Which M6 has the best hammer blows?

[Polarius T]

PT:

If you like the Abbado/BPO SACD (I do too), you may like the Lucerne DVD even more.  Here is a thread on this subject from a while ago. 

http://gustavmahlerboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=276.0

Thanks for the link. I'm quite sure I would enjoy watching and listening to that performance, but that may have to wait a little as I have other priorities as well.

We should find time to do more searches around here -- it's a veritable treasure trove open to all.

-PT

[Dave H]

John:

Why "hammer blows?" I think you probably know part of what my answer will be since you have read my book and (from your prior communications with me) understood it quite well. Mahler often used "noise" the way other composers use themes--as ideas that serve both a formal and dynamic role in creating his large symphonic structures. I think it's important in this connection not to get fixated on the notion of "hammer" specifically. Mahler seemed to have had in mind more a type of sound (as described in the score and in this group many times) rather than the instrument that actually produced it. Failing anything else, he said "hammer," but as we know he himself was never satisfied in actual performance, and the device that Alma describes that he constructed (and which failed so miserably) was not in fact a hammer--the emphasis was on what was being struck, as opposed to what was doing the striking, and this returns us to Mahler's biggest concern, namely, the quality of the sound itself. The dramatic function of the hammer blows is pretty self-evident--to "interrupt" the music's triumphant progress and derail it, ultimately back to the introduction. The fact that Mahler deleted the third hammer blow (which has no such function and occurs in a very odd place, after the music of the introduction has already started) tends to support this view.

Dave H

[sperlsco]

Two thoughts on hammer blows:

I always found Ben Zander's discussion discs to be very interesting for a classical newbie like myself.  In his discussion of the M6 hammer blows, he explained why he preferred 3 of them (or perhaps, why he felt that Mahler incorrectly removed the third one).  I did not agree with his reasoning, but his explanation actually helped me conclude that the third stroke was not musically necessary; essentially, that the journey and the first two hammerstrokes really take all of the strength from the Hero.  That said, I still enjoy three-hammer-stroke performances just fine. 

Which brings me to my second thought.  I always considered the Boulez/VPO M6 to be one of my favorites, despite the fact that it has the weakest hammerblows among my dozens of M6's.  Since Mahler was so concerned about the sound made by these critical hammerblows, should we dismiss the Boulez M6 for such an oversight?  Put another way, someone familiar with M6 already knows what these hammerblows represent, and can perhaps look past the deficiency.  However, if someone's only exposure is from the Boulez M6, they may completely miss the point. 

[Dave H]

Scott:

I think you make an excellent point. I don't think that the hammer blows matter a great deal--they are, after all, only two loud thuds (or three), and all other things being excellent the music has more than enough other things going for it to make its point. The Boulez, accordingly, I also think is a very fine performance. Certainly it's better to have powerful hammer blows than weak ones, but no performance, and certainly not one of a large, complex, and emotionally huge work like Mahler's Sixth depends for its success on whether there are two or three hammer blows, or whether they go "thud" or "plink," or how loud they are in absolute terms. After all, Mahler doubles them with timpani, bass drum, and also cymbals and tam-tam. So even he was hedging his bets. And as I pointed out in an article I wrote taking issue with Zander's approach, the revisions that Mahler made in the score from the first performance to the published version are infinitely deeper and more far-reaching that the mere deletion of a hammer stroke, or the question of how loud it turns out to be. I mean, the symphony even works perfectly well with its inner movements in a different order! That being the case, then the whole hammer blow business strikes me as something of a red herring. The Boulez, incidentally, is a perfect example of a swift, lithe, at times somewhat restrained performance that delivers the goods in a way that Abbado's somewhat similar approach does not.

Dave H

[barry guerrero]

The ONLY recording of M6 where the reinstated third hammer stroke sounds somewhat convincing to me, is on the Segerstam one from Chandos. Segerstam scales down the volume of the third stroke, so that it matches the softer dynamic level of everything else that's going on around it. Perhaps just as important, Segerstam also greatly protracts the bar before the third stroke - greatly lengthening the ascending harp glissando before it. Otherwise, I find the third stroke to be extra-musical baggage that doesn't fit into what's happening at that particular moment (everything's sort of dissolving at that point). I'm certain that that was Mahler's true reason for deleating it (and not the, "three strikes, you're out" boogeyman-of-fate conspiracy theory).

Truthfully, the effect of a mini-hammerstroke - one that fits into the dynamic profile of that moment  - can be achieved simply by placing an accent at the start of the snare drum roll there, but with the snares switched off (obviously). I know, because I've done it myself in performance.

Barry

[Dave H]

Exactly! Segerstam makes it work but only, ironically, by diminishing the impact of the last hammer blow to the point where, in a sense, it really doesn't make any difference. The problem that Mahler had was that his programmatic concept (the steadilly diminishing "three hammer blows of fate") didnt' fit with the musical structure he actually created, in which the second blow HAD to be more cataclysmic than the first (witness the more violent musical response to it and that fact that it knocks the finale all the way back to the introduction). It simply took him a while, and some practical performance experience, to realize that he had to abandon his programmatic intentions and follow the path outlined by the music itself. This, by the way, is entirely consistent with his life-long struggle with "program" vs. "absolute" music, and his habit of denying the programmatic basis for his works once they reached their final form and had justified themselves (at least in his own mind) as viable independent musical creations that speak for themselves.

Dave H

[stillivor]

Fascinating discussion.

The psychology of listening in relation to the 'blows' is interesting. And 'blow' seems to me the point. The music leading up to them is of gaining strength and peace, shattered by the blow, like knock-downs in a boxing match, halting the progress, bringing the hero down.

I do experience an excitement as each approaches - they are thrilling moments, as well as being devastating ones. I get sort of more anxious as the blow is arriving. And I wait to see how the conductor will time the moment; will it be a stopper, an axe or a wall? How will the conductor respond, how will it sound after - desperate?, struggling?, nearly impossible? Not to mention how they will lead up to them - surprise? flagged up? speeding to it? and so on.

I think I get the point about the third being musically wrong. I like the third because it feels psychologically right. Perhaps M. put it in for that reason in the heat of composition, and took it out when musical rationality kicked in (I don't know what I'm talking abour, you understand). The third, when done , ends a passage of wonderful heart-easing music, as tho we will have an optimistic end. Which is why, for me, the third blow is so dreadful - I mean , evokes dread.

Despite the cymbals, if I remember aright, the effect he was after was of a dull, specifically non-metallic, thud. Two ways I've seen it done are a wooden hammer on a wooden box; and simply lifting one end of a wooden box and dropping it on cue. Both seemed good ways to do it.

Maybe the way to do with predicability of seeing when at a concert, a thing to do would be to close your eyes.


    Ivor

[barry guerrero]

See, I think just the opposite. To me, the two hammer strokes don't signify so much an end to something, but rather the beginning of a huge cataclysm. It's like huge amounts of water pushing against a dam that can no longer hold back the mounting pressure. In this regard, the sixth Mahler makes me think of Stravinsky's "Rite Of "Spring" - an unleashing of vasts amounts of energy. In fact, combine the huge walls of sound from the finale, with the continuous mixed meters that happen in each of the trio sections from the scherzo movement (constant interchange between 2 and 3 beat patterns), and you'll get - voila!!! - "Le Sacre du Printemps". No doubt, though, that the imagined protagonist of the symphony gets caught up in these whirlpools - or vortexes - of violent energy.

Just to be clear what happens at the hammerstrokes, in the revised version - the one that's ALWAYS performed - both strokes are doubled with the bass drum. Mahler specifies that the hammerstroke itself be of a non-metallic material and sound. The second hammerstroke calls for OPTIONAL doubling with the cymbals and tam-tam (along with the bass drum). On most recordings, you'll hear the cymbal and tam-tam added to the second crash. Weirdly enough, Abbado seems to have added the tam-tam on the first hammerstroke as well, on his latest Berlin remake from DG. The third stroke is not indicated as being an option in the revised version.

Therefore, when conductors reinstate the third stroke, they're doing so on their own accord. The orchestration surrounding the third stroke is a bit different in the original, first version. Zander tried to make that point, but he failed to use the first version throughout the finale on his second performance of it (included on the second disc). That made the claims of an "original version" on the cover, something of a false statement (and thus, false advertising).

For my money, the best hammer strokes - as well as cowbells - are on the Chailly/RCOA recording. However, the Concertgebouw no longer use the optional doublings on the second stroke (in other words, they didn't on the Jansons recording either). Chailly was a percussionist first, and takes great care with his percussion parts when conducting (for the most part).

[john haueisen]

After all the elucidating discussion we've had so far on the M6 hammer blows, my personal fascination with biographical information prompts me to tease:  Could it possibly have entered Mahler's magnificent musical mind, to insert yet another bit of his wit and humor, with a play on the name of his financial and legal adviser at the time, Paul Hammershlag?
John H

[barry guerrero]

Ah, man, that's great! - either way.

Barry

[stillivor]

Brilliant.

Being a fellow-Cancerian, I could well believe that it worked unconsciously; that the name went into the depths, and prompted the idea in the Sixth - well p'raps better, 'contributed' to the idea.

If only we had all Mahler's conversations on tape, not to mention a continuous recording on tape of everything that ever went on in his unconscious.  :-) I can hear him joking about the hammerblows with his adviser (Eng. sp.)

Reminds me of a cartoon in the UK satirical mag Private Eye a long time ago.

A man in the street is being followed by a cameraman and a sound recordist. The latter is saying to a passer-by, "We're filming his entire life in case he becomes famous."


   Ivor

[Polarius T]

Hi John,

I think maybe originally you aimed at something like what Ivor so eloquently talks about in his response, but I guess I probably listen to this music more like Barry here. After all, the Finale is very much a form-driven creation, meaning that behind Mahler's inspiration for it there was probably the idea of its form, not some dramatic conception predicated on themes. (This much I think has been convincingly demonstrated by Adorno.) The results were all pretty novel (at least on this large a scale) and the variation technique answering for the movement's unfolding (making the retrogrades now a property of the structure and not simply a procedure for treating detail) made possible a complete integration of details into a totality more powerful and imposing than anything Mahler had previously accomplished, yet more carefully calibrated down to the smallest of its elements. But at the same time it also resulted in a new way tension was built up (and moderated) in the movement. The drastic undulation of the tension curve here (again unlike anything Mahler had composed up to that point) is really produced by the proportions of the parts and has nothing to do with mere intensification of the music's flow. (And even less to do with intensification as an "interpretative" approach for that matter, as the "turning up of the heat" favored by those loosely wielding the "Mahler Lite" label that in fact only makes sense as a reaction of those conditioned to being fast-fed their Mahler with Extra Cheese.) As Paul Bekker put it a long time ago, "this dynamic course was no longer synonymous with action toward the highest point of force." Consequently I don't see any reason to overemphasize the meaning of the hammer blows as significant dynamic factors in the work.

What the hammer blows do in the formal context is basically mark the beginnings of the second (1st stroke) and the fourth and last (2nd stroke) part of the development section (note how brief the exposition is to begin with, especially next to the now magnified development, which all matters for the way Mahler was subtly pushing the envelope in his adherence to the quasi-sonata principle).

Why Mahler so elaborately described the sound he was after was probably because no readily identifiable instrument was available for creating it (it was not possible to specify an actual instrument here).

Why the preference for the odd sound (the dull thump thing) is probably owing to the same impulse that motivated Mahler's use of other non-pitched percussion in the work: these are used in rather standard roles typical of a inherited sonata structure, as sort of ready-made elements from the composer's basic stock, which for their own part they then manage to simultaneously undermine -- transforming the "identity" of the conventional means the same way the drum roll was later taken over by the bass drum with its indefinite pitch in M9, for example. Standard devices of the era were thus deployed in the interest of recognizability but now with results that were much more ambivalent or made the impact afresh, compared to the effect of the hackneyed original belonging to the model. "What had been convention now becomes an event," describes Adorno this transformation.

So this would be a less psychological (dramatic) and a more structural (epic) way of looking at it, then, I guess (with the corresponding narrative terms).

-PT

[john haueisen]

You did read my mind, PT.
I was hoping to find a few daring souls who might go beyond a technical description of the music, and venture into speculation about what Mahler's "message" might have been.

Yes, I know this would all be just guesses, but as the "program" of M2 illustrates, Mahler was usually doing more than merely writing down "pretty notes," or a "pretty form" as Mozart or Haydn might have done.

I realize how risky this would be:  to expose our personal philosophical take on a piece of music, but judging from anecdotes that La Grange records, Mahler seemed to have been pleased whenever people told him their philosophical reaction to his music.  It was a formal program of "this, and only this is what the music means" to which Mahler objected.

Well, those are just my thoughts, and what I was hoping for was that a few others might dare express their feelings and thoughts about M6.  Anything you say will not be held against you!

John H

[barry guerrero]

Mahler seemed to have been pleased whenever people told him their philosophical reaction to his music

That depended greatly on who was espousing their thoughts, and just exactly what it was they were saying. Mahler dropped programmatic titles from his symphonies because folks WERE guessing all kinds of crazy things that were way off the mark. It drove him nuts.

Although it was purely fiction, a great example of what probably happened numerous times can be observed in the Ken Russell "Mahler" movie; this time regarding his 9th symphony. Mahler is riding the train to Vienna with Alma (it's supposed to be his final trip back to Wien; then he dies). Then an African woman appears; one who presumably speaks German (the movie is in English). She passes herself off as some kind of mystic or fortune teller. Anyway, she's about to tell Mahler all about his 9th symphony. Mahler likes the attention, and is interested to hear what she has to say. After a brief explanation, she tells him that the 9th is all about "death", and then Mahler suddenly goes into one of his numerous flashbacks of earlier times (the movie does this terrifically). After he exits his flashback, with almost an air of anger, he informs the woman that the symphony is not about death, but is a farewell to love.

Mahler was infamous for his wide mood-swings, and could be quite rude and distant at social gatherings. I could very well picture just that sort of thing happening when people were guessing all kinds of things that were way off the mark for him. He could also be quite content with his own claque - often times smoking cigars - when they were saying things that he liked to hear. Like a sheep dog, he would heard them in when one of them began to go astray from the point. These conversations were as much musical as philosophical. As you both implied, "philosophy" and music were pretty much interlinked for these people.

[Dave H]

I agree with Barry here completely. Although it may be fun to speculate about what Mahler may or may not have thought, we should always be mindful of the fact that while his words, or a few anecdotes, may have come down to us, they are always filtered by the perceptions of those reporting them, and we can't ever recreate the context or intent behind them. Let me give you an example: I once had a heated exchange with a member of the NY Mahlerites about the famous line, theoretically uttered by Mahler, to the effect that "What is most important in music isn't found in the notes" (or words to that effect). This is one of the many bits of Mahleriana preserved by Natalie Bauer-Lechner in her book "Memories of Gustav Mahler."

Usually this line is quoted as a bit of deep philosophical insight into the nature of music, and as license to excuse all manner of interpretive oddities in individual performances. But there are other ways to look at it. I see it as a truism--an "off the cuff" comment that merely states the obvious. Of course the "notes" are meaningless until they are realized as living sound by the performer. DUH!! So what was the context in which the remark was uttered? It could have been as Bauer-Lechner would have us believe: questioning Mahler on the very essence of music he sagely uttered that bit of wisdom.

Or it could have been much different. He's being chased all over the Tyrol by some pushy broad with a pad and pen looking for juicy quotes. Finally, she corners him and, fed up with her pestering about the nature of music, he says sarcastically and irritably, "Well OBVIOUSLY what's most important in music cannot be found in the notes," and of course we don't get the end of the sentence--"Now piss off and leave me alone!" All of this, of course, is rampant speculation, but the remark itself is so trite and essentially meaningless that it does lead me to suspect that the circumstances in which it was uttered may not have been entirely as reported to us.

So the bottom line is that whether talking about hammer blows, or even quoting the Great Man himself, there is a lot that we don't know, and can't know. This fact should only lead us back to the music itself--the one thing we have that's always true and certain.

Dave H