Mahler 10 Refusniks

[Barbirollians]

I always feel there is more Mozart in that Requiem than people think . I struggle to believe that Sussmayr came up with the tune in the Benedictus .

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Not many conductors did Blumine - now there is a beautiful little piece!

Indeed. For several years, I used it as my password. (I can tell you now as, like Mahler, I've discarded it. )

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I struggle to believe that Sussmayr came up with the tune in the Benedictus .

I thought they'd discovered a Mozart sketch of this.

[ahinton]

Perhaps a contributing factor is that a performing and recording tradition of Bruckner 9 had developed before a reconstructed fourth movement had come about. Whereas with Mahler 10, there was no such tradition to contend with.

I don't think that this is quite right, actually, at least other than in terms of scale. Whilst it's probably fair to say that there had not really emerged a "performing tradition" in Mahler 10/1 in the days before the whole five course meal was Cooked (thank you, fhg!), it had nevertheless received quite a few performances in the half century or so between its composition and the emergence of Cooke's work and, after all, Schönberg and Shostakovioch were approached about working on it and Krenek actually did work on two movements of it in his early 20s at around the time when he was composing his own first three symphonies (Krenek was married briefly to Anna Mahler at around that time, incidentally). I would go so far as to suspect that, had that first movement instead been put on one side and not performed at all during all that time and then because of Cooke et al's work the entire symphony then emerged, there might be less conductorial refuseniks today; pure speculation, of course, but not without reason, I think.

In Bruckner's case, piecemeal work had been accomplished on the finale of his Ninth Symphony over several decades and this gradually developed towards what we have of it now, not only because of devoted and dedicated scholarship but also because pages and folios in the composer's hand have been found and we now know that Bruckner actually wrote far more of that finale than was once widely thought. What might be interesting would be to ask Simon Rattle what he thinks about his performances/recording of the entire symphony with BPO not yet appearing to show signs of encouraging other conductors to follow suit; I for one would have loved to hear it conducted by Abbado in particular but sadly, of course, it's too late for that now.

[Roehre]

I always feel there is more Mozart in that Requiem than people think . I struggle to believe that Sussmayr came up with the tune in the Benedictus .

contrary to the general impression that Mozart composed in his head before writing down his compositions in one go, after Schubert there is hardly another composer except Mozart of whose compositional process we have more details in terms of unfinished/discarded works. From Mozart we also possess some sketches, but compared to Beethoven's 5000-odd pages of sketches any other composer is completely and utterly overshadowed.

It is certain that Mozart had sketches for the Requiem which he (or Constanze) eventually handed over to Süssmayr.
But from the Mozart/Süssmayr-manuscript it is also clear what definitely is Mozart's handwriting and what isn't. From the latter it is quite clear where the "filling in" of the missing parts was rather fluent, and where it wasn't.
That's even well visible in the Facsimile which was produced in 1991, and which includes also other surviving pages, like the first bars of the Lacrymosa, likely to be the last bars Mozart ever put on paper, as well as the full score copied in Süssmayr's hand.

But where in the Requiem the music (melodies and harmonic structure) is approximately 50% Mozart, Mahler 10 is 100% Mahler, as Cooke shows in the scores by having placed Mahler's sketch/continuity score [including remarks re instruments etc] at the bottom of every page [apart from Adagio I and the orchestrated part of the Purgaturio]. Cooke essentially hasn't done more in that respect than constructing a mahlerian orchestration on base of that canvass.

Bruckner Finale 9 needs a coda to be constructed, as well as the [re]construction of twice a page missing from the fully orchestrated score in Bruckner's hand. For the coda sketches have survived - more so than at the premiere of the Finale in 1985 in Carraghan's version was suspected/known. The missing pages are "easily" done as short scores exist.
Hence, apart from the coda, Bruckner finale 9 is Bruckner, full stop.

[Nick Armstrong]

I have listened to the Berliner/Rattle recording quite a few times now and I feel that Derycke Cooke's version is about as near perfect a realisation to Mahler as we are going to get. I rather like it.

That was why I tackled Claudio about it - I'd been given the earlier Rattle/Bournemouth No 10 Mahler/Cooke on LP, and was addicted to it, so wondered if CA was going to do the whole thing, as his Chicago/Vienna cycle was underway

[Beef Oven!]

I don't think that this is quite right, actually, at least other than in terms of scale. Whilst it's probably fair to say that there had not really emerged a "performing tradition" in Mahler 10/1 in the days before the whole five course meal was Cooked (thank you, fhg!), it had nevertheless received quite a few performances in the half century or so between its composition and the emergence of Cooke's work and, after all, Schönberg and Shostakovioch were approached about working on it and Krenek actually did work on two movements of it in his early 20s at around the time when he was composing his own first three symphonies (Krenek was married briefly to Anna Mahler at around that time, incidentally). I would go so far as to suspect that, had that first movement instead been put on one side and not performed at all during all that time and then because of Cooke et al's work the entire symphony then emerged, there might be less conductorial refuseniks today; pure speculation, of course, but not without reason, I think.

In Bruckner's case, piecemeal work had been accomplished on the finale of his Ninth Symphony over several decades and this gradually developed towards what we have of it now, not only because of devoted and dedicated scholarship but also because pages and folios in the composer's hand have been found and we now know that Bruckner actually wrote far more of that finale than was once widely thought. What might be interesting would be to ask Simon Rattle what he thinks about his performances/recording of the entire symphony with BPO not yet appearing to show signs of encouraging other conductors to follow suit; I for one would have loved to hear it conducted by Abbado in particular but sadly, of course, it's too late for that now.

No, it is right. A reconstructed Bruckner 9 must contend with a well established recording and performing tradition of the original. Mahler's reconstructed 10 has had no such tradition to contend with. Whether this fact is a contributor to the reason(s) that M10 took off and B9 hasn't, is the moot point.

[ahinton]

No, it is right. A reconstructed Bruckner 9 must contend with a well established recording and performing tradition of the original. Mahler's reconstructed 10 has had no such tradition to contend with. Whether this fact is a contributor to the reason(s) that M10 took off and B9 hasn't, is the moot point.

As I sought to point out, it's a matter of scale. Mahler 10/1 was indeed performed or recorded far less frequently during its first half century or so (i.e. pre-Cooke) than was Bruckner 9's first three movements from its première a few years before that of Mahler 10/1 until a four-movement version first emerged on the concert platform - a much longer period of time; however, "the original" isn't really the correct term for the first three movements of Bruckner 9. The big difference that I perceive between the two symphonies is that pretty much all the music of Mahler 10 was completed by Mahler himself to the extent that hardly any actual composition had to be done by whoever might fill in the gaps that he left, whereas although we now know (as Roehre has observed above) that Bruckner actually composed most of the finale of his 9th symphony, we didn't know that for many years and this fact seems to have allowed a "performing tradition" to grow and develop over decades based on the undeclared notion that this symphony may stand alone without its finale, as some have come to accept that it can. It can't, of course and this is any case is not how the composer intended it to be.

I agree, however, that the reason/s, if any, for the four-movement Bruckner 9 not yet takjing off whereas Mahler 10 / Cooke is now quite widely performed (despite a handful of refuseniks) are less than clear and as long as this is the case it remains rather puzzling, especially as the former has now quite along history of development from the earliest version to the one recorded by Rattle.

[Beef Oven!]

As I sought to point out, it's a matter of scale. Mahler 10/1 was indeed performed or recorded far less frequently during its first half century or so (i.e. pre-Cooke) than was Bruckner 9's first three movements from its première a few years before that of Mahler 10/1 until a four-movement version first emerged on the concert platform - a much longer period of time; however, "the original" isn't really the correct term for the first three movements of Bruckner 9. The big difference that I perceive between the two symphonies is that pretty much all the music of Mahler 10 was completed by Mahler himself to the extent that hardly any actual composition had to be done by whoever might fill in the gaps that he left, whereas although we now know (as Roehre has observed above) that Bruckner actually composed most of the finale of his 9th symphony, we didn't know that for many years and this fact seems to have allowed a "performing tradition" to grow and develop over decades based on the undeclared notion that this symphony may stand alone without its finale, as some have come to accept that it can. It can't, of course and this is any case is not how the composer intended it to be.

I agree, however, that the reason/s, if any, for the four-movement Bruckner 9 not yet takjing off whereas Mahler 10 / Cooke is now quite widely performed (despite a handful of refuseniks) are less than clear and as long as this is the case it remains rather puzzling, especially as the former has now quite along history of development from the earliest version to the one recorded by Rattle.

No, it's not a matter of scale at all. It's whether or not a tradition existed or didn't exist.

If you peruse the concert programmes from say, the 1930s over the next 70 or so years, you'll find a massive amount of performances of Bruckner 9 in its three movement form. From Furtwangler, Bruno Walter, Knappertsbutsch, et al, through Karajan, Giulini, Barenboim, Clibidache to current day musicians like Nezet-Seguin the list is almost endless.

Then peruse the Deutsche Grammophon, Decca, EMI, Sony etc catalogues - The list of recordings down the years is enormous. I have over twenty recordings of the the three movement original on my shelves.

It's inarguable that the tradition of performing the symphony this way exists and that the performance or recording of the four movement would have to contend with this. Whether or not it has any significant effect is the discussion point.

The same perusing of Mahler 10 performance programmes and recording company catalogues, demonstrates that there is no single movement tradition - in fact it hasn't been performed one way or another, or recorded anywhere near as much as the other Mahler symphonies.

These are the facts. Whether it is relevant, is up for discussion.

[jayne lee wilson]

Interesting that 'young gun' Yannick Nezet-Seguin has gone for the a reconstruction of Mahler 10 (is it only available as a download? I couldn't see a cd on Amazon), but opts for the three movement Bruckner 9, both in recording and performance.

Performance: https://bachtrack.com/review-lpo-nez...mphony-te-deum

Recording: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bruckner-Sym...k+nezet+seguin

The Y-N-Seguin Bruckner 9 (Unfinished) was released in 2010, Rattle's (SPCM 2012 "Conclusive Rev. Edn") completed 9th in 2012.... the latter raised the profile of the complete work considerably, despite the existence of Wildner (SPCM 1996) etc. Conductors are very busy people and I suspect young Yannick wouldn't have studied the SPCM finale deeply enough to feel able to perform it. You feel that he's just the conductor who would take it on if he could though...

Too little time to weigh in as I would wish, but it iS important to call the 3-movement Bruckner 9 "Unfinished" rather than "Original", just as Mahler 10 ed Cooke is "Performing Version" (as Radio 3, pleasingly, says in RT today) and NOT completion. DC's work (latterly helped by David & Colin Matthews) was a labour of love and he would hate it to be called complete...

In literal terms, there is a "performance tradition" of Bruckner 9 (i-iii), and a smaller one of Mahler 10 (i) - the latter FAR less justifiably. The problem arises when as Mahler said, "tradition ist schlamperei!" - in performance terms, when it ossifies into a false reverence, and conductors refuse to take up the "4-movement version" of Bruckner 9, or the 1873 Bruckner 3, or the Performing Version ed. Cooke of Mahler 10 for no better reason than reverential habit or laziness...

(Must dash off now or I'll not be back for the M10 itself...!)

[richardfinegold]

In my personal case, I had about a 20 year experience of hearing both Mahler 10 and Bruckner 9 in their respective 1 and 3 movement torsos before ever hearing the rest of the corpi to which they are attached.
It took me a few years to get used to the idea of the "full monty" Mahler, but I'm not sure what to make of that, because earlier in my life when I first encounterd GMs
music several of the works took me more than a couple of years to absorb (the 5th, 7th, and 8th--and once absorbed, they have been 3 of the most frequently listened to pieces of music in these parts). Perhaps I had some intellectual resistance to the rest of #10 but it may have been more of the same for me in my reactions to Mahler's music. Gradually I have come to enjoy the rest of the work, and now listening to just I sounds incomplete.
With Bruckner, I have remained stubbornly resistant to any completion of the 9th. I think primarily this is because the 9th was the first of his Symphonies that I grew to love, and for me the ending of the Adagio is a very special moment. I just don't want to hear anything after those final mystical chords, particularly when for decades that is what I am accustomed to doing. I also think that AB habitually wrote finales that were the weakest part of his Symphonic canvasses, and I have been known to switch off the CD player before the finales of 7 and 8. In concerts featuring those works, I just have to endure them. I haven't really given the finale of 9 a fir listen, and while I probably will one day, my stubborn prejudice against it for now is prevailing.

[Bryn]

No, a reconstructed Bruckner 9 must contend with a well established recording and performing tradition of the original. Mahler's re-heated 10 has had no such tradition to contend with. Whether this fact is a contributor to the reason(s) that M10 took off and B9 hasn't, is the moot point.

The year after its first performance, Cooke's first performing version was recorded by Ormandy. Some 7 years later Wyn Morris recorded Cooke's revised version. Performing versions of the finale of Bruckner's 9th have a more chequered history as more material has emerged. There are several recordings of the various attempts at producing a convincing performing version from what was available at the times of those recordings. The most recent (final?) version by Samale/Mazzuca/Phillips/Cohrs completion (1992, rev. 1996, rev. 2005, rev. 2008, rev. 2011) is yet young by Mahler 10 (Cooke) standards. In 2007, using the version preceding that used by Rattle, his erstwhile student Daniel Harding performed the 4 movement version of the 9th with the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra. That performance was (is?) available as an mp3 stream. Until the Rattle performances, that was my 'go to' recorded performance of the 4 movement option.

Oh, and coming up, 16th December 2015 London Symphony Orchestra, Daniel Harding: Bruckner 9+SPCM finale - Barbican

[Beef Oven!]

We do tend to get our knickers in a twist on this forum, regarding things like this.

[Alison]

Splendidly prepared performance by Runnicles tonight. Plenty of ear tickling timbres, an almost Tennstedtian warmth in the strings and the now taken for granted excellence in the Scottish winds.

Perhaps Bryn can remind me of the authenticity or otherwise of the second movement coda capping cymbal clash. I prefer without.

[Petrushka]

One of Cooke's (and Mahler's) main problems was to make the finale as convincing as the first movement and In this both succeeded magnificently. The contrast with the Bruckner 9 completion could hardly be starker. The 'finale' sounds utterly unconvincing and nowhere near on the same level of achievement as the rest. To my ears it sounds more like music composed much earlier in his career. I've vowed never to listen to it again. All my opinion, of course.