A letter from Benjamin Zander revisted...

[Leo K]

This letter, as some will no doubt recall, was posted by Zander to the Mahler list in April of 2001.  I really feel this is an excellent post regarding why he performs the Mahler 6th in the scherzo-andante order...I don't mean to open an old debate...I just like to read about what goes on 'behind the scenes' in order for a performance of such an epic work to get off the ground!  As Zander insists in his letter, he is not trying to convince anybody towards his point of view...as he says, this is a story of how he was 'enrolled'...


PART ONE

Dear Mahler Listers,

I feel like sharing a story with you, not because it will clarify any
argument or change any minds about the vexed subject of the order of the
middle movements of Mahler 6th, but just because I was touched by it and I
think you might be too.

As some of you may know, I have just performed Mahler 6th with the New
England Conservatory Honors Orchestra.  Those who know something about
schools of music, will understand that that is quite a different undertaking
than preparing and performing a piece like that with a top professional
orchestra.

A professional performance is prepared, and dispatched in a matter of two or
three days, and however powerful and memorable it may be, is quickly engulfed
in the mad round of subsequent performances, rehearsals and recordings in the
life of an orchestra like the Philharmonia.  I do not imagine that there
would have been more than a handful of cursory conversations in reflection of
our performance of Mahler 6th amongst  the members of the Philharmonia, which
took place in the Royal Festival Hall in between the preparation of the NEC
performance.

Whereas in a Conservatory the preparation of a work of the monumental size
and difficulty of Mahler 6th rivets the attention of virtually everyone in
the school for several weeks before and even after the performance.  Private
teachers, colleagues and friends are enrolled.  The practice rooms resound to
the sounds of the symphony being studied for hours a day.  Parents are
informed and invited over e-mail and many travel enormous distances to be
present on the great occasion.   Cafeteria conversation inevitably turns to
discussion of the work, every score is checked out of the library, and the
sense of awe, fear and excitement in tackling one of the truly great
mountain-top journeys in the world of music for the first time is absolutely
palpable.  I donâ?Tt know what the exact term is to describe the opposite of
"deja-vu all over again", but that is what was experienced at each of the
eight morning rehearsals that preceded the performance and literally brimmed
over at the performance itself.  Not one player in the orchestra of about one
hundred musicians had ever played the work.  Many had never even heard it!

There is another thing that separates a Conservatory preparation from a fully
professional one.  Though a modern Conservatory can boast any number of
players who can handle such a piece quite flawlessly, they cannot be expected
to do so consistently at every rehearsal let alone under pressure of the one
performance.  So, whereas the Philharmonia players would virtually never miss
a single note in a rehearsal or performance, it was a much chancier affair
for the students. Would the first horn hit that treacherous high note or
would those three clarinets be able to negotiate that stratospheric
pianissimo entrance perfectly in tune or the tuba his long glissando with
perfect poise?  That adds an element of surprise, tension and involvement on
the part of everyone on stage.  The members of the orchestra quickly find out
where the most challenging moments are for their colleagues and become
intensely engaged in the outcome with each encounter.  It's like a sporting
event!   When a treacherous passage is successfully negotiated you
hear the sound of shuffling of feet or see the silent one-hand clapping of
colleagues. It's the kind of excitement and sympathy that must be felt
amongst the members of a gymnastics or skating team during a competition and
is almost completely lacking in the supremely competent and confident ranks
of a major orchestra.

TWO TO FOLLOW

[Leo K]

PART TWO

There is another thing that is different. TIME.  Eight rehearsals may not
seem a lot of time to prepare a long difficult symphony with a student
orchestra, but over a period of three weeks with lots of practice time in
between it is sufficient.  And there is still time at rehearsals for the
conductor to tell stories, explain the music and share some of the dilemmas
of interpretation that fascinate us on the Mahler List.  So you can be sure
that I told them all about the controversy of the middle movements and the
question of the third hammer blow.   I kept them up to date on all the
discussions about the famous box and hammer, the contraption sent from San
Antonio versus the timpani crate which I had specially built. They actually
got to vote which sound they preferred!   I also informed them about many of
the retouchings of the score that Mahler did in his revisions and of course
the controversial rescoring that had to be done if we were to restore the
third hammer blow etc.  None of this is possible in the preparation with a
professional orchestra partly because of the time factor and partly because
the peculiar culture of such institutions it is presumed to be unwelcome.
But more of that another time!

So now I am nearly ready to get to my story!   But first I must tell you
about my habit of putting a white sheet on the stand of every musician in the
orchestras I conduct.  The purpose of the white sheet is to elicit comments
from the players that might lead to them being able to play even better.  If
there is confusion, irritation or disagreement it will get in their way.
If they are not sure what notes, rhythms or dynamics they are supposed to be
playing they will not be able to play their best.  If they cannot follow the
conductor or understand his beat it will lessen their confidence and sense of
spontaneity and if they disagree with the tempo, shaping or character being
portrayed they may not be able to give of their very best.

Moreover, I invite them to share with me any insights, or delights about the
music, their musical philosophy or whatever will make them feel heard and
full participants. If they are especially fond of a particular moment,
harmony or some beauty in the music, drawing my attention to the thing they
are passionate about it will automatically elicit from me some response that
will effect the performance.  This undoubtedly gives them a greater sense of
ownership in the music which is often all too lacking in the somewhat
anonymous ranks of an orchestra.

When I return from a rehearsal of a professional orchestra I might have six
white sheets to read, when I return from a Conservatory orchestra rehearsal
there may be 40!  The professional ones are rarely signed, though they might
have really helpful suggestions like at the recent Philharmonia rehearsals of
Mahler 6th... "get a coat of paint on the timpani crate for the performance
tonight" ( we did)  or "why are you conducting that whole section in 4?
Don't worry about the motor rhythm, concentrate on the sweep of the musical
line"  (I did)

The Conservatory students invariably sign them because they are delighted at
the prospect of a late night phone call or a chat in the corridor to continue
the discourse, or for that matter, a nice smile when we come to "their"
moment in the performance!

I had shared with the NEC orchestra the whole issue of the order of the two
middle movements.  It is hard not to, because their parts are printed with
the Andante as the second movement whereas the score is printed with the
scherzo as second movement.   I told them that I had wrestled with this issue
for years and had come to the conclusion that there were really two Mahler
6th's: the one Mahler composed and the one that resulted from his experience
in the rehearsals and concerts which caused him to reverse the movements. I
told them that my preference was strongly for the Scherzo/Andante order.  I
gave several reasons, including the powerful structural argument that if you
play the Andante before the finale, it makes sense for the introduction to
the Finale to be a long modulation back to A minor from Eb. Whereas, if you
are already in A minor at the end of the Scherzo, there really isn't any
structural imperative to make the modulation back, because you are already
there!

In any event there was no more discussion about it until a close friend and
passionate Mahlerian (and owner of 40 recordings of Mahler 6th) came to the
rehearsal.  He brought with him Jerry Bruck's article from the booklet of the
Glen Cortese recording with the Manhatten School and urged me strongly to
reconsider the argument.

In the light of that without having read the article, I decided it to do it
in the Andante/Scherzo order at the play through that morning and asked the
musicians to tell me through their white sheets which they preferred.  I got
twenty six responses to the question, thirteen of which preferred Andante
first and thirteen preferred the reverse!   . .

That evening I read the article and had to admit that the argument is indeed
compelling.  Without going into it too deeply and most of you know this stuff
anyway,  the main argument is that Mahler made the change immediately, and
unreservedly in his first set of rehearsals. He gave clear instructions for
an errata sheet to be inserted into existing scores and ordered that when the
work was republished it must be reprinted with the Andante first.  He never
conducted it again in any other order, nor was he present at any performance
at which the original order was restored.

THREE TO FOLLOW

[Leo K]

PART THREE

Then came the main point. After the first world war Mengelberg, had written
to Alma asking her to refresh his memory as to how she remembered Mahler
wanted the order of the middle movements. She replied: "Scherzo first,
Andante second, Love Alma."  Mengelberg, treating the message like gospel,
wrote in his score: "Scherzo first, Andante second, Gustav Mahler".  So is
holy writ emblazoned on our consciousness!  And scribe Ratz sanctified it as
the final order, with apparently no other information to go on.

In any event, at the last rehearsal, the day of the concert, I shared all
this with the players of the orchestra.  I said that in all good conscience,
knowing that Mahler's last and unequivocal wish was for the Andante to come
first, I felt I had to go with the Andante/Scherzo order.  My musical
philosophy dictates that we must, to the best of our ability, realize the
wishes of the composer and the last wishes must have precedence over earlier
ones,  except in very extraordinary circumstances, such as his superstitious
elimination of the third hammer blow.

That, I thought was that.  But it turned out not to be so.  As I was sitting
on my stool at the beginning of the break, the first trumpet player, looking
very upset, even disturbed, came up to me and put down a "white sheet" on my
music stand.  On the sheet I had printed three questions:
 
1) What has worked
about the preparation of this concert?
2) What has not worked?
3) On what would you like to me to focus during this
evening's performance.

Under the second question he wrote

"Scherzo third!!!!  I am so thoroughly disappointed that the Andante is second,
that the only way  I can deal with my anger is to put it into Mahler.  Sorry
if I lose it tonight.  It's either that or some violent act with dire
consequences."

Under the final question, "on what would you like me to focus..."    He wrote

"I don't know. I don't know the piece you've decided to conduct tonight."

Now I understood why he hadn't been playing for much of the previous section
of the rehearsal. I had thought it was to save his lip for the evening
performance.  It was because he was too upset and angry about the reversal of
the movements.

Well, I sat on my chair throughout the break and when the orchestra
reassembled I announced that I had decided to stick with my original decision
to play the Scherzo first.  I said, in spite of the compelling arguments in
Jerry Bruck's article, I was not prepared to give up the structural truth I
felt in the original design. I told them that in my view the first three
movements move inexorably to the emotional climax in the Andante.  The
Scherzo must bring no relief.  We must wait for a long time for what John
Allison in the Times referred to as "the consoling desolation of the slow
movement" and especially for the "glowing climax, (at 61) the only moment of
true bliss in the work."  But my more immediate reason for my decision was
the passionate conviction of my first trumpet player and the fear that whole
experience of playing the symphony would be threatened by my decision.  Too
high a price to pay!





Then I saw something remarkable.  The blood returned to the face of the first
trumpet who took up his instrument and poured his heart out for the rest of
the rehearsal and during the entire performance that night.  He thanked me
and said I had saved the performance that night for him by going back on my
decision..  He had also told me at the previous day's rehearsal that his
entire life and everything he had ever done had pointed to Wednesday night's
performance of Mahler's sixth.


Well, I certainly got enrolled in this young man's passion and I am glad to
report that, as a result of the performance, I am now even more convinced
that the Scherzo must come first, though I don't plan to try and persuade
anyone else of my opinion. The Telarc recording will be published with the
scherzo first and there will undoubtedly be some discussion of all this on
the companion disc. But the reason I am telling this story is to show what
incredibly passionate and unreasonable people (in the best sense) musicians
can be when they are still in school.  Could he preserve such a do-or-die
attitude in the professional world?  I fear not, but the special sense of
urgency and  enthusiasm that has often been spoken of as characteristic of
performances by pre-professional orchestras might have its source in just
this passion and conviction

Forgive for the inordinate length of this letter. But I though you might like
to know!

Warmest good wishes

Ben Zander


END

[barry guerrero]

"if you play the Andante before the finale, it makes sense for the introduction to
the Finale to be a long modulation back to A minor from Eb. Whereas, if you
are already in A minor at the end of the Scherzo, there really isn't any
structural imperative to make the modulation back, because you are already
there!"

Of course; that's exactly what I've been saying. In addition, the dissolution of the scherzo behaves almost exactly the same as the dissolution of the finale. In a narrative sense, they're redundant. When performed correctly - a matter of tempo relationships - the first movement and scherzo work together as an integral Part 1. Reverse the inner movement order on the recent Abbado/BPO M6, and you'll find out just how much so.

[barry guerrero]

I should also add that while I don't share Zander's enthusiasm for reinserting the third hammer stroke, at least he completes the job by using the first version's orchestration surrounding that stroke. To the best of my knowledge, no-one else has bothered to do that.

Barry

[Leo K]

I agree on both of your points Barry (although I haven't tried the Abbado inner movement switch yet).  I don't really mind performances with the andante placed first (and those performances bring a different mood altogether to this work I can appreciate and get into), it's just I think it's a stronger work with Scherzo first. 

I'm really thankful towards Erwin Ratz actually!  Go Erwin!