulous explanatory notes which in themselves constitute an inestimable contribution to musical scholarship. Their additions are in excellent taste, with due regard for rhythmic, harmonic, and textural continuity.

Wheeler approached the MS still more cautiously, adding an absolute minimum of voices and reinforcements and enclosing these in brackets. Thus he produced a predominantly lean texture, nearer Sch6nberg than Mahler. Being closest to the original, his version is also the least imaginative. Moreover, it is riddled with inaccuracies, misreadings of notes and clefs, and inept orches- tration.

Carpenter, on the other hand, set out unabashedly to complete the symphony in Mahlerian style, often using materials taken from Mahler's earlier symphonies and Das Lied von der Erde and counter- points that are sometimes imitative but frequently of his own invention. He does not identify his own additions, wanting the score to be regarded integrally. Inevitably, these additions and changes -of variable quality-overstep the line between editing and

composing. And, although his thematic and rhythmic allusions echo Mahler's own practice of frequent self-quotation, when removed from their original context many of them sound out of place in this symphony. Furthermore, Carpenter's contrapuntal fertility sometimes confuses Mahler's main melodic lines, clouds textures, and leads to thick orchestration inconsistent with Mahler's late practice. In short, it lacks discrimination.

Mazzetti, with these three versions before him, felt that Cooke and Wheeler had not gone far enough, Carpenter too far; the first

Mahler's Tenth 179

two versions were too sparse, the other too dense. His own version falls between them but is no mere synthesis of their best. It is resourcefully orchestrated, contrapuntally inventive yet tasteful, and bespeaks the perceptions of a new musicological generation perhaps better equipped than its forebears to appreciate Mahler's effect on music since his time.

There is another significant difference among the versions. Cooke and Wheeler view the symphony as affirmative, with a calm acceptance of the end. Carpenter and Mazzetti view it as tragic, its turbulence and strife ending only in poignant resignation. These views produce corresponding differences of colors, textures, instrumentation, dynamics, and even tempi.

Conflicting overall conceptions aside, there can be no defini- tive reading of the notes themselves, although in a given passage one version may seem more authentic than another. Cooke's wisdom in enlisting the collaboration of a conductor and two composers gives his version a certain advantage. Yet even a con- scientious team can go wrong, as demonstrated by an example from the climax of the Finale (Ex. la, p. 180).

In the SS, Mahler wrote the key signatures only on the top stave, but they apply to the entire section until superseded. Here, at the change of key, he put three sharps. Cooke, although includ- ing this signature in his printed SS, erroneously gives G-natural in the bass instruments. Mazzetti's version gives this G-natural briefly, as if unsure. Wheeler, curiously, gives B with a G-sharp a sixth above it. Only Carpenter interprets Mahler's signature correctly and gives G-sharp in the bass, which he sustains throughout the eight bars (Ex. Ib, p. 181). Thereby he preserves Mahler's bass line to the C-sharp underpinning the following dissonant chord: A, G-sharp, C-sharp.

Cooke surmised that Mahler "inadvertently omitted" a natural before G; I have pointed out his error to his collaborators, who are now convinced that G-sharp is correct. It appears in their revised edition of 1989.

Cooke's logic of inadvertent omission could sooner be applied to his controversial high G for trumpet and horns in the dramatic A-flat minor brass outburst late in the first movement-the most audible of that movement's disputed readings. Like Ratz before them, Carpenter and Mazzetti assume that Mahler forgot the flat before this G, so they add it. Cooke and Wheeler, however, retain

180 The Musical Quarterly

Ex. la. Cooke: Finale, mm. 267-74. ? 1951, Associated Music Publishers. All

examples used with permission.

Plitzlich sehr breit

I & IIr

Trpts.

sempreff

Hns.

Trbn.sempre , pesante Trbns. Vic. Il Bass

(Horns)

low

Mahler's Tenth 181

Ex. lb. Carpenter: Finale, mm. 267-74

Fls., E C1. Woodwind sustain zu 2 E6C0. out

Fls. Obs., Cls. pr___p"

Vln. I

V dim. (WW)

Vln. II Hns. Vlas.

div. ' a4

Trts. . 2.p

A.2.1 cresc,

Trpts.

___,,,___l

3.4. r__q3, Trbns. .

1.2. f

,-,

zu 2

Bsns.

-- h• ViC. , i T . Bass

Timp.

Ob. 1, CI. 2 Ob., Cl. out Fls. remain

dim. (Vln ) A 1.

Th.3 Ti a # zu 2 z2

.

d dim. Tr0ns

.

Trbn. 3, Tuba dim. Tba.

/ "• ']• ]•I

182 The Musical Quarterly

the OD's G-natural, Cooke stating in his notes on page 168, bar 198, "Mahler would surely have written a flat sign here if he had wanted one." G-natural sounds harsh, and since G-flat accords with the prevailing tonality, it is probably correct.

Cooke frequently adopts enharmonic notation as being easier to read; in the top line of Example la, for instance, he writes F- natural, C-natural, and A, whereas Carpenter retains Mahler's E-

sharp, B-sharp, and G-double-sharp. Cooke's simplifications have drawn just criticism from musicologists because of the confusion created in Mahler's tonal language; for example, in bar 162 of the Adagio he gives the first violins a C-natural over a C-sharp7 chord. Carpenter and Wheeler laboriously preserve Mahler's notation; Mazzetti falls between the two extremes.

Even a superficial perusal of the four scores reveals how Carpenter's and Mazzetti's orchestrations are fuller than Cooke's and Wheeler's. In the climax shown above, Carpenter continues tutti orchestration with a gradual diminuendo (Ex. ib), whereas Cooke limits himself to horns, trumpets, and violins (Ex. la). Mahler did not indicate which instruments were to play the

descending brass line. Cooke, Wheeler, and Mazzetti use horns; Carpenter, trumpets and trombones with a delayed resolution on the G-sharp in bar 273. Here, Carpenter follows the SS; Cooke and Mazzetti depart from it rhythmically by giving the horns a final

sounding A in bar 272. Ears accustomed to the Cooke version will find the Carpenter strange.

In the process of filling in beneath the melodic line, both

Carpenter and Mazzetti liberally employ octave doublings as well as additional counterpoints and bass tones. Carpenter, in particular, allows himself considerable freedom in elaborating Mahler's draft, changing notes, harmonies, and register according to what he thinks Mahler might have done. Instead of sustained harmonies, he often employs rhythmic patterns; for example, two climaxes in the fourth movement are heightened by a repeated trumpet rhythm from the Scherzo of the Fifth Symphony. Carpenter dislikes bareness and adds many voices to avoid it-sometimes to excess. In the lyric F-sharp major section of the second movement, where the other versions sound bare (e.g., bars 423-426), his filling out is welcome. However, in other passages of this problematic move- ment the dangers of his procedure are evident. Let us consider the

passages leading into the two Lindler sections. To Mahler's three

Mahler's Tenth 183

lines in bars 152-157, Carpenter adds a woodwind continuation of the first violins' eighth notes and a new triplet idea in the bass. In bars 158-164, Cooke uses only Mahler's single line spread over four octaves; Carpenter, feeling this too sparse for the climax, adds rhythmic imitation on different notes in horns and trombones and tritone imitations derived from the relationship of the C to the F- sharp. In bars 294-299, just before the second Laindler, Cooke restricts himself to Mahler's two lines (marked A and B in Ex. 2, with A and F-sharp only for the six bars). Carpenter, in addition, recalls the earlier string descent (marked C) in the woodwinds and the tritone motif in the horns (D); he also adds a bass triplet idea (E) and a rhythmic figure on four timpani (F). At a rapid tempo, these six lines are too much for the ear to register all at once.

The problems of clarity and balance thus created could be mitigated somewhat by reinforcing the violin line and by sup- pressing the timpani until the fourth bar (a suggestion to which Carpenter agreed for the performances in Holland). In making such retouches here and elsewhere in the score, I sought to give the lines actually by Mahler top priority.

This scherzo, as heard in the Cooke version, is frequently taken too fast. Some of Carpenter's voices were added to keep down the tempo, and he believes that the harmonic changes can be better appreciated at a slower pace. He borrows the designation "In gemichlicher Bewegung" from the corresponding movement of Mahler's Fourth Symphony; Cooke and Wheeler adopt Mahler's Schnelle Vierteln, and Mazzetti writes Sempre Allegro assai. Unlike Cooke and Carpenter, Mazzetti does not moderate the tempo at the subordinate section in B-flat major, but even adds Draingend between phrases. At the passage shown in Example 2, he prescribes Vorwairts into a faster tempo. His version of this movement has the most drive and is by far the most imaginatively scored of the four. He uses low woodwinds exceptionally well, especially English horn and bassoon. His clever additions for trombone and woodwinds enhance the Lindler sections, and his setting of the Lindler's brief return in the coda (bars 469-477) is inspired.

Wheeler, too, makes some effective additions to this long scherzo which help to knit its weaker sections together. Cooke, on the other hand, is bolder in the second scherzo, adding, from its sixth bar onward, impetuous cello arpeggios reminiscent of the opening movement of Das Lied von der Erde (of which there is a

184 The Musical Quarterly

Ex. 2. Carpenter: second movement. Lines A and B are Mahler's.

Fls. Obs., Cls.

Glspl.

D . 3.

Hns.

2. 4.

Trpts. Trbns.

Vln. I Vin. II

r - - - , --0%

1 c r e s c . f r-3 - Timp.

Bsns. Vla., Vlc.

Bass f

3__..• L3i:rJ

296

zu 4

I Ai

f I f- __

I,

I. • '•ai~ r I - - !•'-- _..---

Mahler's Tenth 185

subsequent thematic quotation in bars 184-188); his trombone chords punctuating two climaxes (bars 214 and 490) are also excellent additions. In general, however, any additions are bound to be controversial and should be regarded with caution. Not all voices added by another hand can be of Mahlerian quality and discrimination; the results of filling out must be judged by how the passage sounds and relates to the whole.

Inasmuch as Mahler left few indications of tempo, those of the editors are largely conjectural and conductors are at liberty to heed or disregard them. In the first two movements, the main task is to establish three distinct tempi, like those in the corresponding movements of the Ninth Symphony. Carpenter does this most assiduously in the second movement; his Poco meno mosso, Tempo II for the F-major "pastorale" section provides a good ref- erence point en route to Tempo III, the Lindler. After the D-major reprise of this, Carpenter's Tempo II proves more useful than Cooke's vague a tempo, nicht schleppend (bar 366).

The modifications of Mahler's tempi and the gradations and transitions among them, both within a movement and in relation to other movements, are as vital to proper interpretation as the basic tempi themselves. Divergences among the editors in this regard are so numerous that only a few can be cited here. Just before the first LUindler, Cooke, Wheeler, and Mazzetti write Dringend, so that the slower tempo occurs suddenly; Carpenter unwisely ritards into it. In the six bars before the second Lindler (corresponding to Ex. 2), Cooke writes ein wenig zurfickhaltend, then a tempo; Mazzetti, ein wenig gehalten, then Vorwirts; Wheeler, Allargando. Carpenter makes no change but thereafter gradually eases into Tempo III. The end of this section presents a tricky problem in that the last three melodic eighth notes coincide with the horn's upbeats to a faster tempo. Cooke, having specified Streng im Takt for violins over staccato horns and an ff pizzicato, writes rit. Carpenter, with strings contrastingly soft and legato, continues a Sehr missigend. Wheeler writes a ritard, implausibly including the horn's upbeats. Mazzetti puts a still less plausible hold on the violins' final A and starts the horn thereafter.

Even in the supposedly complete first movement there are significant differences of tempi among the editors, two of whom, Carpenter and Mazzetti, regrettably consider the Adagio nearly twice as slow as the opening Andante. The tempo beginning at bar

186 The Musical Quarterly

32 is marked Fliessend by Cooke and Mazzetti, Etwas fliessender by Carpenter; but thereafter only Mazzetti seems clearly to grasp the intermediate role played by this tempo throughout the movement. These relationships become especially important from the A minor in bar 112 onward, after the violas' third recitative ending in diminution. The prevailing Fliessend tempo must accommodate the recurrences of the Adagio theme while consistently leading toward the climax at the 6/4, bar 140. At the A-flat minor outburst, the editors again diverge: Cooke writes Breit, five bars later Nicht schleppen!, and for the famous dissonant chord Wieder breit. Carpenter writes just the opposite: Fliessend, then Molto Adagio subito, and at the chord Etwas dringend. Mazzetti goes still further, with an inappropriate Piii mosso subito in two, followed by L'istesso tempo twice as slow. Wheeler, like Ratz, indicates no change of tempo, probably coming closest to Mahler's intention.

Unfortunately, Mahler prescribed no tempo for the opening of either of the last two movements, so the editors had to rely on their instincts. Carpenter's typically Mahlerian indication Kraiftig, nicht zu schnell admirably captures the turbulent nature of the fourth movement (Mazzetti runs a close second with Allegro risoluto e pesante; Wheeler, a poor fourth with Allegro vivace malizioso). At bar 187, Carpenter inexplicably lapses into Pl6tzlich langsamer and thereafter is slow to regain the momentum. In general, Carpenter's tempo markings are slower than the others', and his version lasts four to five minutes longer than Cooke's. This results from his overall tragic view of the symphony, and his scoring, emphasizing somber hues and irony, is consistent with this. Even the deceptively peaceful Lindler are viewed as nostalgic, and the intrusions of

stopped horns or a sardonic bass clarinet are part of this concep- tion. Three motifs of the third movement engender much of the thematic substance of the last two, and Carpenter treats them cyclically, as if the foreboding of the third movement leads to despair in the fourth and an agonized struggle in the fifth.

Carpenter's tragic conception draws support from a series of verbal exclamations unprecedented in Mahler's symphonic output that appear in the draft beginning midway in the third movement:

"Erbarmenr' (Have mercy!), "Warum hast du mich verlassen?" (Why have you abandoned me?), etc. The influence of these cries on the

composition was explained at the Utrecht symposium by the Mahler historian Henry-Louis de La Grange. During the summer

Mahler's Tenth 187

of 1910, after writing most of the first two movements, Mahler was suddenly plunged into despair at discovering his wife's affair with the architect Walter Gropius (whom she married after Mahler's death). Alma felt neglected by a husband steeped in his work, and Mahler now reproached himself for having failed to recognize her needs and feared that he would lose her. These circumstances suggest that the title Purgatorio signified a personal purgatory and that the cruel, indifferent sixteenth notes pervading the move- ment, reminiscent of those in the earlier song "Das irdische Leben," represent the relentless course of events impinging on him.

Carpenter's response to all this is the most radical and eloquent of the four. He sets out to give this brief but central movement equal weight with the others. In order to avoid descrip- tive expectations and to focus on musical substance, he suppresses the title Purgatorio, believing that Mahler eventually would have done so himself. Instead of the Allegretto moderato marked by Cooke and Mazzetti and the misguided Allegro moderato of Wheeler, Carpenter finds a German indication for the atmosphere he wants: Unheimlich bewegt (uncannily agitated). Believing that Mahler's OD of the first twenty-five bars was only tentative, Carpenter, in the next twenty-five, adds bass tones, distant fanfares of muted horns and trumpets, and two chords of trombones, all harbingers of dire events. He scores the subordinate theme, beginning at bar 41, in unison. (So do Wheeler and Mazzetti; only Cooke uses cellos and basses in octaves.) Carpenter's orchestration of the portentous middle section is more somber and heartrending than the others'. His boldest stroke, however, is a varied Da Capo in which, at bar 133, he gives the solo horn a variant of the flute line from bars 14 to 22 (Ex. 3).

Ex. 3.

Horn 1 in F

P zart gesungen

w P PIP I ft Kr I hiU I I I i-mm~- blow Ow be

I v F

I I ig

188 The Musical Quarterly

Wheeler and Mazzetti also believe that Mahler ultimately would have written a varied repeat (Cooke acknowledges this but gives a literal one). Mazzetti places the earlier oboe theme an octave lower in the bassoon; Wheeler's variant makes good use of the E-flat clarinet.

Of the many divergences among the editors, an unusually interesting one occurs in the phrase that begins in bar 78. Cooke regards the two unharmonized bars on one stave followed by two harmonized bars on another as intended to sound consecutively, so he adds harmony beneath the first two. Carpenter treats the two lines simultaneously, thus compressing the four bars into two and therewith the six-bar phrase into four bars. Although the result, thickly scored, is unclear, Carpenter is not alone in this treatment; Wheeler also compresses the passage into four bars.

Even a single bass line, bars 50-52, produced three different readings (with different instrumentation) from the editors (see Exx. 4a, Cooke; 4b, Carpenter and Wheeler; and 4c, Mazzetti).

Ex. 4a. Cooke Bass

sempre f

Ex. 4b. Carpenter and Wheeler

Fag. zu 3

Ex. 4c. Mazzetti

K. Fag. 1. Solo Kb. _ _ _

I think 4b correct, and the revised Cooke edition adopts it. The last four bars of this movement raise yet another question,

since the SS's five-note chord on the second stave does not indicate which note is melodic. Does the three-note motif go upwards,

Mahler's Tenth 189

downwards, or into the middle of the chord? Cooke reads it down- wards and gives it to the trombone; Carpenter thinks upwards and uses bassoons and English horn; Wheeler and Mazzetti think halfway between, to E, and use horns. No one can be certain which reading is correct.

The opening of the fourth movement exhibits Carpenter's penchant for changing the tessitura of voices by putting them an octave or two above or below where Mahler wrote them. Noting from the SS that Mahler was especially undecided here, Carpenter puts the three-note motif in the third and fourth bars two octaves up in order to introduce another motif in the trombones, one that appears often throughout the movement (Ex. 5).

Ex. 5.

Obs. Cls.

if Vln. I

ArItTrpts .? Hns.

Trpts. Hns.

Trbns. w. I1 I ml ..if•

Controversial as this deviation is, it has the advantage of avoiding the clash of the C against the third horn's C-sharp in the same register, present in the Cooke and Mazzetti versions (Wheeler evades it by changing C to C-sharp!). Later in the movement, however, Carpenter's two-octave downward displacements obscure melodic lines by embedding them in complicated textures.

The greatest general difference between Cooke and Wheeler on the one hand and Carpenter and Mazzetti on the other is in dynamics. The latter two are usually louder and have a wider dynamic range. These differences are most pronounced in the last two movements; the outcries of the fourth movement in particular are more desperate-and hence more expressive of Mahler's state of mind in the summer of 1910-in Carpenter's and Mazzetti's realizations than in Cooke's and Wheeler's. The last of these out-

190 The Musical Quarterly

bursts (bar 505), in which Cooke's blatant high trumpets strike me as the worst feature of his score, receives tutti scoring from the others, including a brilliant page from Mazzetti that could have come from Mahler himself.

Carpenter's and Mazzetti's instrumentation of this second scherzo is also more adventurous than Cooke's and Wheeler's, although occasionally at the risk of clouded harmonies and textures. Whereas Cooke relies on violins for long stretches of the melodic line, Carpenter and Mazzetti prefer to distribute it be- tween different groups, using the woodwinds liberally. A good example occurs in the A-major Gemichlich section: Cooke gives the first thirteen bars to the first violins; Carpenter assigns the first five to the clarinet, the next three to the flute, and the last five to the violins, a scoring that points up a difference of phrasing as well. The E-major theme at bar 90 is equally significant: these eight bars, given to the violins by Cooke, are assigned by Carpenter to violins, oboe, violas, and back to violins. Such ingenuity, however, can lead to fragmentation and make the melodic line hard to follow. Mazzetti indulges in even more of this than Carpenter does, and his resourcefulness often leads to short-winded alternation and fussiness. Even in the solemn introduction of the Finale, his instrumentation is unduly intricate and he has an annoying habit of giving upbeats in one group to themes played by another.

There are also important structural differences among the editors, involving even the number of bars used. In Cooke's version the fourth movement has 578 bars, in Mazzetti's 580, in Wheeler's 585, and in Carpenter's 590! The discrepancies arise partly from Mahler's uncertain indications of what was to be deleted or rein- stated, partly through the realizers' opinions as to what warrants restatement, and occasionally through a telescoping of two bars into one. Cooke and Mazzetti delete a four-bar phrase and an eight-bar period; Wheeler keeps the first of these and Carpenter-persuasively-retains both. After these omissions, Cooke's chords sound abrupt, both tonally and structurally; in the second case he concedes that the link (between bars 397 and 398) remains problematic. Carpenter's restoration of these eight bars-with woodwinds' and strings' roles astutely reversed from the earlier scoring of bars 19-24-sounds logical and preserves the Scherzo's formal reprise after long Landler and waltz episodes. In Cooke's version, by contrast, this reprise is too brief to establish

Mahler's Tenth 191

itself before giving way to a transition into yet another LUndler. Both Cooke and Mazzetti further weaken this reprise by unac- countably retreating to a thin p in its eighth bar (387), whereas Carpenter and Wheeler remain vigorous. Yet there are several places where Carpenter, perhaps unexpectedly, is more restrained than Cooke; two of these warrant attention. One is a transitional passage (bars 301-308) in which the SS simply has chords, one to a bar. Cooke, strangely, gives these chords to muted brass and adds three-note motivic alternations between horns (several recordings replace the horns with other additions). Carpenter adds nothing, but creates delicate suspense by distributing these chords over widely spaced divided strings, only adding flute and harp after- wards, leading into the boisterous A-major waltz episode. The other instance is an eight-bar refrain in bars 478-485, where Cooke's pulsating crescendo is marked by the recurrence of a triplet motif in the brass (at least two conductors have changed the trumpet's incongruous high F-sharp to low C-sharp to produce the octave leap analogous to previous occurrences). Carpenter remains surprisingly quiet, placing the triplet motif in the cellos beneath the melody in muted trumpet and trombone and adding harp arpeggios in the last four bars, so that the following outbreak will come unprepared. His purpose is defeated by poor scoring.

Divergent readings of two alternative staves of the SS in bars 157-161 of this movement also redound to Carpenter's disad- vantage. Whereas Cooke chooses the lower stave, using tremolo strings and flutter-tonguing flutes over solo trombone, Carpenter adopts both alternatives at once, pitting rapid exchanges in horns and trumpets against woodwind trills and violin tremolos, the chords deliberately clashing, the total effect muddled. He is more effective when adding passing tones enhancing inner voices and bass lines such as those at bars 450-455.

Carpenter's earlier virtues are further offset by his handling of this movement's melancholy closing pages. Again fearing rhyth- mic bareness, he embellishes the r motif, so touching in its simplicity, and adds quotations from Das Lied von der Erde in the flute, oboe, and bass clarinet. His preference for legato in this coda in contrast to the other editors' staccato, however, is both con- sistent with his somber conception and defensible with regard to the SS (Mahler in his haste often omitted slurs where he wanted them). The daring timpani passage--eight pitches in eight bars--is

192 The Musical Quarterly

divided by Cooke and Mazzetti between two timpanists, whereas Carpenter and Wheeler content themselves with one. Among the editors' choices of different instruments for the closing bars, Mazzetti's bassoon for the phrase at bar 557 stands out as more poignant than Cooke's clarinet.

From Alma Mahler's memoirs, we know that the drum stroke that ends the fourth movement was inspired by that of a muffled military drum Mahler heard while observing the funeral pro- cession of a New York fireman. It recurs eleven times in the Finale's introduction, marked sf each time by Mahler but raised to ff by Cooke in his belief that to sound effectively it must be hit with the player's full strength. These jarring blows disturb the otherwise subdued introduction and, in some performances, have provoked audience reactions that neither Mahler nor Cooke would have desired. Carpenter, convinced that a muffled drum struck f can sound softly but be felt strongly by an audience, marks these strokes p each time except for the one at bar 72 that truncates the introduction's climax; he uses a bass drum instead of the muffled military drum indicated by Mahler and used by the other editors. He is on shakier ground, however, when he borrows the opening rhythm of Mahler's Seventh Symphony to fill in the block har- monies of bars 18-29. (What is the point of recognizing the Seventh while listening to the Tenth?)

The lack of a designated tempo for this introduction leads Wheeler into a serious misconception. He feels that the second scherzo, cut short by the drum stroke, is trying to start again; so he marks it Allegretto (the other editors agree on Langsam) and eventually ritards into Adagio at the flute solo. Cooke and

Carpenter mark the flute solo slightly faster. For the central Allegro moderato-performances of Cooke's version tend to neglect Mahler's moderato-only Carpenter contrives to hold the tempo down by adding a pizzicato accompaniment in violins and violas. At the climax illustrated in Examples la and Ib, Wheeler errs again by ignoring Mahler's 4/4 indication; he remains Alla breve throughout the return of the dissonant chord, his eight bars going twice as fast as those in the other realizations. He goes into 4/4 only at the horns' recall of the opening Andante.

Since the entire first page of the SS for this Finale contains only seven indications of the instruments Mahler had in mind, the editors' conjectural scorings of the motifs prefigured in the third

Mahler's Tenth 193

movement again diverge considerably. Cooke assigns the opening seven-note ascending motif exclusively to the tuba; the others use basses, then bass clarinet and cellos at different points. For the five- note descending motif, Cooke and Wheeler, proceeding from Mahler's 8va marking, choose the horn; Mazzetti, the English horn and flutes; Carpenter, construing the marking to mean an octave lower, places this motif in the lugubrious register of the bassoon, seeing anguish where the others see hope.

Cooke discreetly accompanies the sublime flute theme with violas and cellos in sustained tones according to the SS, introducing harp in the eighth bar. Carpenter unwisely uses woodwind too near the flute's register, joined by two harps in eighth-note arpeggios. As the introduction proceeds, it is Mazzetti who best realizes its mounting intensity. But elsewhere Mazzetti's scoring of this Finale is often mannered, with queer voice leading; his choice of the cellos for the dramatic return of the flute theme midway in the Allegro moderato is weaker than Cooke's horns. Carpenter goes to the other extreme by employing the entire brass section, adding motivic trombone calls and even inserting two 2/4 bars. Up to this point he has constructed his dynamic scale carefully, and his orchestration is the only one that preserves Mahler's twice-specified sempre p before the first sudden ff. Everyone else gets too loud too soon (although Cooke's collaborators have reduced the dynamics for woodwinds and horns in their revised edition).

The absence of clefs in Mahler's SS leads to an intriguing divergence among the editors at bar 179, over whether the three- note motif on stave "c" was intended to be in treble or bass clef. Cooke and Wheeler read it in treble and give it to trumpets as E-G-E; Carpenter and Mazzetti, construing bass clef, place it in the trombones as G-B-flat-G. Either is defensible, since both fit into the prevailing harmony. The reading in bass clef has the advantage of filling in a register otherwise absent from the chord.

In their approaches to the reprise and the great climax, none of the realizations shows consistent skill; Cooke's phrase for clarinets and second violins at bar 239 is especially weak. To Cooke's climax (Ex. la), Kurt Sanderling, an experienced Mahler con- ductor, adds a passing tone in the violins, percussion rolls beneath the sustained trumpet, and then strings along with horns for the return of the opening Andante theme. Although I disagree with

194 The Musical Quarterly

these additions, I think that many of Sanderling's earlier alter- ations strengthen Cooke's score.

In the Epilogue, the editors again show important differences in instrumentation and dynamics. Cooke's team entrusts the first fifteen bars to winds, while the other versions use strings with winds and harp added in various places. Carpenter's sonority seems to me the most appropriate. Wheeler has the inspiration to give the flute the return of its original theme; in the final diminuendo, however, he prosaically relies on divided string groups for fourteen bars, whereas the other realizers select varying combinations. At bar 352, instead of Cooke's startling ff fifths of the lower strings, Carpenter starts pp and surges upward in a crescendo reinforced by the trombones and a typically Mahlerian bass drum roll. However, the most important difference between Carpenter and the other editors begins in bar 370 where, after an intense ff, Cooke, Wheeler, and Mazzetti begin a diminuendo to an exquisite pp on high F-sharp in bar 376. Once again Mahler's SS gives no

dynamic indication for these bars; they might just as well have been intended to be loud. Carpenter therefore uses a subito p to pre- pare a culminating climax, with the full orchestra (Ex. 6, p. 195).

Given Carpenter's tragic view of the symphony, this final

outpouring strikes me as a transfiguration of a long-tortured soul. It evolves from Mahler's words on the last page of the SS: "Fiir dich leben, fiir dich sterben, Almschi!" (To live for you, to die for you, Almschi!), which suggest a kinship with Isolde's Liebestod. From this ff climax, Carpenter also gives himself more room for diminuendo into the closing bars; Cooke's line, already pp, cannot get softer and loses tension. As if to emphasize that this is no serene accep- tance of the end, Carpenter adds timpani, bass drum, and gong beneath the last poignant ff sigh, on which agonized sf G-sharps alternate in the violins; he uses only strings in the last three bars, omitting basses from the final chord.

Each of the versions contains numerous misreadings, although some of Cooke's have been corrected in the revised edition. One of these, in bar 226 of the first movement, is of particular interest in that the correction of the second violins' last two notes to E- natural-D-natural (from E-sharp-D-sharp), analogous to earlier occurrences in bars 32 and 81 and in line with the SS, restores the minor tonality of this bar and renders the B-major chord of the next bar more striking. Otherwise, the sharp before D in that

Mahler's Tenth 195

Ex. 6. Carpenter: Finale

372 Fls., Obs.Aa

Vln. II

CIs. Vin. II

creSC.

Hns.

f

Vlas." ., ..

Vic. --- Bass I-UIAI

Bsns. sost.HInA**

374 - ---

add Obs. Trpt., Vlas.

mTba.

"74"

cresc .

196 The Musical Quarterly

chord would have been superfluous in a six-sharp signature. Evidently Mahler forgot that he was writing in that signature, so clearly was he thinking in F-sharp minor. Carpenter had already reached this solution, his E-natural-D-natural reflecting his darker view of the symphony.

For the most part, all the editors employ the orchestra used by Mahler in his Ninth Symphony, with quadruple woodwind; Carpenter calls for an additional flute and Wheeler for two E-flat clarinets. All but Carpenter require four trombones. Carpenter and Mazzetti use two harps, Cooke and Wheeler one. Noteworthy differences occur in the employment of percussion instruments. In the first movement, Carpenter and Mazzetti add timpani and bass drum rolls at strategic moments. In the fourth movement, Cooke and Wheeler use snare drum, xylophone, and Rute. Carpenter uses none of these, and in their revised edition Cooke's collaborators eliminate the first two, having decided that the scoring sounds more authentic without them. Mazzetti's use of glockenspiel further demonstrates his ingenuity and sense of Mahlerian color.

Each of the four versions casts some light on what Mahler

might have done had he lived to finish, hear, and revise the symphony. No single verdict need be reached; the cleanest sound belongs to the Cooke version, the greatest emotional impact comes from Carpenter, and the most imaginative treatment comes from Mazzetti. If I had to choose the most viable version to conduct next season, I would proceed from the revised Cooke version and insert certain passages from the others, to a degree consistent with textural continuity and overall proportion. This approach might produce a rendition of which Mahler would have approved.