New England Conservatory to Perform 1889 Budapest Version of M1

[brunumb]

Familiarity with the final version of M1 means that the beginning of 'Blumine' can be quite disconcerting.  It just doesn't seem to belong, no doubt because you expect to hear something completely different.  On the other hand, to me the next movement seems to follow 'Blumine' very naturally, as if they really do belong together.  On the whole I still prefer M1 without 'Blumine'.

[mike bosworth]

I think that most leading scholars would agree that the 1893 Hamburg "Blumine"
manuscript, after ingoring Mahler's emendations to it, is probably very similar,
if not the same as the version performed in Budapest in 1889.  In fact, it is
likely to be nearly if not identical to the score of the first number that
made up Mahler's incidental "Trompeter" music from 1884.  I have argued in
a recent paper that "Blumine" should/could be 'recast' in performance as
incidental music from "Der Trompeter von Säkkingen". 

With Mahler's decision to delete "Blumine" from the First Symphony after just 3
performances, he effectively returned this music to its origins.  Considering its
originally sanctioned 1884 guise it is more properly heard and enjoyed for what
it really is--a simple, dreamy, romantic depiction of Werner's "Serenande across the
Rhine" to his beloved.

I therefore applaud the conductor Danièle Gatti, who in his recent
chronological performances of Mahler's works in Paris separated "Blumine"
from his later concert featuring the First Symphony, coupling it instead
with the earlier "Das klagende Lied" and "Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen".

Mike Bosworth

[hrandall]

Here are two excellent reviews of this performance:

http://classical-scene.com/2011/09/27/nec-unties-one-for-mahler/

http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-29/ae/30218872_1_mahler-first-jordan-hall-serenade

Cheers,
Herb

[mike bosworth]

These reviews lead people to believe that what was heard was a performance of "the 1889 manuscript of Mahler 1 as performed
in Budapest in 1889".  This is a dangerously distorted view of the facts, and in general I have my doubts as to the usefulness
of this attempt at performing a so-called "first version" of the symphony.  Given that I was not able to hear the lecture given before
the performance, I would like to make a few comments.

1) The true "first version" of the symphony is Mahler's own manuscript from
the spring of 1888, at which time he reported to friends and family 'and so, my
work is finished'.  Unfortunately this is now missing.  Very shortly after this Mahler
began shopping the piece around to leading conductors in cities like Dresden
and Munich, hoping for a quick performance.  He would have had copyists make
copies for him for this purpose, so that the University of Western Ontario copyist's
manuscript very llikely dates from 1888, not 1889.

2) The Budapest performance did not take place until 1 1/2 years after the work's
completion, and it seems that it can't be fully determined which of Mahler's edits
to the incomplete University of Western Ontario copyist's manuscript came before
the 1889 Budapest performance rather than after. 

3) It should be stressed once again that the UWO manuscript is
missing both the "Blumine" and "Frère Jacques" movements. I think that most
leading scholars would agree that the 1893 "Blumine" manuscript, after
ingoring Mahler's emendations, is probably very similar, perhaps even the same
as the version performed in Budapest.  The most unfortunate hole in the
UWO manuscript is the missing "Frère Jacques" movement, which leaves us
unsure as to how this really sounded in Budapest in 1889.  To fill these two
gaps, the New England Conservatory organisers had to resort to plugging in the
1893 'Hamburg' versions of both "Blumine" and "Frère Jacques".

4) Therefore, what was performed the other night would more exactly be
described as a dubious kluged "1888-1893" version of M1 (and certainly not
a definitive "Budapest" version).  I would think that it would have been better to
limit things to the lecture on the UWO manuscript coupled with the accompanying
musical examples played by the orchestra to demonstrate the variances with the
version we are now used to.

Mike Bosworth

Here are two excellent reviews of this performance:

http://classical-scene.com/2011/09/27/nec-unties-one-for-mahler/

http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-29/ae/30218872_1_mahler-first-jordan-hall-serenade

[barry guerrero]

I've played in two performances of M1 (final version) where "Blumine" had been reinserted into its original, second movement position. I really like it, but that's just me. I don't think people notice the 'difference in orchestration' so much during a live performance. It's probably more bothersome while listening at home.

[chris]

A video of this performance has been uploaded to youtube....in 720p, no less, though I imagine the sound is still far short of audiophile grade.

Part one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJnc5lYx6E

Part two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjh2pucllRQ&feature=related

[mike bosworth]

Thanks for mentioning this.  I look forward in particular to hearing what the Finale sounds like.

Strangely, the first video says that this is the "1888-1889" version, but at the start of the second video it calls it the "1884-1889" version (probably because the original Trompeter/Blumine music dates from 1884?).  These are in fact both wrong.  As I posted earlier, two of the movements in this performance were of necessity lifted from the 1893 "Hamburg" manuscript.  In my opinion it should really be entitled the "1888-1893" version--in other words, a kluged version of questionable value beyond revealing Mahler's original conception of the Finale.

Mike Bosworth
Hanoi

A video of this performance has been uploaded to youtube....in 720p, no less, though I imagine the sound is still far short of audiophile grade.

Part one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJnc5lYx6E

Part two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjh2pucllRQ&feature=related