Andrew Clements Disses Mahler's Fifth

[Guest]

In his review of Jurowski's recent performance of it at RFH: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012...urowski-review

The offending line:

The string paragraphs of the Adagietto were sometimes lovingly protracted, and the finale had a brisk, no-nonsense jollity about it; it didn't all quite hang together, though I suspect that is more Mahler's fault than it was Jurowski's.

[rauschwerk]

I've always found it interesting that Klemperer, who was proud of his association with Mahler, never (as far as I know) conducted the 5th. Perhaps he felt it didn't hang together?

[Barbirollians]

Hangs together fine for Walter, Barbirolli and Lenny !

[Thropplenoggin]

I thought the critic was supposed to review the performance, not the work. Instead, that great symphonic composer, Andrew Clements, sniffily foregrounds his contempt for the piece.

[amateur51]

Hangs together fine for Walter, Barbirolli and Lenny !

And Tennstedt and Rattle.

The man's a f-f-f-ool

[Nick Armstrong]

Even youths and striplings from Venezuela "get it" judging by the last performance I heard.

[Madame Suggia]

And Barshai

[verismissimo]

I thought the critic was supposed to review the performance, not the work.

Since when?

[Flosshilde]

If it's a new piece reviewing the work is OK; in the case of Mahler's 5th (or any other) it's a bit late - there's not a lot that he can do about it.

Perhaps Andrew Clements should have said something along the lines of "I've never found the 5th a coherent work, but Jurowski's perfromance ..."

[Thropplenoggin]

If it's a new piece reviewing the work is OK; in the case of Mahler's 5th (or any other) it's a bit late - there's not a lot that he can do about it.

Perhaps Andrew Clements should have said something along the lines of "I've never found the 5th a coherent work, but Jurowski's perfromance ..."

[Roehre]

I've always found it interesting that Klemperer, who was proud of his association with Mahler, never (as far as I know) conducted the 5th. Perhaps he felt it didn't hang together?

I am afraid that Clement's comments are bit late, but nevertheless not without a base, Mahler 5 shows a style rupture, and the composer was very well aware of this.
5 is the only symphony which was completely reorchestrated (only 1 and 2 were amended, but NOT fully re-scored), even after the piece being published (and pushing the publisher to despair).


It must be recalled as well, that it was during the composition of 5 that Mahler borrowed the score of his friend Hans Rott's 1st symphony (in E-major). This work, although more than a decade older than Mahler 5, shows definite style elements of 5. The conclusion therefore: Mahler was in his 5th strongly influenced by Rott, at least where the orchestration is concerned.

The original scoring of 5 was far more similar to the 3rd's and 4th's scoring than the now familiar one.

Alma makes some remarks in her memoires regarding this work, e.g. Mahler removing vast parts of the percussion he used in the oldest version (as "all those lovely melodies were covered by the percussion").

There exists a book about Mahler 5, accompanied by a CD on which RoyalCGO/Chailly play some extracts of 5 in the original as well as in the present orchestration, which cannot be described otherwise than as a revelation.

That Mahler 4's 1st mvt recalls the opening of 5 shows that these works are more related to each other than the present works reveal at first hearing.

5 is a key work in Mahler's output, as it was conceived in one, and ended up in another world, and as a consequence, not completely hanging together.

[Thropplenoggin]

I am afraid that Clement's comments are bit late, but nevertheless not without a base, Mahler 5 shows a style rupture, and the composer was very well aware of this.
5 is the only symphony which was completely reorchestrated (only 1 and 2 were amended, but NOT fully re-scored), even after the piece being published (and pushing the publisher to despair).


It must be recalled as well, that it was during the composition of 5 that Mahler borrowed the score of his friend Hans Rott's 1st symphony (in E-major). This work, although more than a decade older than Mahler 5, shows definite style elements of 5. The conclusion therefore: Mahler was in his 5th strongly influenced by Rott, at least where the orchestration is concerned.

The original scoring of 5 was far more similar to the 3rd's and 4th's scoring than the now familiar one.

Alma makes some remarks in her memoires regarding this work, e.g. Mahler removing vast parts of the percussion he used in the oldest version (as "all those lovely melodies were covered by the percussion").

There exists a book about Mahler 5, accompanied by a CD on which RoyalCGO/Chailly play some extracts of 5 in the original as well as in the present orchestration, which cannot be described otherwise than as a revelation.

That Mahler 4's 1st mvt recalls the opening of 5 shows that these works are more related to each other than the present works reveal at first hearing.

5 is a key work in Mahler's output, as it was conceived in one, and ended up in another world, and as a consequence, not completely hanging together.

Ye gods!

And Clements goes 1-0 up thanks to super-striker Roehre.

[Flosshilde]

I am afraid that Clement's comments are bit late, but nevertheless not without a base, Mahler 5 shows a style rupture, and the composer was very well aware of this.
5 is the only symphony which was completely reorchestrated (only 1 and 2 were amended, but NOT fully re-scored), even after the piece being published (and pushing the publisher to despair).

...

That's a really interesting explanation - thank you. I think that in the introduction to the concert the position of the 5th in relation to Mahler's symphonic development was referred to, but not in as much detail or so clearly.

There exists a book about Mahler 5, accompanied by a CD on which RoyalCGO/Chailly play some extracts of 5 in the original as well as in the present orchestration, which cannot be described otherwise than as a revelation.

Must look out for it.

[vinteuil]

it didn't all quite hang together

... this being Mahler, is that a criticism? Isn't part of the thisness of Mahler an apparent conjunction - or rather disjunction - of disparate parts; of heartfelt yearning clashing against absurd pastiche... Why should it be seen to be a bad thing here that things don't "quite hang together"?

[Thropplenoggin]

... this being Mahler, is that a criticism? Isn't part of the thisness of Mahler an apparent conjunction - or rather disjunction - of disparate parts; of heartfelt yearning clashing against absurd pastiche... Why should it be seen to be a bad thing here that things don't "quite hang together"?

1-1. Not just cogently argued but really quite beautifully put.