Mahler 10 Refusniks

[jayne lee wilson]

These were my thoughts about Bruckner's 9th last year...



....and I still believe that the stunningly unexpected nature and originality of the finale would have thrown many a devoted Brucknerian even if it had appeared much earlier and been performed often. In the context of Bruckner's Symphonic Voyage, it is almost shockingly new: it defies expectation**. That's what genius does. The last two lines of Baudelaire's poem are even more apt:

Plonger au fond du gouffre, L'Enfer ou Ciel, qu'importe?
Au fond de l'Inconnu pour trouver du NOUVEAU!

...we pass through the hellish, heavenly visions of the adagio, and then... not only toward the unknown region, but into it...

[P. G. Tipps]

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.

Fascinating, Petrushka!

On the contrary, I find the music Bruckner composed in the Finale astonishingly forward-looking and 'modern-sounding' for its time and am appalled that it took so long for the general music public to become aware of it ... I think it was the late 1980s or 1990s that the first 'completed' version (Carragan) was released on a 2-disk LP, with a separate side devoted to entirely to an unsullied performance of Bruckner's own music in the Finale right up to the missing coda where the music stops altogether.

I don't see why there should be any dogmatism in this matter. There is a case for both views and we all have the option of choosing our own preference, whether it be the 3-movement or a 4-movement attempt. In any case, I very much doubt whether any of Bruckner's symphonic output is entirely free of "doctoring amendments" from others whether the composer really approved or not .. and the "doctoring" is still going on, apparently.

As for the Cooke version of Mahler 10, and despite, sadly, being a bit of a non-Mahlerian, I find the last movement one of the most moving and heart-rending in all music and I'd hate to be without it.

For me it's not really about who actually composed a piece of music (however intriguing that may well undoubtedly be) but the music itself?

[BBMmk2]

I am not too sure of the outcome of the this movement, a bit like Mahler's 10th or Schubert's 8th. Although with the Mahler, Derycke Cook's performing realisation of the work, certainly does make a persuasive case for the work, which I greatly enjoy. Maybe it's the realisation of the Bruckner that's the problem?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

. . .a 2-disk LP. . .

Even the Americans spell this with a "c".

[Bryn]

Even the Americans spell this with a "c".

When referring to optical storage, yes, or mainly so anyway. However, where the storage mode is magnetic, "disk" is used. So what about Mini-discs? Although magneto-optical, since minidisk was already taken for certain magnetic floppies, disc is the only solution.

The reason "disk" is used for magnetic disc media is that IBM was the first to launch such a product, and they used the Americanism "disk".

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

When referring to optical storage, yes, or mainly so anyway..

[P. G. Tipps]

Even the Americans spell this with a "c".

You are correct, I think. 'Disk' is only used in computing and this hardly applies to LPs. Silly me.

I apologise unreservedly for this glaring error but am mightily relieved you spotted it before ahinton ...

However, I do love the opening decisive words on Wiki: 'In computing an optical disc drive (ODD) is a disk drive ... '

So there we have it!

[Barbirollians]

I have never really got Mahler 10 although I have both Rattle recordings . I must give it more of a try .

[kea]

I can sort of understand why some people don't want to conduct M10—having listened to the nine canonical symphonies about... 3 months ago?—and then hearing 10 today, it's definitely missing a lot of the trademark Mahler Counterpoint that made the first nine interesting. Especially in the later symphonies he starts using the instruments in a radically disconnected way, creating a fusion of orchestration and counterpoint. Cooke's orchestration, when it is convincingly Mahlerian, seems an imitation of Mahler circa 1885 rather than 1910. There are also proportion issues and awkward transitions that probably wouldn't have made it into the final versions... like, Scherzo I in particular is kind of a mess of unrealised potential, for instance

At the same time, the quality of the musical line is in some places high enough that objections seem trivial. I can see why people like the finale, for instance.

(The SMPC Bruckner completion I find much more convincing, apart from transitions. But then Bruckner's musical language is much more formulaic, despite the forward-looking aspects of this particular movement, and thus easier to "reconstruct".)

[Roehre]

I can sort of understand why some people don't want to conduct M10—having listened to the nine canonical symphonies about... 3 months ago?—and then hearing 10 today, it's definitely missing a lot of the trademark Mahler Counterpoint that made the first nine interesting. Especially in the later symphonies he starts using the instruments in a radically disconnected way, creating a fusion of orchestration and counterpoint. Cooke's orchestration, when it is convincingly Mahlerian, seems an imitation of Mahler circa 1885 rather than 1910. There are also proportion issues and awkward transitions that probably wouldn't have made it into the final versions... like, Scherzo I in particular is kind of a mess of unrealised potential, for instance
...

To check what you are saying here, you should listen to Barshai's realisation to hear how beside the reality this IMO is.

[LeMartinPecheur]

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 reckon rfg hits on an important difference between the two cases. In the 3-mov't B9 most of us have absorbed that it ends after three movements, and have accepted this as the proper, artistically satisfying ending. "Bruckner died here, this is his last testament" in effect, rather like Schubert 8 where the 'unfinished' state is part of the legend and the aesthetic experience (even if he did very nearly finish it as Newbould claims). Indeed, the non-acceptance of this Schubert completion is surely a very close analogy with B9.

With M10 the Adagio cannot suggest a real finish: a 1-mov't Mahler symphony is not a plausible artistic entity. So we have far less difficulty accepting a completion - there is really no violation of any previously satisfying artistic unity.

[Beef Oven!]

Simon Rattle's EMI Mahler 10 with the Berlin Philaharmonic, is available from Amazon marketplace for £1.56. including packaging & postage. Used, very good condition (zoverstocks).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mahler-Symphony-No-10-Gustav/dp/B00004RITP/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1443766108&sr=1-1&keywords=mahler+10

[P. G. Tipps]

I reckon rfg hits on an important difference between the two cases. In the 3-mov't B9 most of us have absorbed that it ends after three movements, and have accepted this as the proper, artistically satisfying ending. "Bruckner died here, this is his last testament" in effect, rather like Schubert 8 where the 'unfinished' state is part of the legend and the aesthetic experience (even if he did very nearly finish it as Newbould claims). Indeed, the non-acceptance of this Schubert completion is surely a very close analogy with B9.

With M10 the Adagio cannot suggest a real finish: a 1-mov't Mahler symphony is not a plausible artistic entity. So we have far less difficulty accepting a completion - there is really no violation of any previously satisfying artistic unity.

Yes, that is possibly true and as has already been pointed out 'Mahler 10' is really a 'performing' version and not a completion at all in the strict sense.

Bruckner 9 is virtually already complete right up to the vital coda. The trouble is few (if any) composers could finish a symphony as gloriously and triumphantly as Bruckner (whatever one thinks of what went before!), so one must look on any attempt to do so with that in mind. There is at least one Bruckner 9 'completion' which completely ignores the composer's Finale sketches and an entirely new one is used ... of course, the attempt I heard sounded nothing like Bruckner and I never listened to it again.

Like many others I do believe the incomplete symphony is somehow complete in itself ending in those last few moments ending in a seemingly serene, dignified acceptance of fate. It simply works even if it is by pure accident.

Still, I'll be off to hear Rattle and the LSO perform the four-movement work at the Barbican in April ...

PS ... sorry, this thread is supposed to be about Mahler 10, isn't it? I already have the Mahler 10 with Rattle which Beefy has mentioned and was my introduction to the symphony. £1.56 is a veritable bargain!

[Beef Oven!]

PS ... sorry, this thread is supposed to be about Mahler 10, isn't it? I already have the Mahler 10 with Rattle which Beefy has mentioned and was my introduction to the symphony. £1.56 is a veritable bargain!

Discussing Bruckner 9, Schubert 8, Payne etc is very relevant to the OP.

[Petrushka]

Any other admirers of the Kurt Sanderling recording here? http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...s=music&sr=1-1

This recording with the 'other' Berlin orchestra dates from 1978 and hence uses the 1976 score with additional effective touches from Sanderling himself. Anyone who has it will know it's a revelation while those who haven't still have the pleasure to come.