gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: stillivor on March 08, 2012, 09:23:16 AM
-
It'll be near the end of this month in Berlin.
More details plus 3 minute excerpt here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M_99-an7xg
Ivor
-
Wow...that has potential! I hope they release a recording of that at some point.
-
There is no way I would be interested in a scaled-down M9...what is the point?
???
-
Perhaps one point is that the work becomes performable off the major concert circuit and where resources are limited, especially in these days of austerity. What did Mahler say about not hesitating to make changes given available locations and numbers on hand?
Perhaps, tho' this is a stretch, it might make some sorts of analysis easier where every part may be more exposed?
Ivor
-
Perhaps one point is that the work becomes performable off the major concert circuit and where resources are limited, especially in these days of austerity. What did Mahler say about not hesitating to make changes given available locations and numbers on hand?
Perhaps, tho' this is a stretch, it might make some sorts of analysis easier where every part may be more exposed?
Ivor
As far as I've been able to determine from what Mahler meant when he sanctioned changes to the orchestration in his scores, I personally believe that Mahler didn't mean wholesale major changes. I believe he meant that changes were needed only when the acoustics of a given hall demanded it. I've forgotten which changes were made in the instrumentation due to the problematic hall in LA during the recent Dudamel performance of M8, but that might be a recent example to cite (aside from the organ and other sound system adjustments made to help the performance's impact).
Wade
-
What did Mahler say about not hesitating to make changes given available locations and numbers on hand?
I know of two such quotes attributed to Mahler, but I can find only one of them at the moment. It comes from Peter Heyworth's Conversations with Klemperer, 1973, p. 34:
"If after my death something doesn't sound right then change it. You have not only the right but the duty to do so."
EDIT: I located the other quote; it's mentioned in the Blaukopfs' Mahler: His Life, Work and World, 1976/1991, p. 252. Speaking to the orchestra during a rehearsal of his Second Symphony, Mahler said:
"Clarity is my chief concern. All power to the conductor who alters my scores where the acoustics of the hall or the quality of the orchestra demand it, to carry out my intentions."
I also came across this howler from the otherwise respectable Deems Taylor: "Someday, some real friends of Mahler's will take a pruning knife and reduce his works to the length that they would have been if the composer had not stretched them out of shape; and then the great Mahler war will be over... The Ninth Symphony would last about twenty minutes."
James
-
"I've forgotten which changes were made in the instrumentation due to the problematic hall in LA during the recent Dudamel performance of M8, but that might be a recent example to cite"
Wade,
As best as I could tell, they did not double any of the winds or percussion for the Dudamel M8 in L.A. In fact, I was rather surprised that they used only one set of timpani. When they combined the two orchestras, it was really only just the strings that got expanded (and hugely so). They were way out in front of the mikes for the Meyer sound system (as were the vocal soloists), so I guess they were the ones who needed the boost in numbers. The did use an 'assistant principal' for both the trumpets and horns, so that brought the horns up to 9 and the trumpets up to 5.
Barry
-
So, it seems that this new arrangement of M9 is apparently a re-orchestration. The questions are, to what degree, and would Mahler himself sanction it?
Wade
-
The thing that interests me about this arrangement is the possibility of it being performable by a chamber ensemble.
-
Since this is an arrangement for 17 players, I imagine there was necessarily some reassignment of voices, but—judging from the excerpts provided—that has been done effectively and the basic Mahler sound remains. As the blurb states, Klaus Simon's arrangement has been made in the very same spirit as the arrangements of M4 and Das Lied von der Erde created by Schoenberg and his followers for the Verein für musikalische Privataufführungen (1918–21) in Vienna.
I, for one, treasure the Schoenberg arrangements, own multiple recordings of each, and look forward to hearing this M9 by the mini-Mahler Project, at least in recorded form. Mahler may have smiled wryly, but as long as the arrangement is as effective as this one seems to be and is presented with passion and enthusiasm, I can't believe he would have disapproved—either of Schoenberg's work, or of Klaus Simon's.
James
-
I also came across this howler from the otherwise respectable Deems Taylor: "Someday, some real friends of Mahler's will take a pruning knife and reduce his works to the length that they would have been if the composer had not stretched them out of shape; and then the great Mahler war will be over... The Ninth Symphony would last about twenty minutes."
Name one work by Deems Tayler (?). I know I can't. "Howler" indeed.
By and large, this reduction of M9 seems to have been very carefully done. Obviously, the excerpts for the 2nd and 3rd movements will sound less 'foreign' than what we hear in the finale - which is where one would miss the bigger, fatter string sound. In my opinion, I think that string sections are sometimes too 'big' in Mahler, which forces the brass to not make clear distinctions between mezzo forte, forte and fortissimo (gradations of loudness, in other words). One reason that I'm not always so crazy about the Berlin Phil. in Mahler, is that their powerful strings actually drown out wind detail that should register a bit more sharply. Obviously, the 9th symphony would be a major exception to that, particularly in the two outer movements (Mahler divides his strings into many different 'strands' in parts of the first movement, for example). But by and large, I prefer the Concertgebouw, Czech Phil. and N.Y. Phil. approaches to Mahler, with their greater emphasis on woodwinds and percussion, and a tad less on strings and brass (that said, the N.Y. brass are pretty muscular these days - partly out of necessity to 'over-take' the acoustics in Avery Fischer).
I don't know, I always have mixed feelings about these efforts to make Mahler more intimate. I admire what they do on the one hand. But the other hand, I don't particularly want to hear Mahler played this way more than once. I generally believe that Mahler knew what he was doing, regardless of what Deems Taylor may say. I also think that the 'reduction' for DLvdE could be a whole better than it is without having to add very many more players.
Still, I hope good fortune to the people involved in this project.
-
I'd wait until I get to hear the first movt. That will be the real test because of all 4 movts it has the most complicated polyphony, the thickest harmony, loudest climaxes, and all that.
John,
-
Exactly. If you take just the main climax, what would that be without a fortissimo swipe on the big tam-tam? Then if did include a loud tam-tam stroke, what would that be without fortissimo trombones and tuba to 'answer' it? And if you did have the fortissimo low brass, how would you make the transition back to a more intimate, chamber-like sound without it also sounding awkward and self-conscious? What of the chimes that follow shortly afterwords?
I 'get it' that Mahler's music is so great that there are those who want to make it accessible to smaller venues and smaller, 'chamber-ish' groups. But Mahler's orchestrations are fully integral to what he was expressing with the notes themselves. When you take away the orchestrations, you take away much of what the music is all about. I, for one, don't 'get it' as to why somebody would want to further 'chamber-ize' "Das Lied von der Erde" - the chamber music like elements are already built into what Mahler had composed. If you take away what muscle there already is (which ain't a lot) - along with much of the colorings - what are you left with? I suppose if you want to make it an easier day for the vocalists, then I guess it makes some sense. But the whole point of the first song in "DLvdE", for example, is that the tenor IS supposed to struggle against the orchestra (I'm convinced that Mahler hated tenors anyway). Personally, I couldn't care less if the horns drowned out the tenor altogether. The important words are "dunkel is das Leben, ist der Tod" (dark is life, dark is death).
I'm laboring my point, but I you think you can see what I'm driving at.
-
But Mahler's orchestrations are fully integral to what he was expressing with the notes themselves.
Thanks for this, Barry. It helps me to understand why I do not respond well to the various completions of M10, such as Litton/DSO, which I listened to last night.
It is all-too-obvious, and even painful, that the orchestrations are guesses and approximations on the part of the completers, however educated they might be, and definitely not those Mahler might have written. I even get a strong feeling that he would have changed some of the orchestrations for the Adagio as well.
-
Mahler, like very many other esteemed musicians, did make piano arrangements, for example, his of Bruckner.
Ivor
-
I find this intriguing and would love to see it. Sadly, it's a little far away from my remote corner of New England....
They did a great job with the video teaser, and following one of their links, http://www.startnext.de/en/mini-mahler, it's hard not to agree with their stated goals of making classical music more interesting and accessible to a younger audience. They seem to have a good grasp of new marketing techniques.
I wish them the greatest success and hope they'll be able to record this for those of us unable to attend.
Cheers,
Herb
-
Two things.
First, I think piano reductions serve a whole 'nother function, and ARE quite necessary.
Second, Carpenter wasn't trying to make a Mahler completion, as though it had been completed by Mahler himself. The Carpenter version is clearly a Mahler/Carpenter joint venture. Either one likes that sort of thing, or they don't. I appreciate that it's much more filled out than the bare bones Cooke version, but there are spots where Carpenter steps too far over in the overtly 'expressionistic' world of Alban Berg's "Wozzeck" and "Drei Stucke fur Orchester" (3 Pieces for Orchestra). I like it but don't always want to hear Mahler 10 that way. In truth, I like the Samale/Mazzuca version best, although it certainly has its own problems as well.
-
So, it seems that this new arrangement of M9 is apparently a re-orchestration. The questions are, to what degree, and would Mahler himself sanction it?
Wade
Mahler himself was a fan of re-orchestrations and arrangements, for instance Beethoven's and Schumann' symphonies, Schubert's S9, Beethoven's overtures, Mozart's late symphonies, Beethoven's SQ op 95, Schubert's Der Tod und das Mädchen, etc., so I definately believe that this re-orchestration would be sanctioned by Mahler.
In the 70s (or was it 60s) Duke Ellington made jazz arrangements of Grieg's Peer Gynt Suite and Tchaikovsky's b minor piano concerto; very enjoyable arrangements if you asked me. Anyway, Ellington was banned in Norwegian radio for this 'sacrilege' and Ellington wasn't played in Norwegian radio for a decade of so. What would had happened to him in Russia/Soviet Union I don't know, but he would probably be put away in the infamous Ljubljanka prison, had he been stupid enough to enter the Soviet Union.
My point is, that in the 'popular' music business, music is rearranged for other ensembles all the time, sometime the result is fine, sometimes not; so I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed to do the same thing in classical music without the risk of being beheaded. If you don't like the outcome, don't listen to it. We (or at least I) already accept the chamber versions of 'Das Lied' and M4 and the various arrangements/orchestrations of the M10 sketches.
Roffe
-
Roffe,
I'm not 'opposed' to chamber versions and various reductions; I just don't see the point of them and don't want to hear them more than once or twice. I suppose if they help 'newbies' become acquainted with Mahler, then that's OK. However, they probably just generate interest in more reductions. But as far Mahler approving of other people toying with his music, that doesn't mean that it's OK to declare the beginning of deer hunting season (if you know what I mean).
Barry
-
Barry,
The point is, I assume, that these versions can be performed by a much smaller ensemble and maybe in a smaller auditorium. If they help anybody to get aquinted to Mahler, then they have served their cause. If you (or anybody else) want to reject them after listening to them once or twice (as many of us do with some of the full orchestra performances we don't like), then feel free to do so. I said in my previous posting that I accepted the chamber versions, but that doesn't mean that I like them, I'm kinda luke warm to them.
If we don't allow arrangements of classial music, then we'll miss some good stuff (and loads of crap also).
Roffe
-
I agree with what you say here, and you're pretty much reiterating what I was saying previous. But I don't think that we should assume that Mahler would like or 'approve' of other people's reductions, regardless of what he may have said at some point.
This might be just a matter of opinion, but I really don't think that you can take what Mahler did with Schumann, Beethoven and Schubert (which were hardly re-orchestrations), and compare that to these various chamber reductions that people are doing with Mahler. It's very much 'apples and oranges' to me.
-
Perhaps the most important thing is that the Mahler 'originals' are solidly safe. They have nothing to fear from any number of new arrangements.
Ivor
-
I agree with what you say here, and you're pretty much reiterating what I was saying previous. But I don't think that we should assume that Mahler would like or 'approve' of other people's reductions, regardless of what he may have said at some point.
This might be just a matter of opinion, but I really don't think that you can take what Mahler did with Schumann, Beethoven and Schubert (which were hardly re-orchestrations), and compare that to these various chamber reductions that people are doing with Mahler. It's very much 'apples and oranges' to me.
You are right. Mahler sometime said something like 'we modernists need a big symphony orchestra in order not to be mis-interpreted', so he might not have approved of the chamber-versions. I forgot that Mahler only made retouches to Beethoven et al.
Roiffe
-
We don't know how far these experiments will go. But one paradox is the substitution of recorded performances for live ones. It is extremely rare to be able to hear a Mahler 9 live. We use very fine and sometimes great recorded performances as a standard, but the flow, mistakes, and spiritual energy of a live performance have energies and meanings beyond the recorded representation.
I don't know the accomplishment of this reduction, but perhaps the reduced performance might allow more people access to the live experience of such a great work than "canned " versions.
All performances are compromises, and once in a while a live event transcends limitations. Though this is rare. So on a speculative level, a reduction of the Mahler 9 might allow a broader connection of the flow, pulse, and spirit of the work than a safe recorded version of the full orchestral score.
The history of the transcriptions by and of J.S. Bach might be instructive.
Best to all,
Tom in Vermont
-
It seemed interesting until the Rondo-Burleske strings, YIKES!.... To follow what Barry Guerrero said, I wish it were easier to find solo piano transcriptions of Mahler's symphonies, it especially isn't easy to find many recordings of transcriptions. Reducing his score to single treble and bass staff would make it far easier to study basic form.
-
Mahler, like very many other esteemed musicians, did make piano arrangements, for example, his of Bruckner.
Ivor
...and this point also followed. Many of these symphonies were given solo and duet piano transcriptions back in their time, especially since and orchestra pit didn't fit in poeple's livingrooms as our speakers systems do today. I don't exactly see how reducing the orchestra size to chamber and ensemble would attract new people to Mahler. The very little attention and emphasis on the piano transciptions today sort of moots the whole point of this discussion. Perhaps having it employ less musicians makes it more economical and distributable? Having Mahler's music appear in films like Shutter Island, The Killer Inside Me, and The Tree of Life, I consider far more effective in getting his music heard, if that is what was meant by the suggestion in the videoclip.
Yikes on the rondo-burleske, the strings were awfully deflated.
-
Yes, and I think that my point SHOULD have been this: it's just as difficult, if not more, to put together an orchestra of 'virtuoso' players for an entirely new and unfamiliar reduction of the symphony, as it is to simply put on the normal version that everyone already knows and loves. Of course, 'context' would come in to play here.
For example, I could see putting on this type of a reduction as a climax to a chamber music festival (Music At Menlo would be a great example), where most of the participants are people who have played in the festival in some capacity (and would know other top notch players to help fill in the other spots). Thus, by definition, they would probably be of 'virtuoso' caliber. Less people means that the slightest flaws are going to be even more apparent.
-
(Less players = Easier to notice flaws) Yeah? That's your point? :-\
-
Well, yes, aside from the fact that Mahler didn't conceive of his 9th symphony as a 'chamber' symphony. In other words, I'm just trying to dodge the whole sticky question of whether or not Mahler would have approved of such reductions - something that could never be entirely settled, one way or the other.
-
Sorry if I'd used a sprinkle of what you'd said to make my own point barry g.
I will say one more thing.
It usually the opposite treatment which draws attention to music such as the Schoeneberg's sextet and the orchestration of Bach's T n' F in D minor. Whatever minimizing the symphonies will accomplish, increasing listeners will probably not be one of them.
-
Barry,
Congratulations on your 3,000th post!
James
-
Barry,
Congratulations on your 3,000th post!
James
Ditto
-
Ridiculous. What a waste of a life! ;D