gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: James Meckley on September 16, 2010, 04:52:01 AM
-
A new "realization and elaboration" of Mahler's Tenth Symphony by 23-year-old Yoel H. Gamzou was premièred in Berlin on Sunday, September 5.
http://nhpr.org/yoel-gamzou-premieres-his-version-mahler’s-tenth-symphony-berlin
http://www.gamzou.com/mahler10.html
http://www.schott-music.com/news/archive/show,4722.html
Anybody know anything about this? Barry?
James
EDIT: The first link seems to be broken, but if you'll copy and paste it into your browser window, it should work.
-
It's probably ok, but I did not enjoy the "tone" of that second write-up you provided. Thanx for the info.
dj
-
Nope, but I'd sure like to hear this.
-
Yep, I knew about this. Recently, I've been proof-reading parts of Frans Bouwman's "diplomatic transcription" of the M10 manuscript. Obviously, I've had quite a few chats with Frans concerning this, and during some of these conversations Frans mentioned Yoel Gamzou, whose work Frans holds in very high esteem. To me, his claims seem a bit arrogant, but hey, maybe he does provide the most valid of versions...
Yoel is a very young Berlin-based Israeli conductor. I was in Germany on the 5th of September and I caught an item on German TV about this premiere; not much of the music to be heard, though.
Freddy
-
I like what Gamzou has to say, but the proof is always in the pudding. I had one time exchanged e-mails with Bouwman regarding my ideas, and I'm almost sorry that I did. I don't feel that he comprehended where I was "coming from" at all, and has completely misquoted me. I'm sure he's a great guy, but seems to be supremely concerned about which notes are the right ones. I find this to be almost a non-issue. Most people will never hear those differences. I know that I'm sounding sort of a negative tone here, but I find that pretty much all of these people do not ask themselves the big picture issues that surround this work. Questions like:
Q.) In the finale, would Mahler have left the reprise of the first movement's expressionistic climax pretty much exactly the same as it is in that first movement?
Opinion). No, I don't think so at all. Mahler constantly varied his material, and I believe he would have made the reprise far more powerful and frightening. There's absolutely no point in making them the same.
Q.) Would Mahler have left the first scherzo pretty much as it exists now?
O.) Absolutely not. The second movement is a complete and utter mess. It truly needs to be completely re-orchestrated. Also, if anything, some material should be cut out; not more useless filigree added. You have to remember that this movement was originally intended to be a finale, and there are some influences from M5/V. There's also some resemblance to M4/II, as well as the Rondo-Burlesque from M9. At some point, Mahler must have considered leaving the 10th as a two movement symphony. Then he made it his first scherzo instead. Consider just one of the many, MANY problems with M10/II:
at the very end of the first scherzo, Mahler has ALL of the trumpets on a series of fast, ascending notes. This is doubled with woodwinds, and they completely cover over the four horns playing their hemiola (over the bar lines) half notes. You don't hear the horns until their long, held-out note closer to the end. Worst yet, there's a completely different line that the violins are playing that is totally inaudible. It's also a fast line that runs somewhat counter to that series of fast, ascending notes in the trumpets. Mahler never, NEVER would have left this passage like this. If you have a copy of the Cooke score, you can easily see what I'm talking about. This NEEDS to be completely re-scored. I would put unison woodwinds with the glockenspiel on the series of fast, ascending notes, and then put just two or three trumpets doubling the line that the violins play (it's a cool line!). In my opinion, it wouldn't hurt to expand the horns to six in M10. Now, take the long, suspended note in the unison horns that follows.
Notice that this part very much resembles what happens at the end of M7/I. Many conductors try to get the horns to make a crescendo on that note, but they're ALREADY playing fortissimo. Why not add a crescendo on a suspended cymbal underneath the horns - just as it's used at the end of M7/I? The cymbal would cut out on the final five notes, and those five notes could easily be doubled with the snare drum (I'd also add light bass drum on the very last note). Since you'd already be using a suspended cymbal, the crash on the hand cymbals could be replaced with a slap on the holzklapper (wood slap). This would work, but this is just one of the many problems this movement presents - there are many!
Q.) Should the last two movements be linked by two separate strokes on the drum, or just one?
Opinion). I think Rattle has clearly proven that one stroke is perfectly effective. If one insists on separate strokes, then get two totally different sounds! You could use a soft bass drum tap to end the second scherzo, then a forte "whap" on a side drum to start the finale (I would not do all of the following strokes that way at all!). You could do it the other way around, if you'd like - the point is not to make the same exact sound twice. There are so many common sense solutions to this whole issue. For example, the solo drum - bass drum; side drum, whatever - could be fairly soft during the intro. section of movement V, but then come in at a full forte after the long flute solo (actually, the strings take up the flute solo tune and expand upon it). Why assume that the dynamic level for the solo drum should always be the same? Would Mahler do that? Of course not.
Q.) In the Purgatorio movement, would Mahler have left the material after the climax pretty like it is now, which is almost a da capo repeat of the beginning?
Opinion). No, I don't believe so at all. Again, Mahler constantly varied his material. That doesn't mean that it's an invitation to show off ones contrapuntal prowess. There's a different between varying the material, and just adding more useless contrapuntal filigree that only clogs up the works. One needs to study concrete examples of how Mahler varies his material - even if just slightly. Carpenter recognized this problem, but went a bit too far with his strange little solo for the first horn.
Q.) In the finale, would Mahler have left the material after the expressionist climax pretty much as it exists now, or would Mahler have elaborated on this somehow? Did he want this material to simply be a reprise of what happens in the last movement of the 9th symphony?
O.) Again, I have very strong feelings that this isn't the case. In my opinion, this material is often times performed too slow. Both Carpenter and S/M make a brief passage near the end of the finale - it's in major - a forte or fortissimo passage, and not pianissimo as it's presented in Cooke (and the others). I strongly agree with their opinion on this. The very first time I ever heard that material, I felt that it was crying out to be heard loudly, not soft. In general, I feel that there's a lot more that could be done with the back half of the fifth movement. In the 10th, Mahler was trying to cross new grounds, musically speaking, and not just present a reprise of the 9th.
These are just some of the big picture issues that people need to be asking themselves, and they need form opinions of their own, then defend them. More busy work; more filigree; more contrapuntal stuff not composed by Mahler - these are not the answers to this incredible work.
Just my zwei Groschen.
-
Interesting thoughts there Barry. It needs definitely a bottle of wine, a whole evening and a big table to put the scores on the table to be able to discuss this (as an amateur musician there's only so much one can know or understand anyway).
-- As far as I know, the climax of the first movement is a bit varied in the last movement. I gather you would change even more?
-- Two-movement symphony in the beginning? Now there's a radical thought!
-- The Purgatorio "da capo" is mentioned by many others that it needs reworking exactly because Mahler was a constant developer of thematic material.
Perhaps I can say more when I finally get to hear the Carpenter version by Zinman since I only hear Cooke and Barshai.
As far as I can tell, the reason why the Cooke edition is popular: people can live with the thought that it represents what Mahler wrote with little change/addition. Just look at the fury they unleash otherwise: Barshai's is "Shostakovich 16th", Wheeler's is "over-wrought".
It's not hard to imagine the reaction if somebody should change, or even cut out parts (like you think about II.): just think about what people say about the SPCM version of Bruckner's 9th where the new composition is mainly in the coda (and some hole fillings otherwise in-between). People don't even want to hear it and no high-profile conductor will perform it (Harding is the best known of the ones who did perform it)! There's extensive reasoning behind the SPCM version that everybody can read. Just as you say:
These are just some of the big picture issues that people need to be asking themselves, and they need form opinions of their own, then defend them. More busy work; more filigree; more contrapuntal stuff not composed by Mahler - these are not the answers to this incredible work.
And yet: nobody seems to have problems with "Mozart's" Requiem?
Sanctimonious.
-
"As far as I can tell, the reason why the Cooke edition is popular: people can live with the thought that it represents what Mahler wrote with little change/addition"
Oh, absolutely. Everybody will forever be indebted to D. Cooke for what he has done. Frankly, if I ever got around to actually doing some work on the 10th (now is not a good period in my life, time wise), it would probably be more Cooke-like than most of the others. This would be especially true in the second scherzo, where many of the others seem to feel that it needs to be recomposed (I would say far more the first scherzo), and are thus way too willing to show-off their prowess in composing busy sounding filegree. Cooke did, however, farm out some of his orchestration duties to Berthold Goldschmidt, and you can hear some "Goldschmidt-isms" here and there. One blatant example is in the first scherzo - during the trio section - where Goldschmidt puts solo violin and solo oboe playing melody lines in unison. I can't think of a single instance where Mahler made that sound, and thus it sounds so uncharacteristic of Mahler. Not only that, but Cooke leaves them playing in unison for far too long. Mahler would have broken up the scoring of such melody lines more frequently - toss the ball to other instruments, in other words.
-
[...] if I ever got around to actually doing some work on the 10th (now is not a good period in my life, time wise), it would probably be more Cooke-like than most of the others. [...]
Barry,
I'm sure you don't need this kind of encouragement (or exhortation even), but considering what you've written throughout the years on this Mahler Board (and other forums before this one) - and in other places - on this subject, it would be great to see more of your ideas. This would probably be something you'd need to do on your own, but if I could be any help on this side of the Atlantic... How about you start to put your ideas together and work the bulk of it into an article? It would give me a nice scoop; I'm chairman of the board of editors of the Journal of the Dutch Mahler Society (called 'Mahler News') and I would gladly add your text to this journal. Well, of you're interested in any way, we could privately mail on this matter. I decided to post this here, so other board members can urge you to do this, as well :). And I'd like to get my post count up... ;)
Freddy
EDIT: Sorry Barry, I thought I read 'now is a good period in my life' instead of 'now is NOT a good period...'. Still, maybe such an article would be an idea?
-
I like what Gamzou has to say, but the proof is always in the pudding. I had one time exchanged e-mails with Bouwman regarding my ideas, and I'm almost sorry that I did. I don't feel that he comprehended where I was "coming from" at all, and has completely misquoted me. I'm sure he's a great guy, but seems to be supremely concerned about which notes are the right ones. I find this to be almost a non-issue. Most people will never hear those differences. I know that I'm sounding sort of a negative tone here, but I find that pretty much all of these people do not ask themselves the big picture issues that surround this work. Questions like:
Q.) In the finale, would Mahler have left the reprise of the first movement's expressionistic climax pretty much exactly the same as it is in that first movement?
Opinion). No, I don't think so at all. Mahler constantly varied his material, and I believe he would have made the reprise far more powerful and frightening. There's absolutely no point in making them the same.
Q.) Would Mahler have left the first scherzo pretty much as it exists now?
O.) Absolutely not. The second movement is a complete and utter mess. It truly needs to be completely re-orchestrated. Also, if anything, some material should be cut out; not more useless filigree added. You have to remember that this movement was originally intended to be a finale, and there are some influences from M5/V. There's also some resemblance to M4/II, as well as the Rondo-Burlesque from M9. At some point, Mahler must have considered leaving the 10th as a two movement symphony. Then he made it his first scherzo instead. Consider just one of the many, MANY problems with M10/II:
at the very end of the first scherzo, Mahler has ALL of the trumpets on a series of fast, ascending notes. This is doubled with woodwinds, and they completely cover over the four horns playing their hemiola (over the bar lines) half notes. You don't hear the horns until their long, held-out note closer to the end. Worst yet, there's a completely different line that the violins are playing that is totally inaudible. It's also a fast line that runs somewhat counter to that series of fast, ascending notes in the trumpets. Mahler never, NEVER would have left this passage like this. If you have a copy of the Cooke score, you can easily see what I'm talking about. This NEEDS to be completely re-scored. I would put unison woodwinds with the glockenspiel on the series of fast, ascending notes, and then put just two or three trumpets doubling the line that the violins play (it's a cool line!). In my opinion, it wouldn't hurt to expand the horns to six in M10. Now, take the long, suspended note in the unison horns that follows.
Notice that this part very much resembles what happens at the end of M7/I. Many conductors try to get the horns to make a crescendo on that note, but they're ALREADY playing fortissimo. Why not add a crescendo on a suspended cymbal underneath the horns - just as it's used at the end of M7/I? The cymbal would cut out on the final five notes, and those five notes could easily be doubled with the snare drum (I'd also add light bass drum on the very last note). Since you'd already be using a suspended cymbal, the crash on the hand cymbals could be replaced with a slap on the holzklapper (wood slap). This would work, but this is just one of the many problems this movement presents - there are many!
Q.) Should the last two movements be linked by two separate strokes on the drum, or just one?
Opinion). I think Rattle has clearly proven that one stroke is perfectly effective. If one insists on separate strokes, then get two totally different sounds! You could use a soft bass drum tap to end the second scherzo, then a forte "whap" on a side drum to start the finale (I would not do all of the following strokes that way at all!). You could do it the other way around, if you'd like - the point is not to make the same exact sound twice. There are so many common sense solutions to this whole issue. For example, the solo drum - bass drum; side drum, whatever - could be fairly soft during the intro. section of movement V, but then come in at a full forte after the long flute solo (actually, the strings take up the flute solo tune and expand upon it). Why assume that the dynamic level for the solo drum should always be the same? Would Mahler do that? Of course not.
Q.) In the Purgatorio movement, would Mahler have left the material after the climax pretty like it is now, which is almost a da capo repeat of the beginning?
Opinion). No, I don't believe so at all. Again, Mahler constantly varied his material. That doesn't mean that it's an invitation to show off ones contrapuntal prowess. There's a different between varying the material, and just adding more useless contrapuntal filigree that only clogs up the works. One needs to study concrete examples of how Mahler varies his material - even if just slightly. Carpenter recognized this problem, but went a bit too far with his strange little solo for the first horn.
Q.) In the finale, would Mahler have left the material after the expressionist climax pretty much as it exists now, or would Mahler have elaborated on this somehow? Did he want this material to simply be a reprise of what happens in the last movement of the 9th symphony?
O.) Again, I have very strong feelings that this isn't the case. In my opinion, this material is often times performed too slow. Both Carpenter and S/M make a brief passage near the end of the finale - it's in major - a forte or fortissimo passage, and not pianissimo as it's presented in Cooke (and the others). I strongly agree with their opinion on this. The very first time I ever heard that material, I felt that it was crying out to be heard loudly, not soft. In general, I feel that there's a lot more that could be done with the back half of the fifth movement. In the 10th, Mahler was trying to cross new grounds, musically speaking, and not just present a reprise of the 9th.
These are just some of the big picture issues that people need to be asking themselves, and they need form opinions of their own, then defend them. More busy work; more filigree; more contrapuntal stuff not composed by Mahler - these are not the answers to this incredible work.
Just my zwei Groschen.
By coincidence, I have been on a tour of M10’s over the last week. I definitely share your opinion that the second movement (first scherzo) needs the most work. I am not particularly enthusiastic about any of the current efforts.
Despite my love of the overall Carpenter/Litton (“C/L”) version, their second movement is very much over-orchestrated – although at least it is FULLY orchestrated. That would be my main complaint about the Cooke version – it is too bare – even though the entirety of his effort is monumental, worthwhile, and highly enjoyable. Mazzetti has some interesting ideas, but is not generally preferable to the above two. I have very little praise about Wheeler or Barshai in any of the final four movements (and have not re-listened to S-M yet).
Ironically, it seems that much of the critical complaining is about the second scherzo (fourth movement), which I think is fabulously done by either C/L or Cooke (especially Cooke II with the snare drums).
Barry, many of your recommendations are easy to imagine (hear in my head)– and I very enthusiastically agree with those. If I had time, money, and any ability, I would love to start with the C/L version and scale back or replace (i.e. with ideas from the other existing versions) some of the things that don’t work for me. For example, in the C/L finale I am perfectly thrilled with the last 6+ minutes through to the end. However, I would add back the Cooke II treatment of the music after the dissonant trumpet music dissipates. C/L goes directly to the strings from this point to the end, but Cooke starts out with some brass and winds first before shifting to the strings – which makes for more of a transitional development. So I like Cooke’s idea for this first spot but much prefer everything Litton does through the end: the very Mahlerian use of dynamic and tempi changes, the use of the bass drum in critical spots (and I think that there is a tam-tam underneath that final bass drum thump about 30 seconds before the end). C/L gives M10-5 the Mahlerian ending I would expect.
I also like the changes C/L make to the first movement as well as the efforts to make the M10-3 Purgatorio repeat into something special (i.e. not a literal repeat).
-
Freddy, Scott,
I really appreciate the encouragement. Let's just hope that Yoel Gamzou is giving us yet another positive and interesting look into the Mahler 10th. Unfortunately, in terms of free time and finances, this is the worst possible time period for me. There should be a time in the future - hopefully, not too distant - where things will work themselves out to some extent. I've also been hesitant because, quite truthfully, I've lived the 10th in the most literal terms possible. Thus, the moods and emotions of the Mahler 10th are not something that I'm anxious to relive. I do love it from a purely musical and intellectual standpoint. Freddy, I will make an attempt to act upon your suggestions, but the next few weeks will be out of the question. It's Oktoberfest time, and I have seven days of relatively good paying gigs coming up (tuba). I have to fit those gigs into the other full time responsibilities I've managed get myself roped into. As I've mentioned before, it's easy for someone like me to sit around, be critical, and spend what little free time there is blabbing endlessly at this site. I'm just thankful that what I say seems to make to sense to you guys. I will make an effort not to take that for granted, and to get off my duff and actually do something.
-
Barry,
Excellent! It's good to read that you're at least hoping to be able to get some work done on this. Our dutch Mahler News appears three times each year. The final issue of 2010 is due in December, but (as you may imagine) any of the 3 issues of 2011 would suit this subject better, since 2011 will be the year in which we commemorate Mahler's death, whereas we're celebrating his birth this year. So, you're text will be most welcome for an issue in 2011. But really, it will be welcome at any time.
Enjoy your Oktoberfest-gigs; I had no idea there was an Oktoberfest anywhere in the US - I reckon you'll be playing Bayrisches 'hum-pa-pah' (which I love!)?
Cheers!
Freddy
-
Freddy,
Is the Dutch Mahler News in English? If so, where can I subscribe.
Thanks in advance
Roffe
-
Roffe,
The main language used in Mahler News is Dutch. We also include texts in English, German and occasionally French. This year, we started to include a one-page summary in English. But the bulk of it ( 85-90%) is in Dutch.
You could check our website: www.gustavmahlerstichting.nl (http://www.gustavmahlerstichting.nl).
Freddy
-
Thank you for the link. Unfortunately, my Dutch is a bit rusty; I can only understand about 50% of it, so reading articles is out of the question, but I at least understand the main of the concert calendar.
Thanks
-
I just got a score of M10 with facsimiles of Mahler's original draft yesterday and have been pouring over it. I have neglected the work for the while but am finally discovering what happens after M9. So many people think of his ninth as the end, a goodbye, but in fact it's more of a beginning to an entirely different Mahlerian sound world.
It hope you can make your own version someday Barry!
-
we recorded this concert and will come out in november. www.folipro-berlin.de
tom.
-
hey thanks! That brief excerpt from mvt. IV sounds promising.
-
Dear Everybody,
Since I saw there was quite a lot of back-and-forth going on around here, I thought I should give you guys some direct information, in case such is required. My version, which was "cooking" between 2003-2010 was published this year by Schott Verlag (Mainz) and will be available later this year on DVD (live version of the premiere) and on early 2011 in its final and edited version on CD (label will be announced upon contract completion).
If you guys have any questions or require any info, I'm always at your disposal. There's so many things I would like to mention, but I think the only thing which would do the version justice would be a consultation of the score or a listen to the CD. So till then, I remain grateful for the attention and would like to suggest some links:
http://www.faz.net/s/Rub4D7EDEFA6BB3438E85981C05ED63D788/Doc~E0E0C0D74CEBB46C1BF06B08F7C57206E~ATpl~Ecommon~Sspezial.html
http://www.schott-music.com/news/archive/show,4722.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/nprberlinblog/2010/09/07/129704622/yoel-gamzou-premieres-his-version-of-mahler-s-tenth-symphony
http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_single_mediaplayer/0,,5996750_type_video_struct_0_contentId_5996793_start_505_end_868,00.html
PS - to those who may have wondered and mentioned such doubts, I would like to reassure you there is absolute no arrogance intended in anything I have said or written. My interest, or rather let's say my absolute and complete dedication to the work at hand results from a totally selfless desire to achieve the best possible fate for this piece, which means everything to me and which I have always wished, to hear in all its grandure and complexity.
I hope, I have succeded in my mission, although I am convinced that the process is only at its start, and will redefine itself in the future again and again.
With best wishes to you all,
Yoel Gamzou
-
Yoel, let me offer my sincere thanks for your post, and welcome! I salute your dedication, if it wasn't for musicians/musicologist's like you, I wouldn't hear the majesty of this work. God bless you.
--Todd
-
Yoel,
How good of you to share some of your thoughts with us. We could've met through Frans Bouwman, and maybe we will in the future. For now, it's nice to know that you're paying these Mahlerites a bit of attention ;)
I already ordered (that is, I'm on the list) the DVD of your première concert. I'm really very curious!
Cheers!
Freddy
-
obviously Yoel, we're pleased that you're making direct contact with a bunch of Mahler nuts such as ourselves. I'll definitely get on board for the dvd, and wish you all the best with your version. Just from the very brief excerpt on your website, it sounds as though you had extremely good players to work with.
Just as a sidenote, I just saw a brief segment about the revitalized Jewish community in Berlin on Deutshe Welle TV. Of course, many of those jews are Russian immigrants. But hey, it's a start. Good luck, and I look forward to hearing the entire performance.
And Yoel, might I add that I very much share your deep feelings and serious concerns about the Mahler 10th in general. In my opinion - and I know that there are many around the world who would not agree with this - Mahler 10 is the last musical "acheological dig" of any real relevance or importance.
Barry Guerrero