Which is Mahler's most difficult movt. to bring off?

[John Kim]

I'd say it's M6 Scherzo. I have never heard a fully satisfactory performance of it, except that Rattle/CBSO/EMI comes pretty close. The recent Gergiev/LSO is very good too. But I still have to find an ideal - what I think is ideal - realization of the movt. Conductors simply don't have a good idea how this the most peculiar of all Mahler's scherzos should go, and are too eager to get it over with producing boringly monotonous music here.  There are contrasts to be employed in this movt. I mean, contrasts in tempo, mood and balance. Haitink/RCO/Philips M6 from 1960's had a pretty good scherzo too because Haitink skillfully changed these things between different sections. I think M7 Scherzo movt. is also subject to similar traps, albeit to a lesser degree.

A close second would be M3:IV. The melody being somewhat elusive, the background orchestra sparingly supportive, its success absolutely depends on the singer and conductor. Again, I have never come across an ideal realization. But I can happily live with Levine/Horne/CSO/RCA.

Some might say M7:V is the most notoriously difficult to bring off, but IMO there are many fine recordings out there.

Which ones are your picks?

John,

[sbugala]

That's a good question. Initially I'd probably say M7, Mov. V, because it's the toughest one to "sell." 

But I've been thinking that M8 Movement I would be most difficult.  There's so much going on. You have to generate a huge climax at the end of the movement, but it's NOT that end of the piece.  I'm a poor judge, since I can only barely read an orchestral score...

[barry guerrero]

I agree that the scherzo from M6 is one of the toughest Mahler movements to conduct, as well as to make convincing for the audience. It's actually quite difficult to deal with all the meter changes (there are many) throughout the various trio sections, as well all the sudden shifts in tempo that Mahler calls for (again, there are many). I would also include the second and third movements of M5 in a short list of "hard to conduct" movements - the second one in particular.


its success (M3/IV) absolutely depends on the singer and conductor.

I don't totally agree with that. I would say that success in M3/IV is as much dependent on how together the unison low strings are at the beginning and end of the movement (that's harder than you might suspect), in addition to just how well the brass can handle all of Mahler's soft, high (in pitch), and sustained writing for them throughout the movement, as it is on the conductor and singer. One bad night from the solo trombone or horns can completely ruin it. The conductor can only cue them - he can't play the parts for them. That's why there are still nights when Mahler defeats everyone involved (although, that happens far less seldom these days). The harp part is very important too in M3/IV.

You might not care for Petra Lang, but I feel that the vocal and orchestral parts are extremely well integrated in M3/IV on the Chailly recording. Zinman struck me as being pretty good here as well.

[Polarius T]

Not exactly the same thing, but I've found myself most often most dissatisfied with how M6/I and M7/III are handled, so kind of the same neighborhood as with you guys but not quite the same spot. Or actually I'd say that it's usually the opening movement that's most difficult to pull off, as far as my interpretive preferences go. Some like Karajan, Muti, and Rattle have really rubbed my ears the wrong way with these and I've never been able to listen to the music the same way again. Kind of like negative habituation.

PT

[Dave H]

I think we need to draw a distinction between what movements you find least satsifactory in performance, and question, which asks which movement is the most difficult. There's a big difference between what may or may not satisfy you, and the absolute difficulty of playing a particular piece of music. I don't think there's much question about which Mahler symphony is the most difficult to play on the whole--it's the Fifth. Barry notes the difficulties in the second movement and scherzo, and I would also add the finale. One reason might be found in the statistic that this is Mahler's longest symphony in terms of bar-length, but one of the shorter ones in absolute playing time. That means lots of bars, lots of notes, mostly in quick tempos.

Furthermore, the relentlessly contrapuntal textures make the piece difficult to balance, and particularly exhausting for the strings (and also the brass, though not for the same reason). Just think of how much busy passage-work there is from the second movement on! In this symphony the string writing comes close to Nielsen's extremely difficult ensemble work in the Fourth and Fifth Symphonies, but it goes on for double or triple the length of those works. And let's not forget the crucial solos for trumpet in the first movement, and horn in the third. Then there are the interpretive issues--the tempos of the scherzo and (most famously) the Adagietto, and the relationships between the interlinked first and second, and fourth and fifth movements. It's a nest of problems.

As to the scherzo of the Sixth, it's not really that difficult (the tempo is moderate in the trios, which have most of the changes of meter), and it presents no difficulties that can't be resolved pretty easily in rehearsal. Rhythm is almost never a problem in Mahler; he's a much more foursquare composer than, say, Strauss. There's nothing in his music on the level of complexity of, say, Till Eulenspiegel. Mahler's problems are ones of endurance, ensemble balance, sensitivity to dynamics and color, and the fact that his parts are always so clear and exposed that mistakes show up as if spotlit.

Dave H

[John Kim]

Dave,

A very nice point you made here.

What I meant in my question was strictly from an audience's perspective. That is, which movt. sounds the least convincing unless the conductor and the orchestra really pull it off? It may not necessarily be technically the most difficult movt. to play. I certainly don't feel M5th II. or V. belongs in this category, although I agree that M5th may be the most difficult to perform. To me it's still M6 Scherzo that sounds endlessly repetitious and boring in most conductors' hands. M3 IV. comes second - it's hard to grasp the meaning by listening to what's going on in the score only; I have to stretch my mind and hear "between the lines" filling up the gaps. Levine's Chicago recording helps me do this because he lets the strings create truly otherworldly sound in their high notes. Pauses he takes are also apt in the same regard. Marilyn Horne also goes deep into her voice adding gravity and profundity. Very nicely done. But I am not really happy with most of recordings in this movt.

John,

[Cristian]

Yep, I was going to say exactly the same as you John. M6 Scherzo.

The problem is you only fully realize how difficult it is to perform the movement in its full glory until you hear an outstanding reading of it, such as Rattle's.

My other candidate is M7 scherzo, and I've only recently really discovered the movement's potential also in the hands of Rattle. Not in his official version, but in a 1999 concert with the BPO. Nothing comes even close to this performance, I'd dare to say in all movements.

I can upload it somewhere if there are some people interested.

Regards,
Cris.

[John Kim]

Chris,

As I said, M7: III. is similarly subject to the traps. For example, the trio sections sound as if nothing in most recordings; maybe the conductors are just content with the spooky atmosphere of the music overall thinking that there doesn't need to be anything beyond that. You indicated Rattle's live BPO concert and I will second it. Two other versions worth mentioning in this regard are Adrian Leaper/Fran Canaria Orch./Arte Nova and Ozawa/BSO/Philips. At the very least, these conductors make the trio sections distinguish from the rest by playing them in a markedly slow tempo and imparting a rustic, romantic feel to them. Quite nice.

John,

[Cristian]

Yes, the trios are problematic in most M7 III recordings, but I think I find the most troublesome issue the rhythmic accentuation of the movement. I like it VERY exaggerated and irregular. Rattle delivers that and not only using the percussion, but the whole orchestra to that effect.

Also the phantasmagoric nature of the movement and the bizarreness of the waltz episodes are extremely well emphasized.

[John Kim]

Chris,

You are quite right about M7: III. If the conductor doesn't differentiate enough all the elements you mentioned, it can sound strangely monotonic. Basically, the movt. is a nonstop ride from beginning to end and the only places to slow down and take a deep breath in are the trios. Hence, to me any performance that doesn't (or can't?) relax in the trios is a letdown.

John,

[Dave H]

Chris,

You are quite right about M7: III. If the conductor doesn't differentiate enough all the elements you mentioned, it can sound strangely monotonic. Basically, the movt. is a nonstop ride from beginning to end and the only places to slow down and take a deep breath in are the trios. Hence, to me any performance that doesn't (or can't?) relax in the trios is a letdown.

John,

This is most odd. Have you taken a moment to look at what Mahler wrote? In the scherzo of the Seventh there is no indication to slow down or "relax" for the trio sections at all. Indeed, the only tempo adjustments Mahler requires in the trio are those sudden interjections "piu mosso"--that is, to speed up--and an occasional "nicht eilen" ("don't rush"). If anything, the trio section should sound just as quirky and edgy as the more smoothly flowing waltz sections, but either way Mahler clearly wants the entire movement played in a single basic tempo, subject only to that natural elasticity indicated by these small inflections for expressive purposes. The contrasts are built into the different thematic material, the scoring, the dynamics. and above all the rhythm (triplet movement in eighth notes for the waltz vs. simple quarters for the trio). This allows for plenty of the necessary variety.

Dave H

[barry guerrero]

Obviously, you're absolutely correct, David, in terms of what's printed in the score. However, there's been a recent tendency to take the scherzo proper, really, REALLY fast - disregarding Mahler's indication not to take this movement too quickly. That forces the conductor to take the so-called trio sections slower. Personally, I feel that this movement pretty much takes care of itself. But that said, I do like it when the conductor speeds up a tad for that crazy sounding, merry-go-round tune played by the low brass, located towards the end of the movement. For me, this is where Mahler turns the tables, and begins injecting more levity and ironic humor into the symphony. The solo snap pizzicattos from the low strings - the true climax of the movement, I suppose - need to be nice and strong as well.

Barry

[Dave H]

Hi Barry. I'm not sure what "recent tendency" you're talking about. If you look at timings for this movement they haven't been notably faster than the last generation of recordings (say, Solti, Abbado/Chicago, etc). As for the low brass tune at the end, as you well know, that IS the theme of the trio, and its appearance there tells us quite plainly that Mahler did not necessarily expect that the scherzo proper and trio need to be played at different speeds. As I said before, I'm sure that a bit of tempo flexibility is called for here, as in all Mahler, and I agree with you that a little extra lift at this point characterizes the music better--and you low brass players are all animals anyway! 

But seriously, my point once again is that beyond all the subjectivity of what individual listeners like and do not like, there is the reality of what Mahler wrote, and I merely want to describe what that is because I think it puts the more subjective discussion on a firmer foundation. In particular, I don't think it's fair to blame the performers or a particular intepretation for one's personal dislikes if said performer happens to be doing very well exactly what the composer wanted. At that point the listener should at least take a moment to ask him or herself if their understanding of the piece and the composer's intentions may be the problem, and not the music or the way it's being played.

Dave H

[Polarius T]

...beyond all the subjectivity of what individual listeners like and do not like, there is the reality of what Mahler wrote.... [T]he listener should at least take a moment to ask him or herself if their understanding of the piece and the composer's intentions may be the problem, and not the music or the way it's being played.

Points always well taken, of course, but then again we have the example and the even words of Mahler himself that seem to be modifying this idea of the sanctity of the text and the essentiality of the composer's own self-understanding of what it is that he/she is doing in the piece (his/her "intention"). For instance when himself conducting works by many untouchables of the canon such as Beethoven and Schumann, he famously had absolutely no scruples at all in altering the composers' own performance markings, and not only that, but also the notes themselves, the way he thought best (to make the score better reflect the composer's "intentions," to be sure). Second, he also explicitly allowed that those to come after him might "do whatever they please" with his scores for performance purposes (I think it may have been in connection of his Eight but am not certain right now).

I doubt any time period can claim to have the last word in understanding a great work of art. For this reason evolution in our understanding of both the performance practice and the works and the composers themselves remain so vital. For instance, look how differently we perform Mozart today, compared to, say, the way Szell & co. used to do it fifty years ago. It's another world now and the arts for today's world look different as well (and even more so, sound); there is no one around today who hears Szell the way his contemporaries did, and claiming anything different is just the same old self-deception that historicism and its "authenticity" illusions try to create. Or just plain old nostalgia for the "nobility" of things past.

The real miracle of the great works of art is that our understandings of them keep changing with the time but not necessarily their truths (which have nothing directly to do with the composers' or artists' intentions per se).

Just my 2 cents!

PT

[Dave H]

I don't believe I said anything about the sanctity of the printed text. My point is much more basic than that--simply that discussion of performance necessarily begins with an acknowledgment of WHAT the text says (and not whether one should invariably follow it to the letter or not--a silly and pointless argument since no one does it and all performance entails a measure of individual interpretation). It doesn't make any sense to criticize a performance on the basis of failure to understand the music, or praise a performance for unusual originality and insight, without first noting the relationship of the alleged good or bad bits to what the composer actually asks the players to do. At least then everyone is on the same page and comparisons between differing interpretations are easier to make (and describe).

Dave H