How Mahler Performed His Second SymphonyAuthor(s): Gilbert E. KaplanSource: The Musical Times, Vol. 127, No. 1718 (May, 1986), pp. 266-267+269+271Published by: Musical Times Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/965458Accessed: 28/07/2010 14:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mtpl.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Musical Times Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheMusical Times.

http://www.jstor.org

How Mahler performed his Second Symphony

Gilbert E. Kaplan

Apart from a,few precious piano rolls, there are no recor- dings of music performed by Gustav Mahler. Research about his performing practices must rely on printed sources - letters, official records, recollections and reviews. In preparation for the publication of a facsimile of the autograph of Mahler's Second Symphony ('Resurrection') this spring' - the first facsimile edition of a complete Mahler symphony - I searched out information concern- ing the 13 performances of the symphony that Mahler himself conducted to shed some light on his approach to this epic work. The autograph itself provides fresh clues on a number of issues, including his ideal tempos, and on a problematic note in the last movement.

MAHLER AND THE PREMIERE. The premiere of the Second

Symphony took place in two parts. Mahler conducted the full work for the first time with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra on 13 December 1895, at his own expense. Earlier that year, on 4 March, he conducted the first three movements with the same orchestra. Richard Strauss directed the rest of the programme, which included pieces by Mendelssohn, Saint-Saens, Chopin, Liszt and Weber.

Some Mahler scholars have reported, in error, that Strauss conducted the whole concert. The printed pro- gramme reveals how such an error could arise: it does ap- pear that Strauss was the conductor, but under the specific listing for Mahler's symphony it is pointed out as 'Unter Leitung des Componisten' ('under the composer's direction').

Mahler's involvement as the conductor of this part of the concert came about through a last-minute decision. An early announcement of the Berlin PO season does not men- tion him. On 27 January, only a little more than a month before the concert, Strauss was still scheduled to conduct; on that date, Mahler wrote to him offering to help by con- ducting the first rehearsal: 'I would be glad to relieve you of this rehearsal . . . and do the "rough work" for you'.2 Four days later, Mahler wrote to a friend expressing con- cern that the concert might not even come off:

Look, how do I know it really is going to be? Strauss did 'ac- cept' it in a few non-committal words. But I am by no means convinced he is really going to do it. If he does, you will get your information from the newspapers, just as I shall. In that event I shall go myself.3

'to be published by the Kaplan Foundation, New York, on 18 May 1986, on the 75th anniversary of Mahler's death (the British distributor is Faber Music) 'letter to Richard Strauss (27 Jan 1895), Herta Blaukopf, ed.: Gustav Mahler-Richard Strauss Correspondence, 1888-1911 (London, 1984), 39

'undated letter to Arnold Berliner (31 Jan 1895), Knud Martner, ed.: Selected Let- ters of Gustav Mahler (London, 1979), 158

266

As the date of the concert drew closer, Mahler again wrote to Strauss offering to conduct the first rehearsal.4 At some point Strauss must have decided to turn Mahler's own work over to him at the concert.

THE FIVE-MINUTE PAUSE. From the moment he finished

composing the Second Symphony, Mahler was troubled about placing the Andante second. He felt that the con- trast between the power of the opening movement and the gentleness of the Andante was too extreme. At first, he con- sidered placing the Scherzo immediately after the first movement. In fact, the rehearsal numbers in the critical edition of the score still show the first movement ending with no.27 and the third beginning with no.28. Even after the symphony had been performed several times, Mahler, concerned that the Andante seemed to be an afterthought compared with the first movement, still tinkered with the order of the movements. He solved the problem by keep- ing the Andante as the second movement, but in an unusual way: by directing conductors, in the published score, to make a pause of 'at least five minutes' between the first movement and.the second. There is no mention of the pause in the autograph score. Although few conductors observe the full five minutes, most try to pause for longer than a normal break between movements.

Mahler seemed to change his mind about the pause when, in 1903, he agreed with a suggestion from the German con- ductor Julius Buths that there should be a second pause, between the fourth movement and the fifth. 'I marvel at the sensitive intuition', Mahler wrote to Buths, 'with which you (in contrast with my own arrangement) have recognized the natural break in the work'.5 This was clearly a major departure for Mahler. Only a few years earlier, in a per- formance he conducted in Vienna, he actually repeated 'Urlicht' (the fourth movement), because the applause following it had prevented the fifth movement from star- ting immediately. 6 At that time, Mahler clearly was deter- mined not to have a break at this point.

Yet in 1908, when he conducted the American premiere in New York, he made two five-minute pauses; presumably the second was between the fourth movement and the fifth.7 But he never inserted into the score any indication that a second pause should be made. And, in the critical edition of the published score (based in part on Mahler's

'letter to Richard Strauss (5 Feb 1895), H. Blaukopf, 39-40 'letter to Julius Buths (25 March 1903), Martner, 268-70 'Natalie Bauer-Lechner: Recollections of Gustav Mahler (New York, 1980), 126

'New-York Daily Tribune (9 December 1908)

final editing, in 1910), the end of the fourth movement is marked 'folgt ohne jede Unterbrechung der 5. Satz' ('the 5th movement follows without any interruption'). This seems to be the last word on this subject; it is, in fact, the only way the symphony is nowadays performed. THE CHORUS. A troublesome issue for anyone conducting the Resurrection Symphony is determining at what point the chorus should stand. Most conductors have the chorus stand before its first entry, typically in the eighth bar after no.26 of the last movement. Mahler, on the other hand, felt strongly that the chorus should be seated when it sang its first notes 'to avoid an unbearable disturbance . . . the mysterious sound of human voices . . . should come as a surprise'.8 He recognized that once the chorus stood - even if that was minutes before it sang - the fact that their en- trance was imminent was telegraphed.

Conductors who keep the chorus seated for its entrance face the question of when the chorus should then stand; and there is considerable debate about this. The most popular places are no.33 (after the first chorus entrance), no.37 (after the second), two bars before no.42 and one before no.44. None of these, however, was Mahler's choice. He recommended that the chorus remain seated until the bass entry 'Mit Flugeln', one bar before no.46. For Mahler, having the chorus stand at this point was 'astonishingly effective'.9 It should be noted that he himself tried one other variation. When he conducted the symphony in Munich in 1900, the chorus remained seated, rising only for the 'last stanza' 0 - presumably the final 'Aufersteh'n' at no.48.

Finally, the chorus is supposed to make this entry a cappella, but many choruses cannot hold their pitch without accompaniment. Accordingly, conductors often have some of the strings play softly to support them (sometimes only players not visible to the audience). The record shows that in one performance, where Mahler himself had a particular- ly weak tenor section, he had the clarinets play softly in support - these instruments were placed close to the tenor section and to his mind had a similar sound. ''

There is one other point to note in this context: Mahler obviously wanted a large chorus. For the 1895 premiere he wrote to the director of the chorus to request that the number of the basses and tenors be increased from the 30 of each originally scheduled.12

SOLOISTS. Where should the alto and soprano soloists in the Second Symphony be placed? The two obvious choices are either at the front of the stage, near the conductor, or at the rear, within the chorus. Sometimes the acoustics dic-

'letter to Julius Buths (25 March 1903), Martner, 268-70 "ibid "Natalie Bauer-Lechner: 'Mahleriana' (unpublished diaries, Henry-Louis de La

Grange Collection, Paris) 'ibid

'letter to Friedrich Gernsheim (29 Oct 1895), Martner, 169

tate the decision. For at least one concert - Mahler's farewell concert to mark the end of his ten-year reign as director of the Vienna Court Opera in 1907 - he placed the soloists in the first row of the chorus. That is signifi- cant, since this was the eleventh time Mahler had con- ducted the symphony himself. An unusual feature of the same concert was that Mahler used four soloists instead of the two called for. Whether they doubled or divided the roles is unknown.

There are many different ways in which alto soloists sing their music. Mahler was quite definite, however, about the character of the singing he wanted. He described this in a poetic way, saying: 'For this I needed the voice and the simple expression of a child, as I always think, starting with the tolling of the little bells, of the soul in heaven where it must begin again as child in the chrysalis stage'. 13

Finally, it should be mentioned that Mahler made a prac- tice of assigning one important singing part to either the soprano or the alto, depending on which he thought bet- ter suited to it at the performance in question. This infor- mation comes from a letter of his; unfortunately, it cannot be determined which part he had in mind.14

TEMPOS. Mahler believed that the opening tempo of each individual movement was not nearly as important as the tempo relationships between sections. Nonetheless, for this symphony he wrote some metronome markings in the autograph. He indicated that the first movement starts at crotchet = 84 - 92 (with the opening cello and bass figure at 144) and by bar six ('a tempo') it becomes 84; then at no.2 it rises to 100; at no.7 it drops to 72; and at no.16 it becomes 69. The second movement starts at quaver = 92. The third movement starts at dotted crotchet= 52; by bar 14 it is 58, then slowing to 54 at no.40.

However, Mahler changed his mind about indicating precise metronome marks, and none of these appear in the published critical edition except for the indication for the opening of the first movement. There has never been a metronome mark for the opening of 'Urlicht' (the fourth movement) or for the last movement - though, presumably, Mahler believed his words 'in the tempo of the Scherzo' (the third movement) to be clear enough for the start of the finale.

Scholars who have searched for the 'authentic' Mahler interpretation of the Second Symphony often look to per- formances by Willem Mengelberg, Bruno Walter and Oskar Fried because each of these conductors enjoyed a special, personal relationship with Mahler and each heard the com- poser conduct the work himself. Yet, judging from recor- dings, the interpretations of Walter and Fried, who made the first recording of the symphony in 1924, 5 are very

'3Natalie Bauer-Lechner, ed. Knud Martner: Gustav Mahler: in den Erinnerungen (Hamburg,. 1984), 168

'undated letter to Oskar Fried (probably Oct 1905), Herta Blaukopf, ed.: Gustav Mahler: Unbekannte Briefe (Vienna, 1983), 53

'originally recorded in 1923-4 and reissued in 1983 by Opal (no.821-2)

267

different. And although there is no recording by Mengelberg, judging from his general approach to Mahler's music one would expect his interpretation of the Second Symphony to be quite different from the others'. (Mengelberg wrote in his own score a fast starting tempo, crotchet = 92.)

Mahler actually expressed disapproval of early efforts by both Walter and Fried. According to Mahler's biographer, Henry-Louis de La Grange, after hearing a performance prepared by Walter of a two-piano, eight-hand arrangement by Heinrich von Bocklet, Mahler voiced extreme disap- pointment, saying:

that was directed and rehearsed by someone who will imagine and claim that he inherits the 'tradition' straight from me! From this you may learn the truth about every so-called 'tradi- tion': there is no such thing! Everything is left to the whim of the individual, and unless a genius awakens them to life, works of art are lost . . . Now I understand perfectly why Brahms let people play his works as they pleased. He knew that anything he told them was in vain. Bitter experience and resignation are expressed in this fact. 6

In Oskar Fried's case, Mahler went to hear the rehearsals and performance when Fried first conducted the symphony in Berlin in 1905. After the rehearsal, Mahler had a long talk with Fried about his tempos. And in a letter to his wife Mahler reported about Fried's forthcoming concert, saying: 'The occasion will tell me whether he has any talent; yesterday he took it all too fast by half' '7 The next day, just before the concert, Fried made a speech to the musi- cians, saying, 'Gentlemen, everything I did during the rehearsals was wrong. This evening I will take entirely dif- ferent tempos. Follow me, if you please'. 18

THE END OF THE FIRST MOVEMENT. Mahler's tempo in- dication for the final scale of the first movement (no.27) is marked 'Tempo I'. As mentioned previously, at the beginning of the symphony, Mahler indicated that Tem- po I is crotchet =84. At that tempo the scale can sound very plodding, and few conductors play it that slowly.

Mahler's own thinking on this point evidently evolved. In the autograph, the opening of the first movement is marked 'Maestoso' and the scale at the end of the move- ment 'Allegro'. In an early published score the opening became 'Allegro maestoso' and the end 'Schnell'. Only later did Mahler change the 'Schnell' to 'Tempo I'.

Perhaps Mahler's direction to return to 'Tempo I' is not really a change from 'Schnell' but reveals that he may have changed his mind about the opening 'a tempo' (bar 6), later preferring a faster tempo in general for the movement. This

'"Natalie Bauer-Lechner: Recollections, 141; see also Henry-Louis de La Grange: Mahler, i (New York, 1973), 508, n.44 'letter to Alma Mahler (8 Nov 1905), Alma Mahler, ed. Donald Mitchell: Gustav Mahler: Memories and Letters (Seattle, 1975), 267 18cited by Henry-Louis de La Grange: Gustav Mahler, ii (Paris, 1983), 726

is only speculation, but at a brisk opening tempo, crotchet = 92, the scale does not sound plodding and is, in fact, close to the tempo adopted by many conductors even when they take the opening of the movement much more slowly. DIVISI PRACTICE. Mahler was quite specific about the dif- ferent ways he wanted to divide the strings when he wrote 'getheilt' and 'Halfte'. 'Where it is marked "Halfte"', he said, 'just the front desks play and later at the tutti the others join in. At the marking "getheilt"', he continued, 'please arrange for the right- and left-hand players to take a part each - divided into several parts, from player to player - not from desk to desk'.19

THE OFFSTAGE BANDS. A novel feature of the Second Sym- phony is the imaginative use of offstage bands. For the 'marching band' section, beginning at no.22 of the last movement, Mahler was deeply concerned that the sound of the band not intrude on the onstage orchestra. In one of his most detailed comments in the autograph score he wrote that the offstage band 'must sound so faintly that it in no way touches upon the character of the song of the cellos and bassoons. The author thinks here approximate- ly of the sounds of an almost imperceptible music that are wafted across, one at a time, by the wind.'

He was sufficiently concerned about this at the time he first wrote the music that he added another comment: 'Should it prove impossible to obtain a performance of this passage entirely in keeping with the author's intention, it is better to omit the instruments positioned a great distance off. However, after conducting the work himself and realiz- ing that the offstage music could be played effectively, he removed this comment before the score was published.

The other major offstage section, sometimes called 'der grosse Appell' ('the great call') comes just before the chorus enters (no.29) - 'one of the most inspired and awesome pages of musical literature', according to Ernst Krenek. 2

Although it takes only a few minutes to play, Mahler con- sidered this passage 'the most difficult in the whole work' 2 and always sought a separate rehearsal for it. 'The passage is rhythmically very difficult to keep together', Mahler once told a conductor, 'and the effect I want can be obtained only after several attempts.'22 Mahler required that the flute and piccolo (on stage) 'must play with such accuracy and polish that they hardly need the conductor, so that you need not beat time during the whole passage'.23

' letter to Hermann Suter (27 May 1903), Kurt Blaukopf, ed.: Mahler: a Documen- tary Study (London, 1976), 234 :?Bruno Walter: Gustav Mahler (New York, 1941), 190 2'letter to Julius Buths (25 March 1903), Martner, 268-70

letter to Hermann Suter (27 May 1903), K. Blaukopf, 234 3 letter to Julius Buths (25 March 1903), Martner, 268- 70; undated letter to Oskar

Fried (autumn 1905), H. Blaukopf, Unbekannte Briefe, 51

269

Mahler was adamant that the trumpets in this section must sound from different directions. He did not put this instruction into the autograph but added it later, and the critical edition reflects trumpets 1 and 3 placed on the right and 2 and 4 on the left. Many conductors overlook this and place the offstage trumpets together. THE SYMPHONY SHOULD BE PLAYED BY ITSELF. Many conductors, including Walter, have performed other works with the Second Symphony, even though by itself it takes approximately 90 minutes. Mahler never did this and once specifically tried to dissuade Oskar Fried 24 from doing so. Fried failed to take his advice and planned to give several other pieces with it. As a result, at the end of the allotted time for the final rehearsal, he had reached only the se- cond movement of the symphony. When orchestra person- nel said that the time had run out, Fried became hysterical, grabbed the nearest chair and threw it into the auditorium.

MODIFYING THE SCORE. Mahler continuously edited and re-edited his symphonies each time he conducted them and the Second was certainly no exception. His final editorial changes are in his score dated September 1910, five months after he conducted the work for the last time (in Paris on 17 April).

Many of his changes were made to accommodate the acoustical or personnel problems of a particular concert. Conductors must decide which were made for the occa- sion and which were intended to be permanent. For ex- ample, during rehearsals in Vienna in 1907, he asked the trombones not to play the notes accompanying the soprano at 'O Tod! Du Allbezwinger' (the 8th and 7th bars before no.45 in the last movement) because they could not play softly enough and were covering the singer. The trombone notes, however, remain in the score. Mahler then said: 'I salute conductors who, when the occasion arises, modify my score to suit the acoustics of the hall'.25

A WRONG NOTE? One of the puzzles facing interpreters of the Second Symphony is what to do about a note in the timpani part in the finale that simply sounds wrong. The problem involves one of Mahler's most haunting melodies, the 'O glaube' theme, which appears three times. It is first played by the english horn and flute (no.7: ex.la) returns first on the trombone (no.21: ex. 1 b) and appears finally with the english horn and the alto soloist together (no.39; the notes are identical with those in ex. la). The opening notes of the theme are answered by a two-note figure: at its first and third appearances the answering figure, on the cellos and basses, is a perfect 5th, F - B flat, but at the second, on the timpani, it is a perfect 4th, B flat - F.

The F (marked X in ex.lb) sounds like a mistake; one would expect to hear E flat, and some conductors so change it. It is certainly difficult to justify the F, although one leading Mahler interpreter has suggested that the

'4undated letter to Oskar Fried (autumn 1905), H. Blaukopf, 52

:cited by La Grange, Gustav Mahler, iii (Paris, 1984), 156

Ex. 1 a

x

dissonance created by it is parallel to the harmony of the first fortissimo chord in bar 3 of the movement, where a B flat minor chord is combined with a pedal C in the cellos and basses - exactly analogous with the harmony of an E flat minor chord with an F. While the opening chord shows Mahler's readiness to use this harmony, he may not have intended to use it in one of three otherwise similar passages.

Theory aside, a closer examination of the autograph reveals a light pencil notation next to the F: it reads 'es' (E flat) (fig. 1, right). This discovery raises some questions:

1) Is the 'es' in Mahler's own handwriting? The autograph reveals that he capitalized the E elsewhere when he wrote 'Es' (see fig. l, left). Moreover, at the bottoms of many pages in

Fig. : Mahler's 'Es' (1) and that in the autograph (r) the autograph of the finale there are notations - in what ap- pears to be a similar handwriting to that of'es' - punctuated with question marks. Are these and the 'es' perhaps written by a copyist, as a query? 2) Even if Mahler wrote the 'es' himself, did this indicate a definite intention to change the note to E flat? If so, why did he not correct it in the autograph score? And why did the F appear in an early copyist's score and remain in all the publish- ed scores? Mahler obviously heard the 'wrong' note each time he conducted the symphony for more than a decade after the completion of the autograph. 3) Then there is a technical question: if Mahler had wanted E flat, why did he write it for an instrument that could not play it? For the timpanist to play the figure as B flat - E flat he would need to retune two timpani within about four bars (certainly in less than 10 seconds) - a practical impossibility before the time of pedal timpani. In that case, would Mahler really have written an F, as a solo note, that he did not want, simply so that he could use the timpani? He could, of course, have continued to use cellos and basses, which were capable of playing the E flat, or could even have divided the two notes between two timpani players as at no.50 of the finale.

Did he, then, or didn't he want the E flat? Musical logic and the mysterious 'es' point to an E flat; but most of the evidence, at least to date, suggests that he wrote the F and remained with it. Scholars and conductors will undoubtedly debate this matter for years to come.

271