So, I just Listened to the Maazel/NYPO M5...

[Michael]

Hello everyone,

Well, I listened to Mahler's Fifth in its entirety last night.  I have a couple recordings of this work already but thought I would purchase the Lorin Maazel/New York Philharmonic recording.  I have talked to Maazel personally on Facebook a couple of months ago, and as silly as it may sound, I have been somewhat partial towards his recordings ever since.
Before I give my impressions...a word of warning.  This is my first time listening to M5 in its entirety, so I really do not have any previous experience to compare it to.  So if someone more experienced with this recording and/or this work has any corrections, please, go right ahead.

I have heard the funeral march under a couple of others--mainly Bernstein and Dudamel--and I get the feeling that Maazel takes this a bit faster.  I especially like the center passage where he really lets the orchestra loose.  Then we are back to the funeral march again and I applaud Maazel for bring out other details besides the strings.  (Yes, I know there are other instruments playing besides the strings, but in this recording they are especially noticeable.)
The second movement, for me at least, opened too slowly; my main issue with the opening though is that the orchestra does not sound "harsh" enough.  The strings do not have that crunching growl and the brass in their answer to the opening A-B-C-B-A's from the low strings also do not have the fire that I have heard in other recordings.
With that out of the way, I was really able to notice the connection between the first and second movements, which is something I have never really been able to clearly tell in Mahler's music before.
The third movement is entirely new territory for me, so I am not really sure what to expect from it.  All I can say is that like the rest of this recording, the playing by the NYPO is great, and everything sounds natural in terms of balance.

I read in Tony Duggan's review of M5 (his reviews are simply excellent, by the way--highly recommended) that the Adagietto is supposed to be a song without words, if you will.  I personally love a slower, heart-on-sleeve Adagietto, but honestly...after the third movement's somewhat upbeat ending, the slow Adagietto really brings the mood back down again.  After hearing the entire symphony, I really feel that when the Adagietto is performed slower, it sends a different message.  This is not the Sixth; if it were, a slow Adagietto would only add to the weight of the work.
If the analysis of this symphony I have read is correct, and I suspect it is, I just do not see a slow Adagietto fitting with the work.  Make no mistake: if I am just going to listen to the Adagietto on its own, by all means, crank up the emotion and slow it down.  It is just one of those pieces that can be interpreted a couple of ways--as a song without words and as an elegy.  In context with the rest of the symphony, though, it just fits better as a song without words and I wish more conductors observed that.
The fifth movement Rondo is great.  There are no extremes--this is not Bernstein--but the orchestra plays well and I thought the applause they got at the end was well deserved.

Overall, I was not as impressed with this performance as I had hoped.  The Philharmonic plays beautifully, but I really think the performance needs more "life" to really make an impact.

Best regards,

[James Meckley]

I read in Tony Duggan's review of M5 that the Adagietto is supposed to be a song without words, if you will.  I personally love a slower, heart-on-sleeve Adagietto, but honestly...after the third movement's somewhat upbeat ending, the slow Adagietto really brings the mood back down again.  After hearing the entire symphony, I really feel that when the Adagietto is performed slower, it sends a different message.  This is not the Sixth; if it were, a slow Adagietto would only add to the weight of the work.
If the analysis of this symphony I have read is correct, and I suspect it is, I just do not see a slow Adagietto fitting with the work.  Make no mistake: if I am just going to listen to the Adagietto on its own, by all means, crank up the emotion and slow it down.  It is just one of those pieces that can be interpreted a couple of ways--as a song without words and as an elegy.  In context with the rest of the symphony, though, it just fits better as a song without words and I wish more conductors observed that.

You've gotten to the heart of the matter. If the Fifth is to be seen as a journey from darkness into light (and most feel that it is), then an Adagietto played as a funeral dirge interrupts that progression and confuses the listener (it was my initial barrier to understanding and appreciating the work). However, a lighter, optimistic "song of love" at that point makes perfect sense and fits properly into his symphonic argument.

James

[barry guerrero]

"This is not the Sixth; if it were, a slow Adagietto would only add to the weight of the work."

This where I really have a problem, and I'm going to continue harping on this issue until it's someday fully resolved. In spite of the fact that both Walter and Mengelberg recorded the Adagietto in less than 8 minutes, Mahler writes "sehr langsam" at several spots within the movement. There's absolutely no indication that he wanted the Adagietto played quickly. Yet, in the "Andante Moderato" of the 6th symphony, the word "langsam" is not ever referred to; not even in an obtuse or elliptical way. Just as I think an 11 or 12 Adagietto sounds wrong, I think a 7.5 minute Adagietto sounds equally bad. In my opinion, between 9 and 10 minutes works about the best.

Regardless, Mahler makes it perfectly clear that the slow movement of the 6th symphony is not an Adagio. Let's not support that notion.

[Michael]

Barry,

This is from Tony Duggan's Mahler survey:
"But the fact is there's
strong evidence to suggest Mahler only meant it to last around seven or eight and to stretch it out robs it of its delicate magic and compromises its place
in the greater scheme. Even leaving aside the evidence of contemporaries whose notes confirm a more animated interpretation (and the example on record
of Mahler's disciples Walter and Mengelberg) there's the strongly-held belief this is, as Donald Mitchell suggests, a Ruckert "song without words" to be
played in line with what the human voice could cope with. Performances that last anything into double figures surely fall outside that."

Is the evidence in support of a fast Adagietto only that Walter and Mengelberg played it fast, or is there more to it?  I too see that fast tempo as somewhat of a contrediction to the "langsam" marking.

I guess what we would need to know is...(1) what "evidence" is there to suggest a fast Adagietto, (2) what would Mahler's idea of "very slow" be, and (3) what is his overall idea in the work then if the Adagietto is to be played slower?  Because it does impact the emotional structure of the work.

[James Meckley]

I know of two pieces of objective evidence supporting an Adagietto on the quicker side. I can only fine one of them at the moment. If I find the other, I'll post it.

On March 12, 1905, Dr. Hermann Behn, a lawyer and an old friend of Mahler, attended the final rehearsal for a concert in Hamburg of the Fifth Symphony, conducted by the composer. He recorded the timings of each movement as it was played, and these timings are now found in the most recent printing of the Universal Critical Edition.

Movement I – 12:00
Movement II – 15:00
Movement III – 17:00
Movement IV – 9:00
Movement V – 15:00

I'm satisfied by anything in the 8:00 to 10:00 range. What must be avoided are the 11:00+ minute wallows, which do damage to Mahler's emotional narrative as I understand it. I think one of Haitink's Adagiettos went on for 15 minutes!

James

[barry guerrero]

There's little doubt that slow movements were generally played a bit faster "back in the day", than they are today. That's one reason I refuse to jump on the "slower is better" bandwagon (Maazel; Eschenbach, etc.). At least Klemperer had the good sense, in Bruckner, to take faster parts a bit slower (so that you can clearly hear all of the rhythms and inner workings), and take the slow movements a bit quicker. I think what Klemperer did worked far better than Celibidache's, slow-from-start-to-finish approach, but that's an entirely different topic.

Mahler always reserved the right to contradict himself, and he did make the statement that IF you're losing your audience during a slow movement, go slower! But that was more a bit of conducting advice, based on pragmatism, than an interpretive stance. Anyway, here's what Mahler wrote at the very beginning of the Adagietto:

Bar 1: Sehr langsam; Bar 2: molto ritardando; Bar 3: a tempo (molto Adagio); Bar 10: Nicht schleppen (etwas fluesstger als zu Anfang) - that means, roughly: "don't drag; go a bit more flowingly than at the beginning"; Bar 23: Wieder ausserst langsam; Bar 28: etwas draengend (speed-up somewhat); Bar 30 (second half): fliessend; Bar 31 (second half): zuruckhaltend; Bar 39 (rehearsal figure 2): Fliessender: Bar 43 (second half): Etwas draengend; Bar 58: Fliessend; Bar 68: Zuruckhaltend; Bar 71: molto ritardando; Bar 78 (the return of the main tune from the beginning): Tempo I (molto Adagio); Bar 85: rit. (and that's from "molto Adagio"!); Bar 88: Noch langsamer (slower yet!); Bar 96 (the climactic ending): Draengend.

What can we deduce from this?    .   .    .  it's clear that Mahler wants the very beginning to be very slow, as well as the return of the main tune (before the movement's climax). During the middle sections, where Mahler is dialing through various key changes and temporary tonal centers, he wants the music to move faster. Yet, even during this middle section, there are "peaks and valleys" in terms of the tempi asked for (rubato, in other words). Then he wants the truly quiet passage, located before the movement's climax, to go extremely slow (Noch langsamer). Then, for the final 8 measures of the movement, he simply tells us "Draengend" - nothing more.

What then becomes a matter of speculation, is just exactly what "fliessend" (flowing) means in terms of an increase in tempo. "Draengend" basically means to rush forward, more or less. In spite of the fact that the names Walter and Mengelberg are attached to this, I think it's difficult to justify 7.5 minute performances when Mahler writes things like "molto Adagio" and "Noch langsamer" (when you're already going "molto Adagio"!). That's just my opinion. Even the "French Correction" - Pierre Boulez - took more than 10 minutes for the Adagietto. Personally, I think 9 to 9.5 minutes sounds just about right. But - of course - it's paramount that the conductor follow Mahler's basic game plan for the Adagietto. That's the main thing.

What I think is also interesting - assuming that the publishers copied exactly what Mahler wrote in his final draft - is where Mahler chose to use capitals, and where he didn't. It's almost as though there's a difference between "fliessend", and "Fliessend".  

And, by the way, nothing even remotely like, "molto Adagio" and "Noch langsamer", show up anywhere in the slow movement of the 6th symphony (my main bone of contention).

[Michael]

Barry, a fasinating piece of work there.  Thank you for taking the time to write all that out.
So why, then, did Walter and Mengelberg go so fast?