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.
