gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: wilhoit on August 01, 2008, 02:42:39 AM
-
..."The Dream-Homecoming" . That title is meant to evoke the category through which I apprehend the overall rhetorical affect of this work. With the immediate proviso that any "program" is necessarily purely speculative, but the further premise that Mahler did not regard any of his works as "absolute music", I will explore the notion of Symphony 10 as a musical portrait of a night of vivid dreams.
What happens in dreams? The laws of physics take a break, as if mandated by their union rules. Time fractures, accelerating, slowing, omitting. Space stretches, rotates, gravity slackens or tightens. The things most wished-for and the things most feared play tag around the universe, their evocations heightened beyond possibility or imagination.
How shall music portray this? Cross-cutting different kinds of music: beautiful, terrifying, many kinds of strange, keeping one foot (or at least one toe) in familiarity. Look at all the different ways Mahler fractures time in the Tenth: the sudden shifts of topic and texture throughout, the meter of the first scherzo. These things are obvious, but what about the musical analogue of gravity, which (I would suggest) is tonality? Often in dreams we find ourselves somehow navigating a world thirty degrees out of plumb. My subjective sense is that Mahler portrays this by means of "harmony" that does not obey any [of the usual] rules. This analogy is more difficult to justify, at least without embarking on a deep discussion of what tonality is and how it works. (Don't tempt me, them weeds is deeep.)
Dreams are most appealing at their least dreamlike. Not everything is strange; some things are entirely plausible and realistic, alternate timelines totally unable to justify their nonexistence. Here is the opportunity to ground the musical structure in "conventional" principles of form and continuity, in order to calibrate the maximum degree of disorientation that will be allowed. (There is a point of diminishing return here: disorient your listener too much and he ceases to hope for reorientation, at which point you have lost him.)
Without forcing the analogy any further, if anyone finds it evocative, I wonder what the implications for interpretation might be. I once rebuked the first Simon Rattle recording for adopting a "succession of beautiful moments" approach to the work. In light of the dream theory, perhaps I was being unfair, although at that stage of his career I tended to feel like Rattle approached everything he conducted as a succession of beautiful moments.
On the other hand, what would be the characteristics of a performance that attempted, unconditionally, to maximize the traditional rhetoric and continuity of the work, thereby reducing as far as possible any dreamlike affect? What would such a performance lose? In which portions of the work might that interpretive strategy become untenable?
-
I can't claim to be an expert on dreams or dream-states (as opposed to red or blue states ;)). But what you say about Mahler's harmony sort of represents the crisis of late romantic era music in general. Schoenberg takes this to even farther limits in his first three major works: Verklaerte Nacht; Gurrelieder, and Pelleas & Melisande. It's little wonder that Schoenberg felt that he had to take the next step, shedding music of tonal centers altogether. Schoenberg spoke of the "emancipation of dissonance", and viewed atonality as really being "pantonality". It was only later that he turned to serialism: 12 tone rows and their many transformations.
Tonality in Mahler is something that truly hasn't been written about enough, in my opinion. I watched Bernstein's didactic lecture, "The Little Drummer Boy" on DVD. To me, the most interesting part was when Bernstein was sitting at a piano in Tel Aviv, playing brief excerpts from "Des Knaben Wunderhorn". Bernstein was pointing out Mahler's frequent usage of the Phrygian mode to get the sort of minor-mode based, East European sound that he's looking (listening) for. That, in turn, is interesting in that the Phrygian mode is generally associated with music from Spain. When you hear Spanish music without already knowing what it is - let's say, you have your car radio on - and you say to yourself, "ahh, that's Spanish"; that's because of the unique and immediately identifiable tonal characteristics of the Phrygian mode. You don't have to know WHAT it is, but you already know what it sounds like. Mahler is far more subtle in his usage of the Phrygian mode. In fact, I doubt that Mahler ever said to himself, "ah-ha! I'll sneak in a little turn from the Phrygian mode here". He borrows notes - alterations to certain degrees within a minor scale (in other words, flatting or sharpening a tone) - from the Phrygian scale, in order to lend that certain sound that he wants; a sound that's at least somewhat associated with East European village life (assuming that one already knows something about Mahler's personal background). Those melodic alterations force implications for the harmony as well. Hence, Mahler's unique brand of late romantic tonality.
To me, that's the truly interesting part, because Mahler probably developed his own personal variant of late romantic tonality and functional harmony (same thing, I suppose), without being terribly conscious of how it was that he even did it. It's rather analogous to what people say about orchestration: every composer has his/her own trademark of orchestration, while often times not even being aware about what it is that they're doing that makes it sound unique. Mahler had to compose and orchestrate his music so quickly, that I'm sure that he never took much time to think about a "Mahler system" or approach to tonality and harmony. In fact, he probably spent greater time on the orchestration side of the equation.
I talk in these terms, rather than yours (and make no mistake, you do it very, VERY well!!), only because this might be the more objective way of addressing what it is you speak of. Harmonic analysis is something that can be objectively performed on any given score. Of course, as we reach the greater ambiguities of late romantic harmony, some chord progressions are subject to different interpretations - different ways of notating the analysis of specific chord progressions. That much can be subjective, to be certain. In my opinion, Mahler scholars need to be doing far more good-old harmonic analysis of his scores (including good-old motor mouth me!), and far less of the subjective blather that stems from how people "feel" about what they're hearing. But Mahler analysis is still very much in the, "wow! - that was cool! Let me tell you how that made me feel" stage. That, in of itself, is not a bad thing. It's one way of communicating to others and asking the question, "did you feel what I just felt?".
Obviously, however, the next step is to stop and ask the truly hard question: what specifically is it in Mahler's music that makes us feel the way that we feel? That's much tougher, because it requires a bit of knowledge of what happened previously in the history of western music, and what the specific elements are that make up music (in other words, you need to be schooled in music to at least some degree). To me, the uniqueness of Mahler can be mostly attributed to two major things: his own variant of late romantic tonality (and thus, chord progressions); and, his own, very progressive orchestration, which is almost immediately identifiable.
To elaborate on that thought, Mahler takes the large scale dynamics of Wagner (large forces), but puts his orchestration more in the context of Berlioz or late Dvorak (I'm thinking of the last symphonic poems). In other words, rather than relying so much on massive sonorities that are almost purely strings and brass oriented, Mahler was THE FIRST composer to give all four major sections of the late romantic symphony orchestra, equal weight and importance: strings, woodwinds, brass, and percussion. Even to this day, I believe that no other composer has done just that, better than Gustav Mahler (perhaps a few just as well). On top of all that, at times, Mahler displays a contrapuntal discipline that might do Bach or Beethoven proud.
But then Mahler takes this unique sound world - a sound world in which his music almost becomes "opera for orchestra", with the individual instruments given almost human and/or animal-like characteristics - and pours it into highly developed formal structures that greatly resemble Haydn and Beethoven symphonies. This is why Pierre Boulez uses the buzz-words "epic" and "narrative" when discussing Mahler.
Now, to come back to you, I think that your observations about Mahler's 10th are very interesting. I like this particular sentence: "Look at all the different ways Mahler fractures time in the Tenth: the sudden shifts of topic and texture throughout, the meter of the first scherzo." Then you follow that with the truly tough question, the one that simply needs to be addressed more: "These things are obvious, but what about the musical analogue of gravity, which (I would suggest) is tonality?". Indeed!
I think it's interesting that you associate this business of coming in and out of dream-states specifically with the 10th symphony. There's no question that the 10th was greatly surrounded by the hard reality of his marital crisis, bringing into question the whole business of men/women relationships (or these days, any combination of genders). As we all know, this type of marital crises - especially when infidelity is involved - can drive men or women to pathological madness: suicide and/or murder. The point being, they're terribly powerful. Yet, at the same time, it's clear that Mahler wanted to keep moving forward, musically speaking.
Unfortunately, we don't know how any of this would have played out. We don't know with any certainty, what direction Mahler would have taken his music had he lived further. We also don't know how he and Alma would have resolved their marital crisis (death solved it for them!). And, perhaps even more important, we don't know how Mahler would have responded to the great European melt-downs that were basically just around the corner. Would he have stayed in America? Would he have quit composing? If not, what would his future music sound like? WE DON'T KNOW. But the world kept turning, and there were plenty of other composers who came along, perhaps better equipped to deal with the break down of old European structures than Mahler (not to mention the holocaust).
No doubt, it was all this obvious ambiguity about the future, that lent to this feeling of weaving in and out of dream states in Mahler's 10th symphony.
Barry
-
As I think further on this topic, perhaps no other spot in Mahler's 10th symphony serves as a microcosm of the "heimgang in Traum" that you speak of, than the start of the fifth movement (finale).
At the begging of the 5th movement, we have the famous series of solo bass drum shots. Everybody familiar with the piece knows about these because of the strong biographical connection - the business about the fireman's funeral in N.Y. City. But between each of those bass drum strokes, is music that couldn't possibly be more dream-like. We have slow, ascending scales in the tuba, followed by lengthy, ambiguous, and almost bizarre sounding chords. In turn, the start of each of those chords is announced by a soft stroke on the tam-tam (large orchestral gong). Depending on who's completion they're doing, there might even be plucked notes from the low register of the harp - a sound clearly borrowed from "Das Lied von der Erde" (and elsewhere).
Each of those drum shots serves as a wake-up call from our dream state, I suppose. The sustained chords are dark and ambiguous. The drum shots are sudden and loud. What could possibly be of greater contrast? (please, don't bring up Kanchelli!). None of this gets resolved until the flute solo begins, which leads us towards further development. But throughout this movement - and the whole symphony, really - the dream states turn into loud, expressionistic screams or nightmares. This is the crux of the symphony, and it's only in the back half of the fifth movement that these expressionistic traumas get resolved for good.
Isn't it interesting that the English word "trauma", seems to stem right from the German word "traum" (dream)? Does that suggest that one nation's dream is another nation's trauma? (let's not go there!)
Barry
-
Barry,
I appreciate your comments, which demonstrate the long and deep thought you have invested. It would be very easy to blow the scope of this forum in talking about tonality, as the subject quickly transcends any particular composer and comfortably fills out at least three or four hundred years.
With specific reference to Mahler, I can only point out that I do NOT see him as a Schoenberg precursor in any way or to any degree; I think those two, during the first decade of the 20th Century, were doing different things for different reasons and if their respective work has any similarities, it is rather because it could hardly have been completely dissimilar. A full picture of their shared context requires knowledge of the works of (at least) Zemlinsky and Franz Schmidt; there may be plentiful other lesser figures who were significant.
Another way to make my point might be to say that in my view Mahler's less-conventional uses of small-scale tonality were tactical rather than strategic.
I was careful to avoid the use of the word "harmony", which I always place in quotes because I believe it is an illusion. "Harmony" is what you get when you slice music perpendicularly to the time axis, which has always struck me as a rather pointless and uninformative thing to do. "Harmonic analysis" is by no means an exact science, except when applied to pedagogical examples of unrealistic simplicity. Its results tend to be either so elementary and clear as to be meaningless, or else so clumsy and ambiguous as to be meaningless. I have an alternate perspective, which this is not the place to expand upon. (I realize that that may make me sound like a crank and if so, you need only be thankful that I stop here. ;-)
I have just acquired the Mazzetti/Lopez-Cobos and Barshai/Barshai recordings of Symphony 10 and may have some reflections on them after a while. I ordered the Barshai score from UE and can only presume that it is on the way; their web site does not seem to have any way to track the status of an order. Has anyone else trod this path before me?
(As for the bass drum, in my version of the dream it is the very crack of doom, just barely not quite loud enough to actually hurt people. If it makes everyone cringe and sweat in dread of its next interruption, if it actually drives a few people out of the hall at each stroke, then as the LOLcats would say, "ur doin it rite".)
Thanks,
FW
.
-
Wow, what a fascinating thread. As I am a M10 fanatic, having heard the work as a teen and just finding it speaking to me more than most compositions do, I am intrigued by your comments FW. Tonight, I am going to listen to this masterpiece for the umteenth time with your comments in mind. I will let you all know what I think.
And yes, the bass drum is the muffled yet powerful and prophetic sound of doom. Not a gun shot, not a bang but a texture, a subterranean rumble like an earthquake, muffled but deep and profound. The Japanese have a drum called the o daiko which is referred to as the "voice of the earth". That is what I think of when I hear the drum strokes, the "voice of the earth".
Thanks for this thought provoking idea.
-
With specific reference to Mahler, I can only point out that I do NOT see him as a Schoenberg precursor in any way or to any degree
Believe it or not, I agree with you on this point. However, the two are similar only in that they were dealing with the same media - for the most part - and came from the same time and place (almost). But in terms of their individual aesthetics, I agree.
I was careful to avoid the use of the word "harmony", which I always place in quotes because I believe it is an illusion, etc. . .
Yeah, I know what you're saying. But there has to be some objective way to measure things in music. As clumsy as chord to chord analysis may be, it's good enough that somebody who can decipher the symbols really well, could sit down at a piano and play a progression that sounds quite close to what the composer actually wrote (including the proper inversions of the bass, as well as any specified suspensions). As we all know, the keyboard players in the baroque era who were part of the continuo section (baroque equivalent of a rhythm section), had to improvise from harmonic symbols quite often. Jazz players have to do it everyday. Then again, the harmonic language was much simpler back then. Let's just say that harmonic analysis is just like conductors: a necessary evil.
You see, the problem with speaking of musical issues in subjective terms, is that it's based on an assumption that everybody perceives and feels music the same way. The more I work in the record industry, the more I realize that that's simply not true. But please, I would really enjoy reading your thoughts further. Even if I can't always follow you from point to point, it's quite interesting. If nothing else, you maybe reaching people out there in a way that I, or some others, simply can't. Witness Don's reaction, for example. In other words, there are many ways to approach teaching the same exact subject.
Barry
-
And yes, the bass drum is the muffled yet powerful and prophetic sound of doom. Not a gun shot, not a bang but a texture, a subterranean rumble like an earthquake, muffled but deep and profound.
Actually, the treatment of the solo bass drum varies tremendously from version to version, and performance to performance. Several of the versions seem to call for a hard stroke on a military side drum, which is clearly wrong. Mahler was very clear about what he and Alma had heard in N.Y. City: a single stroke of the bass drum, heard from a distance of at least several stories (storys?) up. I prefer your description of how it should sound.
Barry
-
Actually, it wasn't a bass drum. It was a parade drum of some sort--most likely a large tenor drum (without snares or with snares off for the single, muffled stroke). Cooke prescribes just such an instrument in his score, and it seems exactly right. It would not have been likely, practically speaking, to schlep around a symphonic bass drum in an outdoor funeral procession, and the smaller "salvation army" models used in marching bands don't seem to fit the situation Alma describes.
Dave H
-
That's interesting, Dave, and may explain why I keep hearing all these drums that strike me (no pun intended) as just dead wrong sounding. My Cooke score says "grosse trommel", which I've never known to be anything other than a bass drum. I've also never read any biographical source that mentions anything other than a bass drum; if the type of drum is even specified at all. Regardless, the sound of a plain-old bass drum is most appropriate to me. Both Chailly and Rattle were percussionists, and both of them use bass drums. That's good enough for me too, right or wrong.
Also, every single outdoor gig that I've ever played with a marching band - or a "strutting band" of some sort - has had a bass drum. This includes the Chinese funeral gigs that parade all around Chinatown in S.F. I find it very hard to believe that a funeral gig for a New York City fireman wouldn't have had a bass drum of some sort. Even New Orleans brass bands always have bass drums. I just find it a tad difficult to believe that it was some sort of tenor drum instead.
Barry
-
I was always thinking along the lines of Barry here. Haven't marching bands been carrying bass drums for at least the last 100+ years? I feel certain that I have seen pictures of such bands and instruments from the late 19th century. I can imagine a funeral parade being lead by an individual striking one of these.
Litton/Carpenter works fairly well in this respect, as it sounds (to me) like a bass drum when heard from a distance. I recognize that Litton revised Carpenter's score such that the strokes are supposed to be forte (as opposed to Carpenter's piano?), though a few of the strokes do not seem to even reach that level.
-
Guys, you are reading way too much into this. All Alma describes is a fireman's funeral procession. Where is there discussion of a marching band? Or any specific type of music? Most such occasions here in NY use, at most, fife and drum corps, and they do not carry bass drums. Often there's no music at all--just drums to mark the rhythm, or a single trumpeter or two to play at the memorial site. We're not talking about a New Orleans jazz funeral (which also didn't exist in 1911, by the way). I take the story at face value: there is a procession, and there is a drum stroke. Neither the kind of procession (musically) nor the kind of drum are specified, but I feel certain that a large bass drum would have been out of the question for an event of this kind.
Dave H
-
...and by the way, the instrument is mentioned in Mahler's score and he does NOT ask for a bass drum; merely a "muffled drum." I know it's just a sketch, but I've never seen a mute used on a bass drum, but they are used on snare and parade drums of various kinds. And this corresponds exactly to what Alma actually wrote:
"Marie Uchatius, a young art student, visited me one day in the Hotel Majestic. Hearing a confused noise, we leaned out of the window and saw a long procession in the wide street alongside Central Park. It was the funeral procession of a fireman about whose heroic death we had read in the newspaper. The chief mourners were almost directly below us when the procession halted, and the master of ceremonies stepped forward and spoke briefly. From our eleventh-floor window we could only guess at what he said. There was a brief pause, then a stroke on a muffled drum, then the dead silence. Then the procession moved on and it was all over. The scene brought tears to our eyes, and I looked anxiously at the window of Mahler's room. He too was leaning out, and
tears were streaming down his face. That brief drum stroke impressed him so deeply that he used it in his Tenth Symphony."
Dave H
-
Guys, you are reading way too much into this. All Alma describes is a fireman's funeral procession. Where is there discussion of a marching band? Or any specific type of music? Most such occasions here in NY use, at most, fife and drum corps, and they do not carry bass drums. Often there's no music at all--just drums to mark the rhythm, or a single trumpeter or two to play at the memorial site. We're not talking about a New Orleans jazz funeral (which also didn't exist in 1911, by the way). I take the story at face value: there is a procession, and there is a drum stroke. Neither the kind of procession (musically) nor the kind of drum are specified, but I feel certain that a large bass drum would have been out of the question for an event of this kind.
Dave H
Sorry for my confusing writing. I do not mean that a marching band was used at the funeral, only that a marching-band-variety bass drum would have been in existence, and in turn used at such a processional. Right-or-wrong, this has always been what I pictured in my mind after reading of the inspiration for the drum stroke -- basically a lone drummer in a processional making a bass drum thud.
-
And that's perfectly fine--using your own imagination to determine what sound works best for you--as long as we don't rewrite history to conform to our preferences! I have no problem with a bass drum or large parade drum in a concert context, and no doubt Mahler would have experimented to find the sound he wanted, as he did with the Sixth's hammer blows. I will say this--a bass drum stoke outdoors at the actual procession wouldn't have worked at all. Bass drums have no carrying power in the open air, and an insufficient sharpness of attack to make a single stroke "tell." I know, I played one of the damn things outside for years, and sonically it was most disappointing.
Dave H
-
Dave,
Sorry to argue with one of my best friends over nothing, but I've played literally hundreds of outdoor gigs of one type or another. A stroke on a bass drum - especially where there are solid buildings around to reflect the sound - will carry perfectly well outdoors. I know because I've been in that type of situation - many, MANY times. I'm not trying to correct Alma here, or you, David. But I do believe that a bass drum heard from several stories up, could very easily sound "muffled" in one's mind. My guess - and it's ONLY a guess! - is that it was a stroke on a bass drum that was not particularly loud; something mezzo-ish. Regardless, it just strikes me (there's that pun again) as stupid to go to an M10 concert, and some percussionist is striking a tenor drum - a floor tom-tom, essentially - almost fortissimo with a hard stick! I saw that when Slatkin did the Mazzetti verion of M10 in S.F., and I hated it. However, the rest of the performance was really good.
Funny thing, but I just happened to be looking at photos from the Civil War today. There were a few shots of marching brass bands where they used the "over-the-shoulder" brass instruments, along with numerous drums. Each photo of a band happened to include a very large bass drum (big ones!). That was in the 1860's, obviously. Now, I certainly won't argue that there had to be a large ensemble employed for this particular fire fighter's funeral gig. But a bass drum was certainly within the realm of possibilities.
As a peace laurel over this dumb topic (it's important to me, actually), perhaps a really good compromise was one that Chailly came up during his last round of M10 performances. He had his bass drummer do some kind a flam or ruff: two fast strokes leading to a third stroke (on the downbeat), which was allowed to ring on, obviously. That lent a slightly more percussive sound to the bass drum, but without having to strike it hard. I would like to experiment with having the initial strokes played just slightly off-stage, struck at a sold forte (no fortissimo!). If there were some kind of reverb chamber available, such as at Meyerson Hall in Dallas, all the better.
Then when the bass drum reappears after the long flute solo (with the high strings taking up the flute's melody afterwards), I would have it played on-stage at a very solid forte; almost fortissimo. Anyway, that's just something I'd like to experiment with. Enough of this.
Barry
-
Barry:
As I said, and will say for the last time, I have no problem with anyone's PREFERENCE as long as it's clear what actual evidence there is, and guesswork is admitted to be just that. I do not deny that bass drums existed in marching bands--just that there is no evidence (a) for one here (indeed, no evidence of a band or music of any kind), or (b) in Mahler's sketches (in one of the very few instrumental cues he bothered, of necessity, to write down). The viability of single, isolated bass drum strokes arising from total silence in an outdoor context, which I doubt either of us has ever heard despite our marching band experience, is similarly a matter of conjecture or opinion, and you know I respect and value your thoughts as much as my own. My concern, as always in these cases, is that we keep our story straight as regards what few facts we have, and cleary distinguish personal taste from the historical reality of what we know.
Dave H
-
So you're saying that there may not have been a band involved at all (?). Wow; OK; I suppose. It just strikes me odd that there would be some sort of service outside the window of Mahler's apartment building, and somebody just brought a military drum along. Whatever. I'll just have to locate that Poloroid photo ;) that Mahler's housekeeper took out the window - truly a great Kodak moment.
-
Barry:
First--HOLY CRAP! I FINALLY GOT ANOTHER STAR!
Now, why is it unusual that there might not have been a band involved? Alma mentioned no music--just a commotion outside. Furthermore, haven't you ever heard of a procession with just drums? I sure have. How many parades feature people marching with just a few folks in front carry a banner, a flag, and a couple of rhythm instruments? And don't you think, Mahler being Mahler, that the "completely muffled drum" that he wrote into his sketch for the Tenth is called that because he wanted a sound different from that of the usual bass drum? Why are you assuming that the sound that they heard must necessarily have been of low pitch? It could very well have been short, sharp, and of relatively higher (or at least mid-level) pitch. The point is that it was muffled, not that it was deep. I know that's not how you hear it and how you prefer it, but I'm struck by this assumed image of a "big band" procession of some sort. It couldn't have been that large--there was a funeral oration given to the assembled crowd, without microphones let us not forget, so we are necessarily talking about an event of small or modest size.
Dave H
-
Seems like we're beating a dead horse here - either that, or a choice between two different drums. Anywayyyyyy . . . I would have assumed that there would have been a band at that this particular procession. Alma does make mention of a procession. Either that, or those who have written program notes for M10 recordings (Jack Diether, Jerry Bruck, Colin Mattews) just assumed that there was a procession. This particular fireman's death made the N.Y. papers. He had died both heroically and tragically while in the line of duty. So, it was a big story at that moment. We're talking midtown (uptown?) Manhattan near the turn of the century, so I certainly think that there must have been bands around for such occasions - perhaps a policeman's band, even.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. You've made your point by sticking to what little known facts that there are.
-
Seek and ye shall find! Anyone can read the actual obituary notice of fireman Charles W. Kruger by doing a search at the NY Times website. The entire funeral procession is described in extraordinary detail. There was a band, stationed in front of the church in which the memorial service was conducted (it played "Nearer My God to Thee"--the music of the service is described in detail). There's no mention of a marching band during the parade, but we can probably assume that it was likely present for the big procession up Fifth Ave.
The parade to the church was massive, but the procession after the service, which was merely to escort the coffin part of the way to Woodlawn cemetery in the Bronx, was much smaller (it seems on the order of a few hundred people, firemen only), and it was this smaller procession that Mahler actually witnessed (the article gives the exact route, which would have taken it by his apartment/hotel). Although the article does not say, it seems to me from the description that the band would not have participated in the post-memorial procession, but of course it might have. In any case, I love it when we can put some real flesh on what is otherwise rampant speculation!
Dave H
-
I prefer rampant speculation, but only when it's from me. After all, I'm a five star hero ;) :D ;D :-* :P
-
Thanks for the mention of the NYT article Dave H. I looked it up and found it most interesting but frustrating. With all the detail in the article, what was played and by how many, who was there, what was said, etc. You would have thought that the writer would have mentioned the size of the drums and if there was one that followed the casket to the cemetery! ;)
Rampant speculation continued... one would think it would have been a rather unique foreboding sound to capture Mahler's attention. Maybe he was thinking of the hammer blows from the 6th?
-
Don-
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Less important than what instrument played that single drum stroke is the sense of what its sound must be--short, sharp, muffled, fateful, full of foreboding. To be honest, I'm not sure that Mahler cared what instrument would get used as long as it had the right emotional qualities, and there are certainly several ways to achieve the desired effect. However, I am certain that he would NOT have wanted the sound of a normal bass drum--his written intentions are clear in this respect, and beyond that, the whole point is that this sound should be different from a typical thud on a bass drum. Otherwise, what would be the point? What attracted him to this sound in the first place was precisely its sense of differentness, and I agree with you that he surely had the Sixth's hammer blows in mind as well. The intention there is quite similar, and there we know that he had in mind a particular kind of sound, and not a specific instrument or means of producing it.
Dave H
-
Yeah, but all these modern floor tom-toms that people pass off as being "tenor drums" - struck with hard, modern sticks - just ain't it! If they took the time and trouble to find an old-style, long military drum - lots of wood on the shell; calf skin head; not too tightly wrenched down - and struck it with a stick that isn't too narrow, then you might get something more authentic sounding. Otherwise, if they can't come up with something along those lines, I'd much rather that they use a plain-old bass drum.
If you can't really drape a cloth on a bass drum (I've seen it done, actually; especially with the ones you can tilt sideways), you can experiment with different mallets, and moving the drum to different locations. I still think that doing bass drum shots slightly offstage - or maybe even far offstage, played really loudly - could work just fine.
Personally, I think it's rather important that the dynamics for the drum somewhat follow the dynamics of the music surrounding each stroke. At the start, since the tuba and sustained chords are rather low in volume, the "drum" (boy, do I want to write "bass drum") shouldn't blow you out of the room. But later on, when the drum returns - long after the flute solo has been passed off to the violins - then it can be very loud and threatening, as the tuba plays his/her (Philadelphia) upper register scale runs quite loudly; not to mention the "dah-dah-daaaaaaah" gestures from the trumpets. To me, that just makes better musical sense.
To me, at least half of the M10 recordings out there have really crappy sounding solo drums. Too soft - too loud; too thuddy - too hard sounding; you name it.
-
I think the variable dynamics certainly make sense, with one proviso. "Muffled" doesn't necessarily mean soft, and there's a world of difference in tone quality (as Mahler knew well) between a loud sound heard softly, from afar, and an instrument played quietly. Given the circumstances that Alma relates--they were on an upper floor some distance away from the actual event (they could not hear a word of the speech, for example), the drum stroke must have been played loudly to reach them at all, so some experimentation with offstage perspectives might be in order here, and it would be a very "Mahlerish" thing to do--have it start offstage and then seem to get nearer until the climax of the lyrical flute melody, when it should be onstage. But you really do have to get over your bass drum fixation, Barry. The fact that many performances get the sound wrong is not an argument in its favor--and I do think basic pitch is too low and the timbre too diffuse for what Mahler had in mind, particularly if you want to employ a wide range of dynamics. Despite being muffled, the sound must have been quite penetrating, and this suggests some sharpness, and higher overtones. There are many options besides lousy modern tom-toms hit with the wrong sticks (and don't tell me that I'm beating a dead horse--I thought we were done here until you continued the conversation!). Actually, now that I think about it, maybe beating a dead horse would give us just the sound that Mahler had in mind. We've tried everything else. :P
Dave H