New arrangement for mini ensemble M9 world premiere

[hrandall]

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

[barry guerrero]

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.

[Roffe]

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

[barry guerrero]

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

[Roffe]

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

[barry guerrero]

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.

[stillivor]

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

[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.

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

[Prospero]

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

[Clov]

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.

[Clov]

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.

[barry guerrero]

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.

[Clov]

(Less players = Easier to notice flaws)  Yeah?  That's your point? 

[barry guerrero]

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.

[Clov]

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.