After a Mahler cycle - what next?

[James Meckley]

Also I'm currently reading Mahler, his life, work and world, are there any other books that contain his letters?  It's great reading Mahler's humour come thorugh in those letters , something that I've never seen mentioned much.

Here's a start:

Gustav Mahler: Letters to His Wife, Cornell Univ. Press, 2004

Gustav Mahler – Richard Strauss: Correspondence 1888–1911, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1996

The Mahler Family Letters, Oxford Univ. Press, 2005

Mahler's Unknown Letters, Gollancz, London, 1986

Gustav Mahler, Memories and Letters (Alma Mahler), Univ. of Michigan, 1968

James

[barry guerrero]

"Would also like to hear what other people would consider Mahler's favorite works?"

You have to keep in mind that it wasn't until late in Mahler's career that he got to conduct much symphonic repertoire. The majority of his conducting work was in opera. Among operas, the late Du Ponte operas of Mozart; Don Giovanni; Tales of Hoffmann; Die Freischutz and Fidelio would be obvious candidates. He also liked Lehar operettas, but wouldn't admit to it during formal discussions or heated debates. Mahler was crazy about R. Strauss' "Salome", but never got to conduct it because of the court censors in Vienna. He and Alma walked out on "Elektra" in New York, and I very much share that view as well.

In regards to symphonic stuff, obviously the Beethoven symphonies; Beethoven piano concertos; late Mozart symphonies; Schubert 9; the four Schumann symphonies (which he loved); late Haydn symphonies and Haydn's "Creation" (which I believe he conducted twice). As someone has already mentioned, "Symphonie Fantasique" was an obvious influence, and Mahler conducted it on more than several occasions. I do believe that Mahler got around to all four Brahms symphonies, but he conducted the Third the most. At some point, he did voice his preference for Brahms 3 (which makes sense to me). Oddly enough, Mahler did not conduct much Bruckner.

Mahler did his own version of Bruckner 4, which I've been told has several severe cuts to it (Rozhdestvensky has made a difficult-to-find recording of it). Mahler gave one of the earlier performances of Bruckner 6. To my ears, the beginning of the scherzo to Bruckner 6 sounds very similar to the very beginning of Mahler 6 (repetitive low A in the double basses). Also, the sort  of 'telegraph rhythm' that happens in the first movement of B6 shows up in the first movement of M7. Mahler also did Bruckner 5, but I don't know if he put cuts in it or used the Schalk edition. To the best of my knowledge, Mahler didn't conduct the last three symphonies of Bruckner.

Much to my astonishment, Mahler did not conduct the late symphonic poems of Dvorak with the singular exception of "The Wild Dove", which contains a sort of typical Mahlerian funeral procession within it. He did conduct several of the shorter orchestral works of Smetana, but I do not believe that he ever gave the entire "Ma Vlast" (someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that). Mahler very much liked the Smetana operas. At that time, I believe that Smetana was still better known in Austro/German circles than Dvorak.

In his late New York period, Mahler suddenly became far more 'continental', modern and 'catholic' (varied) with his tastes in symphonic music. He gave premieres - or certainly American premieres - of various wild and interesting works by American, British, French and Italian composers (and probably a few other nationalities as well). It's been said that when Mahler died, he possessed the score to Charles Ives' 3rd symphony. I've never found any written literature to support that claim, but it's a widely circulated story.

Going back to Berlioz, Mahler did conduct "The Damnation of Faust" and voiced his liking of it as well. "Le Troyens" would have hardly been performed at this point.

Prophetically enough, the very last item (or maybe the next to the last item) that Mahler ever conducted was the "Berceuse Elogique" by F. Busoni. It's a soft and melancholic work that appropriately ends with a solo stroke on the tam-tam.

[James Meckley]

Mahler did his own version of Bruckner 4, which I've been told has several severe cuts to it (Rozhdestvensky has made a difficult-to-find recording of it).

I have this; it's with the State Symphony Orchestra of the USSR Ministry of Culture and it's based on the 1888 version of the symphony. Mahler not only made several severe cuts but, as was his wont, altered the orchestration significantly. The entire thing lasts only 49:40, while a typical performance of the original takes 65 to 70 minutes. Overall, a travesty, though an interesting one.

James

[barry guerrero]

I would be curious to hear it because, in my opinion, there are plenty of problems with Bruckner's 4th symphony - particularly the slow movement and, most of all, the finale. It may not be better, but it would be interesting to follow what Mahler's thinking may have been.

[James Meckley]

Figuring out exactly what Mahler did to the Bruckner Fourth is not as easy as one might hope. The problem is that Mahler took as his starting point the so-called "1888 Version" of the symphony, rather than the now-standard 1878–80 version represented by both Haas and Nowak. The 1888 version is thought to have been influenced by Ferdinand Löwe and the Schalk brothers (it was even known as the Löwe-Schalk Edition for a time) and contains two cuts and significant changes in orchestration not found in the 1878–80 version. Without the availability of scores (Mahler's version has never been published) and given the fact that Rozhdestvensky's recording suffers from early 1980s Soviet audio engineering, separating Mahler's contributions from those made earlier by others—even if by Bruckner himself—is not an easy task.

The good news is there's a modern (2010) recording by Osmo Vänskä and the Minnesota Orchestra of the "un-Mahlerized" 1888 version that can be used as a benchmark. Earlier recordings exist by Furtwängler (1951) and Knappertsbusch (1949), but these are sonically compromised and thus less helpful in making comparisons.

James

[mike bosworth]

As far as Tchaikovsky goes, Mahler greatly admired the Manfred Symphony, conducting the Vienna première of the work as well as a further performance in St. Petersburg.  It was his favorite among Tchaikovsky's symphonic output.  He also liked Tchaikovsky's operas.

Another piece in which I find a Mahler "resonance" is Rachmaninov's "The Bells".  In some ways it reminds one of "Das Lied", and it was completed just a year or so after Das Lied's première in 1911.

Then there is Strauss's "Eine Alpensinfonie", the music of which could very well be, at least in part, a reflection of Strauss's reaction to Mahler's death.

Mike Bosworth

[BeethovensQuill]

Thanks for the replies Barry, James and Mike on the influences and other books, after reading what you've written and what ive read in Mahler his life, work and world, i'll have to take some Mozart through at some point,  the late symphonies and the overtures to the late operas, maybe during the 4th symphony day.

My line up for the 2nd Symphony day will include Beethoven's 9th, Death and Transfiguration, Debussy Prelude a l'apres-midi d'un faune, Nielsen Symphony no 1 and possibly Tchaikovsky 6, i could include Dvorak 9 but my cousin has that, or i could include Zemlinsky's 1st as well.  Quite a few interesting works written around that time.


Going back to the books, James you mentioned Mahler's Unknown Letters, Gollancz, London, 1986 i noticed it was also edited by Herta Blaukopf so i wondered whether it just included letters that were published in the Mahler his life, work and world book?

[James Meckley]

Going back to the books, James you mentioned Mahler's Unknown Letters, Gollancz, London, 1986 i noticed it was also edited by Herta Blaukopf so i wondered whether it just included letters that were published in the Mahler his life, work and world book?

I can't give you a definitive answer since I have neither book immediately at hand, but I will hazard a guess. Because the Life, Work and World book first appeared in 1976 and Unknown Letters came out in 1986, it's hard to imagine Herta Blaukopf would republish letters she had already published a decade earlier and call them "Mahler's Unknown Letters."

James

[waderice]

As far as Tchaikovsky goes, Mahler greatly admired the Manfred Symphony, conducting the Vienna première of the work as well as a further performance in St. Petersburg.  It was his favorite among Tchaikovsky's symphonic output.  He also liked Tchaikovsky's operas.

Mike Bosworth

Mike, it's curious that you mention Mahler's liking for Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphony.  I too, like the work, and think that it's mood seems to fit Mahler's generally lugubrious moods.  Various conductors either love or have expressed complete disdain for the work.  Toscanini liked the work and programmed it infrequently in his concerts, whereas Bernstein, the Mahler lover, thought Manfred as "unspeakable trash".

Most aficionados of the work prefer Igor Markevitch's recording of the work; to me, it's OK.  I myself am not sure what particular recording I like of all the ones I've listened to, though Haitink's is near the top of my list.

Wade

[BeethovensQuill]

The only problem with the Manfred For me is the finale, it just doesnt seem to hang together, and the theme doesn't seem to go anywhere, it sounds stilted compared to other Tchaikovsky themes.

[barry guerrero]

Perhaps that's why there are two versions of the finale that exist in Russia. Toscanini and  Yevgeny Svetlanov have made recordings where the sudden chord on the pipe organ is replaced by what is, for intents and purposes, a reprise of the ending to the first movement - possibly THE finest moment in all of Tcahikovsky's output. There are probably a few other recordings of that version as well. It does exist in printed form in Russia, because a good friend of mine had a copy of the score show up on his doorstep about two years after he had ordered it. That was several decades ago. Anyway, that same version also has a series of extra tam-tam smashes at the end of the first movement. Andre Previn included those extra tam-tam smashes, but I believe he did the usual, 'normal' finale (with its quiet fade-away).

To me, there's nothing wrong with the regular version of the finale, but it does require that a conductor keep the tension up throughout the whole movement, as well as 'step on the gas' a bit through the fugue section. Ashkenazy did a fine job of doing just that. I have several recordings of it that I like.

For me, a few 'sleepers' are the Ormandy/Philly, Chailly (with gorgeous playing from the Concertgebouw) and the Raymond Leppard/Indianapolis S.O. one that was beautifully recorded by the Koss headphones people. I'm not familiar with the Haitink. A number of critics really like the Jurowski/London Phil. recording, including David Hurwitz.

http://www.amazon.com/Tchaikovsky-Manfred-Symphony-~-Jurowski/dp/B000FMR48Y/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1348559238&sr=1-2&keywords=manfred+london+philharmonic

I really should have mentioned "Manfred" earlier because it's as much 'proto-Mahler' as are the late Dvorak tone poems. I have no trouble understanding why Mahler was drawn to it. Other than "Manfred", Mahler seems to have had a love/hate relationship with Tchaik's music. By and large, he expressed borderline loathing more than admiration. Yet, he kept performing Tchaikovsky. He definitely liked the "Nutcracker", as well as the Tchaikovsky operas (as mentioned above). It's somewhat obvious to me that the "southern storm" fantasy passage - the climax to the development section of the first movement in Mahler's third symphony - was clearly lifted from "the battle with the King Rat" from Tchaik's "Nutcracker".  Play them back-to-back and you'll see what I mean.

In the last year of Mahler's conducting career, Mahler got trapped into performing Tchaik's "Pathetique" symphony -  a work that Mahler expressed his loathing for in previous years. Yet, it's rather funny that Mahler's 9th symphony seems to, more or less, follow the same formal outline as T6. Mahler conducted Tchaik. 6 several times with his N.Y. Phil., and I believe he even took it 'on the road' when the orchestra toured to the north (I don't have my Knud Martner book handy with me now, but I could look up the details of all this when I'm back down in S.J.).

Anyway, YES, Tchaikovsky's "Manfred" was a biggie in the canon of works that Mahler semi-frequently conducted.

[BeethovensQuill]

Interesting post Barry, i have 2 recordings of the Manfred the Jurowski you mention and the Pletnev.  I have to say though i find Jurowski's interpretation a tad on the dull side, its slower than Pletnev, in fact i have Jurowski's recording of Tchaiks 6th and 1st and im not a fan of those either, and i wasnt a fan of his Mahler 2 as well, there is just something about his conducting and thats either very rushed or has no momentum and i dont get the hype that surrounds him.  I find Nelsons and the Birmingham Symphony Orchestra much more interesting in the Tchaikovsky symphonies.

Barry what recording would you recommend in the Manfred?

James, thanks for the info, i wasnt aware that the Unknown letters book came out after the his life, work and world book, so there seems to be a few 2nd hand copies still available on amazon.co.uk.

[barry guerrero]

I just ordered a used copy of the Jurowski through Amazon. I think Muti/Philharmonia on EMI is a good, 'all around' Manfred. However, I like the Leppard one for its huge tam-tam smashes near end of the first movement, as well as for its excellent sound quality. Some people have very good things to say about the Petrenko on Naxos.

For me, the Pletnev was too light weight, and waaay too wimply with the same tam-tam smashes near the end of the first movement.