A modern-day Mengelberg M4?

[hrandall]

I suppose Mengelberg's M4 recording is one of a kind, but I'm curious what other recording(s) in (relatively) modern sound board members feel is closest to Mengelberg's interpretation?

I have some ideas but I wonder what others may think.

Cheers,
Herb

[waderice]

Of all the M4's I've heard, I don't recall any other taken the way Mengelberg takes it (molto rubato), unless there's one I'm unaware of.

Keep in mind that when Mengelberg's M4 was recorded (1939), the Old School of molto rubato was still pretty much in use.  Starting about 1940, and pretty much by 1950, molto rubato had pretty much become passe, and the Toscanini school of conducting according to what the score tells you to do is in vogue by that time.

Wade

[chris]

I haven't heard his recording, but I did hear Marcus Stenz do M4 in Chicago a while back and remember being reminded of Mengelberg's recording.

[barry guerrero]

As I recall (and would like to quickly forget), Mengelberg made big contrasts of tempo in the first movement. If that's your 'bag', try either Abbado or Honeck/Pittsburg (Exton). However, neither of them strikes me as being quite as extreme as I remember Mengelberg being.

[Prospero]

If you listen to Mahler's piano roll recordings, you will find tempo fluctuations that are surprising. Granted Mahler's piano technique is not very impressive, still we have some version of his music played by him. And Mahler did play his symphonies at the piano for Alma, Bruno Walter, and others when basically completed. Mengelberg worked rather closely with Mahler, including the double Amsterdam premier with Mahler present when Mengelberg played the 4th both before and after intermission.

So there is some historical possibility that Mengelberg's approach has more than usual connection to Mahler's interpretation.

Best to all,

Tom

[barry guerrero]

I somewhat doubt that. It's well known that Mahler become more 'economical' in his conducting towards the end of his life. In contrast, it's pretty much believed that Mengelberg got weirder as he went along. Then again, it's all just speculation.

I don't mind 'contrast-y' tempi in the first movement, but I don't want to sea-sick from it either.

[waderice]

I somewhat doubt that. It's well known that Mahler become more 'economical' in his conducting towards the end of his life. In contrast, it's pretty much believed that Mengelberg got weirder as he went along. Then again, it's all just speculation.

I don't mind 'contrast-y' tempi in the first movement, but I don't want to sea-sick from it either.

Probably the best example I have on DVD where a conductor became more "economical" in his conducting at a later age are two different performances (though the later one is just an excerpt) of Fritz Reiner conducting Beethoven's Seventh.  Reiner was known for a minimalist "vest pocket" beat, which was tiny to begin with.  The complete, though cut, performance in 1954 certainly shows him as more robust in his conducting manner, whereas the other, at the same spot in the work in 1961, shows his beat as extremely miniscule, barely perceptible.  But by this later date, Reiner had suffered two major heart attacks, and was just coming back from recovering from his second one.

Wade

[Prospero]

"Economical" may be a modern preference. but just because one likes it doesn't mean that is the way the composer imagined it.

If you don't like Mahler's recorded piano rolls, you might say he was better in your view at some later unrecorded stage.

But the fact remains that in many instances earlier performance practice, even Mahler's, was quite different from current taste. Is ours more perfect than his?

One major example is Mahler's meticulously notated string glissandos, which tend to be heavily censored in contemporary performance. Famously, Barbirolli had to cajole the  New Philharmonia on this in his important 5th, reportedly offering to pay any civil fines the orchestra received for violating the edicts of musical taste.

Best to all,

Tom in Vermont

[barry guerrero]

Tom,

I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. But neither am I going to roll over. Regardless, it seems to be rather well known that Mahler's piano 'chops' weren't in the best shape when he made those rolls. Also, the allotted time was quite short (or so I've read). In addition, I've heard from fairly reliable sources that the mechanical works of the piano - whatever it was they did - wasn't the easiest to work with either. Mahler may have walked in a sort  of 'hiccup' manner, but I somewhat doubt that he always conducted that way. In addition, I don't feel that indicated glissandi has ANYTHING to do with degrees of tempo modification. And, by the way, many modern recordings do, in fact, observe the written glissandi. Added or implied glissandi are, of course, a matter of interpretive license.

On top of all that, I fail to see how Mahler's piano rolls are somehow a vindication for the sheer amount of extreme contrasts in tempi that Mengelberg 'peppers' upon his first movement to M4. I'm not saying that Mengelberg was somehow wrong, but I'm not going to 'buy' that that's how Mahler did it himself, without some real proof that that, indeed, was the case. If one thinks about it, what would have been the point of Mahler and Mengelberg 'copy catting' each other during that famous concert where they both conducted M4? Wouldn't that have been kind of boring? Wouldn't a concert where two conductors 'copy cat' each other sort of go against the very types of arguments that historical buffs tend to make?

Anyway, that's just my zwei groschen, as it's ALL a matter of speculation without hard evidence either way (as I already stated).

[Prospero]

Barry,

Lots of well informed reflection on these matters here.

Not too much to disagree about. But I do think late 20th century and early 21st century practice of both orchestral and chamber music has turned strongly against interpretive variety of tempo and phrasing used in earlier times  pretty markedly. And there is some evidence that Mahler and in a more documented way, Mengelberg, had tempo variations that would not be acceptable under today's "economical" label in these matters. No matter what the conditions for Mahler's piano roll sessions, they are what we have.

There is a marvelous live performance of the Schubert Piano Trio, Op. 99, from Edinburgh in 1948 with Schnabel, Szygeti, and Fournier that a pianist friend of mine loves. But, as he says, no one could get away with those tempo fluctuations today.

Like the general taste in reviews against marked tempo variations, as "old fashioned" and not acceptable in most cases, I find the general use of glissando in most Mahler performances to be generally quite clipped. So I think there is some connection between resisting marked tempo changes and the muting of glissando effects in contemporary perfromance practice. This not to say that there aren't many marvelous live and recorded versions available, but rather to question whether contemporary taste in these matters isn't more uniform than is entirely healthy.

Best,

Tom

[Prospero]

"I'm not saying that Mengelberg was somehow wrong, but I'm not going to 'buy' that that's how Mahler did it himself, without some real proof that that, indeed, was the case. If one thinks about it, what would have been the point of Mahler and Mengelberg 'copy catting' each other during that famous concert where they both conducted M4? Wouldn't that have been kind of boring? Wouldn't a concert where two conductors 'copy cat' each other sort of go against the very types of arguments that historical buffs tend to make?" from Barry.

Checking in La Grange, the evidence is that Mahler conducted both performances of 23 October 1904 in Amsterdam. From a card to Alma: "I'm leaving now for the concert, where  I'm going to conduct the Fourth twice in succession" (Vol 3, p. 39).

Best,

Tom

[barry guerrero]

No, that's not the case. Mengelberg conducted one and Mahler conducted the other. Both were with the Concertgebouw.

More to the point, if Mengelberg allegedly has Mahler 4 'right' (which I'm not saying he doesn't), then how do we explain the big differences between Mengelberg, Walter and Klemperer in M4? Tom, you mentioned Barbirolli. Now there's a conductor who's not exactly, 'all over the place' when it comes to tempi and tempo relationships. Further more, how would one justify Jascha Horenstein, who employs a sort of 'one size fits all' approach to tempi in general? Ever listened to Horenstein's finale to M7? There's almost no tempo contrast throughout it, and that's a movement that has tons of tempo modifications indicated in the score (same is true of the second Nachtmusik).

If one listens to Fried's "Resurrection" - which is nearly impossible to hear - there really isn't a whole lot of bouncing around in terms of tempi in that performance either. Certainly nothing that I find too surprising. Furthermore, Mahler's piano rolls give me very little clue that Mahler was constantly making huge contrasts in tempi (maybe he was). I think the biggest lesson from those rolls is that the final stanzas to the fourth movement of M4 are usually taken too slowly these days (after the last sleigh-bell and woodwinds outburst). Both Walter and Mengelberg take those final stanzas quicker than usual, and that's probably right on the money.

[Prospero]

Barry,

All I can say is that La Grange quotes a handwritten card to Alma from Mahler saying he is conducting both performances of the Fourth that day. In this instance it would seem that La Grange, as stated, has documentary evidence that does not agree with your statement about the performance. I cite again volume and page in La Grange (vol. 3, p. 39). If you have a more credible source, you might share it.

There is also a quote from Alma on the same page where Alma claims to refer to one of the performances as being conducted by Mengelberg that La Grange says must be misinformed, but she says Mengelberg "adhered so closely to Mahler's instructions that it seemed it was Mahler himself conducting."

La Grange thinks she is misreporting Mahler's reference to a performance of the Schumann Fourth.

La Grange says, and I quote: "There is ample evidence that Mahler himself conducted both performances of the Fourth: the Concertgebouw program, the reviews, an entry in Alphons Diepenbrock's diary, and finally this phrase from a recently published card to Alma: 'I'm leaving now for the concert, where I'm to conduct the Fourth twice in succession.'"

With all due respect, Barry, that sounds like pretty solid evidence for Mahler conducting both performances. If you have reputable sources to refute La Grange's documentation, please share them.

And at that time it seems Mahler and Mengelberg were pretty close in interpretive approach.

Best,

Tom

[Prospero]

On tempos, let many flowers bloom.

Best,

Tom

[barry guerrero]

Hey if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Facts is facts, and that's a fact. However, that does mean that I own at least one biographical something-or-another that has it wrong. When I get to my other residence in San Jose, I'm going to check with my Knud Martner "Mahler's Concerts" book. Knud Martner would definitely get it right.