# Mahler: Symphony no. 10 — a proper symphony?



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Can Mahler’s Symphony no. 10 be considered a proper symphony? Or is it just a curiosity play of imagination: what if there was some extra? Or something in between?

I have no opinion or knowledge on the matter whatsoever.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It's a "proper" symphony in an unfinished (to varying extents) state.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Here is the entry from Wikipedia...
_
Mahler's drafts and sketches for the Tenth Symphony comprise 72 pages of full score, 50 pages of continuous short score draft (two of which are missing), and a further 44 pages of preliminary drafts, sketches, and inserts. In the form in which Mahler left it, the symphony has five movements:

1. Andante-Adagio: 275 bars drafted in orchestral and short score
2. Scherzo: 522 bars drafted in orchestral and short score
3. Purgatorio. Allegro moderato: 170 bars drafted in short score, the first 30 of which were also drafted in orchestral score
4. [Scherzo. Nicht zu schnell]: about 579 bars drafted in short score
5. Finale. Langsam, schwer: 400 bars drafted in short score

The parts in short score were usually in four staves. The designations of some movements were altered as work progressed: for example, the second movement was initially envisaged as a finale. The fourth movement was also relocated many times. Mahler then started on an orchestral draft of the symphony, which begins to bear some signs of haste after the halfway point of the first movement. He had got as far as orchestrating the first two movements and the opening 30 bars of the third movement when he had to put the work aside to make final revisions to the Ninth Symphony. _

Is it a 'proper' symphony ... define proper. We have Mahler's complete starting draft (short score) of the symphony along with extensive orchestration plus further notes of his thoughts for other parts in sufficient detail to make reasonable decisions about how it can be made performable. Regarding the performing editions, what is very noticeable is just how similar they are in so many ways which I believe speaks to it being 'proper', Listen with an open mind and draw your own conclusions. I suggest either the 1989 Cooke III edition (Rattle, Harding or Dausgaard) or the revised Mazzetti (Lopez Cobos).


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

Obviously a proper Symphony for what it's meant to be, or the finished version by other musicians.

But if the conductor is only playing the first movement, then no.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> Can Mahler's Symphony no. 10 be considered a proper symphony? [ ... ]


Waehnen, could you please add your definition of a "proper symphony"? Then Mahler #10 can be checked against your definition.

Everything else would be a discussion on the definition to my mind.

As you started the thread with the question stated above, I think that you have a rough definition.

Thank you!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

The Wyn Morris account is very good too.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

It's proper enough for me even though it obviously wasn't the last word. As long as a work isn't abandoned before at least being put into short score then any connective tissue - however speculative - can follow. I would say rightly or wrongly an unfinished work in the baldest sense is where some sections appear not to have been composed at all (i.e. Schubert with the oratorio _Lazarus_ or the 8th symphony) or are at best just a jumble of sketches, fragments or ideas (i.e Borodin with the opera _Prince Igor_).


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

The other two unfinished symphonies that are often performed are Schubert's 8th and Bruckner's 9th. Mahler's 10th only has a fully completed first movement; two movements of the Schubert survive and three movements of the Bruckner. That said, we have extensive drafts of _every_ movement of Mahler's 10th, such that a completion and performance is feasible. The musical material was fully written by Mahler, but not orchestrated, as far as I am aware. There are some extensive drafts of the finale of Bruckner's 9th as well (, though that Wikipedia article cites five gaps, including the coda, so these would have to be composed by someone else. Thus most but not all of the material has been introduced and someone would have to creatively fill in these gaps to obtain a performable version. Schubert's 8th is missing the entire final movement (unless you accept the hypothesis that the _Rosamunde_ music was meant to be the final movement). The third movement is incomplete, and someone would need to provide more musical material in order to finish it.

So of these three, Mahler's 10th is the only one which is not missing musical material outright (i.e. there are no gaps, if I'm remembering correctly). Bruckner's 9th has some gaps, but these are confined to the finale. Schubert's 8th is missing the entire finale and most of the third movement. So Mahler's 10th comes closest, I would argue, to being realizable in performance. I would not, however, consider the Adagio by itself to be a symphony, just as I would not consider the first movement of Beethoven's 9th to be a symphony! The difference being, of course, that Beethoven was able to complete his last symphony, and Mahler was not. Anyway a deeper discussion of whether it is a "proper symphony" depends, as Becca pointed out, on a precise and agreeable definition of "proper symphony" and I do not wish to discuss semantic points.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

One can argue that all of Mahler's works after the 8th (so Das Lied, the 9th and 10th) are more or less "unfinished", since Mahler didn't live to conduct them himself and fine-tune the orchestration, like he always did. He didn't have the chance to prepare the scores for publication. The 9th famously has the first page of the score crossed out, meaning he planned to revise it.

Regarding the 10th, It's a lucky circumstance that Mahler always fixed the form throughout before starting work on the orchestration, meaning we have a complete, continuous piece with no gaps at all. So yes, I'd say it's a proper symphony, "echt" Mahler, even if it's bare-bones Mahler at times. And not only it's "echt" and proper, it's also one of the highlights of his oeuvre, even in its unfinished state. While the 9th is an essentially backward-looking piece (with still lots of modernist innovations), the 10th seems to show us the path to a modern, expressionist, maybe even atonal style Mahler would have taken if he had survived his final illness.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Some asked my definition of a proper symphony. My definition of a proper symphony would not be any more definite than anyone else's!

But in this case, just from the top of my hat (if I had one), I would say a proper Mahler symphony would be a symphony of which Mahler himself could or would say: _*"Listen to this. It is a symphony I have composed and stand behind even though I didn´t get the orchestration done."*_

If it is true that there is no speculative passages put together by other composers -- just passages that Mahler himself has not orchestrated, then it at least cannot be outrightly rejected that this is a proper symphony. More arguments would be needed to state that it is NOT a proper symphony.

That is where I stand after reading your wonderful posts on the matter.

I just wonder why many conductors refused to conduct the 10th? What could have been the arguments of, say, Bernstein and Walter?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Bernstein did do the Adagio. Doing compositions that are not authentic isn't something conductors take lightly. Walter had too much respect for his mentor to perform and argued vehemently against it. Bernstein recognized it's not authentic Mahler. (BTW, contrary to popular belief, Mahler did NOT complete the first movement. There are several stretches where the wind parts are suspiciously vacant, only being filled in by others.) The Cooke version, which I like quite a bit, is seen as a second-rate curiosity and, because it was made by lesser composers, not worth performing. How many of the prestigious conductors have take it up? Rattle, Chailly, Levine...not that many. Second-tier conductors have done it more.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> Some asked my definition of a proper symphony. My definition of a proper symphony would not be any more definite than anyone else's!
> 
> But in this case, just from the top of my hat (if I had one), I would say a proper Mahler symphony would be a symphony of which Mahler himself could or would say: _*"Listen to this. It is a symphony I have composed and stand behind even though I didn´t get the orchestration done."*_
> 
> ...


Well, by your definition, it seems that it _is_ a proper symphony, since it is a symphony he composed even though he didn't get the orchestration done. Whether he would stand by it is a matter of speculation; as RobertJTh pointed out, Mahler was known to revise his scores after hearing them performed and probably would have made changes to the 9th, 10th, and Das Lied von der Erde. So aside from some revisions, I think I agree with you that the 10th fits your definition of a proper symphony.

However, it might not rise to what some other conductors may have thought constituted a "proper symphony." So it's also a question of where each individual draws their line in the sand, I would expect.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Monsalvat said:


> Well, by your definition, it seems that it _is_ a proper symphony, since it is a symphony he composed even though he didn't get the orchestration done. Whether he would stand by it is a matter of speculation; as RobertJTh pointed out, Mahler was known to revise his scores after hearing them performed and probably would have made changes to the 9th, 10th, and Das Lied von der Erde. So aside from some revisions, I think I agree with you that the 10th fits your definition of a proper symphony.
> 
> However, it might not rise to what some other conductors may have thought constituted a "proper symphony." So it's also a question of where each individual draws their line in the sand, I would expect.


Most excellently put into words! In definite terms, even. Thanks.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

mbhaub said:


> The Cooke version, which I like quite a bit, is seen as a second-rate curiosity and, because it was made by lesser composers, not worth performing. How many of the prestigious conductors have take it up? Rattle, Chailly, Levine...not that many. Second-tier conductors have done it more.


It seems a generational thing, or conductors also got used to it. Hardly any of the older generation and of the 1920s-30s generation accepted the performance versions of the 10th. Ormandy who conducted little Mahler, but the Cooke 10!, Morris, Gielen (but only late in life, I think) I believe none of Bernstein, Solti, Kubelik, Haitink, Abbado, Tennstedt, Boulez, Bertini did more than the Adagio.

This seems to have changed with Chailly, Rattle and other "younger" conductors.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> Can Mahler's Symphony no. 10 be considered a proper symphony? Or is it just a curiosity play of imagination: what if there was some extra? Or something in between?
> 
> I have no opinion or knowledge on the matter whatsoever.


It is a proper symphony but not as Mahler may have intended it in its completion. Why (eg) Kubelik never conducted the completed version. He insisted it was not as Mahler would have intended it. Of course we can say that we have a symphony which we can enjoy even though it's not all by the composer


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> It's a "proper" symphony in an unfinished (to varying extents) state.


Is there any "improper" symphony in a finished state?


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

marlow said:


> It is a proper symphony but not as Mahler may have intended it in its completion. Why (eg) Kubelik never conducted the completed version. He insisted it was not as Mahler would have intended it. Of course we can say that we have a symphony which we can enjoy even though it's not all by the composer


How did Kubelik argue that Symphony no. 10 was not how Mahler intended? For me this is the deciding factor in whether to consider the 10th a proper Mahler symphony or a mere speculative curiosity which gives some insight on what the symphony might have turned into.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

Waehnen said:


> How did Kubelik argue that Symphony no. 10 was not how Mahler intended? For me this is the deciding factor in whether to consider the 10th a proper Mahler symphony or a mere speculative curiosity which gives some insight on what the symphony might have turned into.


He is referring to the full versions completed by other musicians... so Kubelik thought those versions didn't accomplish what Mahler intended.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Livly_Station said:


> He is referring to the full versions completed by other musicians... so Kubelik thought those versions didn't accomplish what Mahler intended.


OK, so the 10th Symphony could be considered a work in process?

It would take a lot of time to really convincingly drive oneself into the style of another composer so I am not surprised that Shostakovich, Britten and the like did not take up the task. Of the current composers, Kalevi Aho would surely be up to the task.

But composition and even orchestration is such a complicated task even without strict style allusions or trying to mimic some other personality. It gets harder and harder the more individual the musical styles become over the centuries. It is hard for me to think about composing without being able to put one´s own personality and expression in the task. Music needs to be inspired and you need your own personality in the process! You need to be "an artist" to do this right.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> How did Kubelik argue that Symphony no. 10 was not how Mahler intended? For me this is the deciding factor in whether to consider the 10th a proper Mahler symphony or a mere speculative curiosity which gives some insight on what the symphony might have turned into.


He just recorded the first movement as it was the only movement actually completed by Mahler himself.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Is there any "improper" symphony in a finished state?


I would find it plausible to consider pieces that are called symphony but are rather concertos (Szymanovski 4), orchestral song cycles (Zemlinsky "Lyric Symphony", Mahler "Lied von der Erde", Shostakovich 14) or explicitly programmatic pieces (Alpine Symphony) as "not proper" symphonies. None of this applies to Mahler's 10th because 5 movements with slow beginning and end is not that unconventional in ~1910.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Waehnen said:


> How did Kubelik argue that Symphony no. 10 was not how Mahler intended?


See the list above. Almost none of the "big name Mahlerians" before the 1980s conducted the Cooke (or another) version. Either not at all or the Adagio only. Apparently all found the performing version too dubious to perform it.
(I am not sure if it is relevant for this that Walter, Klemperer, Kubelik, Bernstein were also composers.)


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

Mahler Symphony 10* ( Fixed it  )


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Kreisler jr said:


> See the list above. Almost none of the "big name Mahlerians" before the 1980s conducted the Cooke (or another) version. Either not at all or the Adagio only. Apparently all found the performing version too dubious to perform it.
> (I am not sure if it is relevant for this that Walter, Klemperer, Kubelik, Bernstein were also composers.)


Walter died 2 years before the first performance of Cooke's initial completion. As to Klemperer who was still alive for a few years thereafter, he (AFAIK) hadn't been performing the 1st, 3rd, 5th & 6th so I'm not sure that too much can be made of it. Bernstein expressed a typically Bernsteinian overstatement (echoing Schoenberg?) that the 9th was a farewell to life so no way Mahler could do anything after that (ignore the fact that he did perform the adagio from the 10th.) Regarding others, the fact that someone is an excellent conductor doesn't also make them an excellent musicologist so I won't draw too many conclusions.

P.S. An amusing story from Daniel Harding ... in his earlier years of guest conducting, an orchestra management would ask him what he wanted to conduct and he would suggest Mahler. The management would say something like "Sorry, our chief conductor reserves Mahler for himself." Harding's response would be "How about the 10th, I know that he doesn't perform that?" :lol:


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Becca said:


> Walter died 2 years before the first performance of Cooke's initial completion. As to Klemperer who was still alive for a few years thereafter, he (AFAIK) hadn't been performing the 1st, 3rd, 5th & 6th so I'm not sure that too much can be made of it. Bernstein expressed a typically Bernsteinian overstatement (echoing Schoenberg?) that the 9th was a farewell to life so no way Mahler could do anything after that (ignore the fact that he did perform the adagio from the 10th.) Regarding others, the fact that someone is an excellent conductor doesn't also make them an excellent musicologist so I won't draw too many conclusions.
> 
> P.S. An amusing story from Daniel Harding ... in his earlier years of guest conducting, an orchestra management would ask him what he wanted to conduct and he would suggest Mahler. The management would say something like "Sorry, our chief conductor reserves Mahler for himself." Harding's response would be "How about the 10th, I know that he doesn't perform that?" :lol:


Rattle apparently showed Karajan the Cooke completion of the 10th but Karajansaid that by that stage he was too old for such things.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Do you enjoy it? Do you get pleasure from listening to it?

If yes, then yes it is a "proper" symphony.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It took me a long time and many different recordings to grow to enjoy it as a whole. Vanska's recording made it effortless for me and I am certain that (for my taste) there is no better version (I tried nearly all).


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

haziz said:


> Do you enjoy it? Do you get pleasure from listening to it?
> 
> If yes, then yes it is a "proper" symphony.


That is really the question to be answered. A bit like when people question whether a great painting is really by a certain master. When they decide it is authentic the price goes up astronomically even though the painting is just the same. Idiotic really


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Waehnen said:


> How did Kubelik argue that Symphony no. 10 was not how Mahler intended? For me this is the deciding factor in whether to consider the 10th a proper Mahler symphony or a mere speculative curiosity which gives some insight on what the symphony might have turned into.


In the old days, people had rather clean-cut opinions about Mahler's last works. Das Lied and the 9th were 100% finished, the first movement of the 10th and the "Purgatorio" 3rd movement were approved as well as being what Mahler intended it to be. Everything else was unperformable. Nice and orderly.

But it isn't all that black or white. Like I said before, none of Mahler's works after the 8th can be considered fully finished because Mahler didn't have the chance to fine-tune them for performances and publication. And like mbhaub wrote, the orchestration of the first movement of the 10th isn't 100% complete. If it were, Krenek wouldn't be needed to fix it - and the "Purgatorio", which was only half-orchestrated by Mahler. The 2nd movement is almost as "completed" as the first, orchestrated for the most part, but it was seen as a very bizarre movement, with its proto-Stravinskian meter changes, so it was kind of ignored because it didn't really fit in the canon Mahler style. The myth that the slow first movement was as far as Mahler went to complete the symphony fitted the consensus that everything he wrote after the 8th was death-obsessed and valedatory.

Closer to the truth is that the symphony's dark atmosphere came from his 1910 marital crisis rather than from a realization of his nearing end. See the often disturbing handwritten notes in the manuscript. In fact, after the marital crisis was resolved, Mahler seemed in a very good mood again, optimistically made plans about the NY 1911 concert season, and started revising the orchestration of the 5th (something he wouldn't have done if he knew his end was near and that every effort would have better spent on the completion of the 10th...)


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

RobertJTh said:


> In the old days, people had rather clean-cut opinions about Mahler's last works. Das Lied and the 9th were 100% finished, the first movement of the 10th and the "Purgatorio" 3rd movement were approved as well as being what Mahler intended it to be. Everything else was unperformable. Nice and orderly.
> 
> But it isn't all that black or white. Like I said before, none of Mahler's works after the 8th can be considered fully finished because Mahler didn't have the chance to fine-tune them for performances and publication. And like mbhaub wrote, the orchestration of the first movement of the 10th isn't 100% complete. If it were, Krenek wouldn't be needed to fix it - and the "Purgatorio", which was only half-orchestrated by Mahler. The 2nd movement is almost as "completed" as the first, orchestrated for the most part, but it was seen as a very bizarre movement, with its proto-Stravinskian meter changes, so it was kind of ignored because it didn't really fit in the canon Mahler style. The myth that the slow first movement was as far as Mahler went to complete the symphony fitted the consensus that everything he wrote after the 8th was death-obsessed and valedatory.
> 
> Closer to the truth is that the symphony's dark atmosphere came from his 1910 marital crisis rather than from a realization of his nearing end. See the often disturbing handwritten notes in the manuscript. In fact, after the marital crisis was resolved, Mahler seemed in a very good mood again, optimistically made plans about the NY 1911 concert season, and started revising the orchestration of the 5th (something he wouldn't have done if he knew his end was near and that every effort would have better spent on the completion of the 10th...)


What you say is quite true. Many composers revise a work to a greater or lesser extent after its first performance. Therefore when a work his unperformed on a composers death one doesn't quite know what the composer would've made of it if he'd of actually heard it


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I am not drawing any deeper conclusions except that it seems very clearly a generational thing. Before Chailly and Rattle hardly anyone of the Mahlerians recorded the completed 10th. And musicologists don't have a special voice here. They can come up with some reconstruction/completion (it's also telling that composers like Krenek eventually refused to work on the 10th) but it's hardly predictable if this will take on or not. It's very probably that conductors who are really convinced and program the piece frequently have a central rôle here and for some reasons none of the rather diverse bunch of Mahler conductors of the 70s-80s was sufficiently convinced by the 10th (beyond the adagio) whereas many younger ones are.


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

It's 100% a proper symphony, one of the most extraordinary utterances in all of human creation


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I am happy with Cooke's caveat that they are "performing versions" == and a whole lot more musicologically responsible than, say, Cooper's invented Beethoven Tenth.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

MarkW said:


> I am happy with Cooke's caveat that they are "performing versions" == and a whole lot more musicologically responsible than, say, Cooper's invented Beethoven Tenth.


Or the train wreck that's Elgar/Payne's 3rd symphony.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

IMO the Elgar/Payne 3rd is not a 'train wreck' in the way that the Cooper is ...

Cooper/Beethoven 10th << Elgar/Payne 3rd << Mahler/Cooke 10th

To continue, I would put the Mozart Requiem somewhere in the middle of the above, and the Bruckner 9th somewhat equivalent to the Mahler, albeit for different reasons.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Becca said:


> IMO the Elgar/Payne 3rd is not a 'train wreck'


Maybe, as I have only listened to that twice, but I'm very close to concluding it shouldn't have been attempted as there are mish-mash moments stylistically. I can handle and like the Mahler/Cooke far more.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Vasks said:


> Maybe, as I have only listened to that twice, but I'm very close to concluding it shouldn't have been attempted as there are mish-mash moments stylistically. I can handle and like the Mahler/Cooke far more.


You left off part of what I said: IMO the Elgar/Payne 3rd is not a 'train wreck' *in the way that the Cooper is *


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

RobertJTh said:


> Or the train wreck that's Elgar/Payne's 3rd symphony.


I've played this symphony; at first rehearsal it was sure weird, but as rehearsals went on Payne's conception and work made more and more sense. But it's far from real Elgar despite the opening pages being authentic. But Train Wreck? I think of it as Music by Committee. Or the Cooperative Learning Method of Composition. It will always be identified as Elgar/Payne and I rather like the work, whoever is responsible. To the best of my knowledge the only major conductor to take it up has been Colin Davis with the LSO. It's lack of popularity is not surprising given the general lack of interest in Elgar's two real symphonies.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> I've played this symphony; at first rehearsal it was sure weird, but as rehearsals went on Payne's conception and work made more and more sense. But it's far from real Elgar despite the opening pages being authentic. But Train Wreck? I think of it as Music by Committee. Or the Cooperative Learning Method of Composition. It will always be identified as Elgar/Payne and I rather like the work, whoever is responsible. To the best of my knowledge the only major conductor to take it up has been Colin Davis with the LSO. It's lack of popularity is not surprising given the general lack of interest in Elgar's two real symphonies.


True, but it was Andrew Davis who recorded it with the BBC Symphony. There is also a recording by Paul Daniel and the Bournemouth Symphony so three recordings is not bad!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Yes, but Andrew Davis and Paul Daniel are hardly in the same tier that Colin Davis was. That's all I meant. There's always the hope that a Big Name conductor will take up some neglected work and that adds a certain cachet to it and others will follow. Maybe it was Ormandy's Mahler 10th that said to others that's it's ok. But in reality it doesn't seem to help much. Barenboim did the Furtwangler 2nd, Karajan the Balakirev 1st, Mehta the Schmidt 4th, Toscanini the Atterberg 6th and Kalinnikov 1st and all of those works are still on the fringes of the repertoire.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Don't know about Elgar/Payne but the notorious "Beethoven's 10th" by Cooper is a very low bar...

I think time will tell. Some arrangements or completions became standard repertoire (like Mozart Requiem or Ravel's instrumentation of "Pictures"), others (e.g. the completion of Schubert's b minor or the instrumentation of the Grand Duo) remained obscure, with just a few recordings. Maybe in 50 years listeners will be puzzled that there was any doubt about Mahler's 10th or that Bruckner's 9th was usually performen in 3 movements.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

mbhaub said:


> Yes, but Andrew Davis and Paul Daniel are hardly in the same tier that Colin Davis was. That's all I meant. There's always the hope that a Big Name conductor will take up some neglected work and that adds a certain cachet to it and others will follow. Maybe it was Ormandy's Mahler 10th that said to others that's it's ok. But in reality it doesn't seem to help much. Barenboim did the Furtwangler 2nd, Karajan the Balakirev 1st, Mehta the Schmidt 4th, Toscanini the Atterberg 6th and Kalinnikov 1st and all of those works are still on the fringes of the repertoire.


I have the Daniel / BSO version of the Elgar / Payne 3rd. A very fine performance. I never see why such a work shouldn't be in the repertoire but given the relative lack of popularity of Ed Elgar, most concert managers would plump for nos 1 or 2

Relative popularity of the completed Mahler 10 is a result of the Mahler boom. People were looking for more Mahler.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

mbhaub said:


> Yes, but Andrew Davis and Paul Daniel are hardly in the same tier that Colin Davis was. That's all I meant. There's always the hope that a Big Name conductor will take up some neglected work and that adds a certain cachet to it and others will follow. Maybe it was Ormandy's Mahler 10th that said to others that's it's ok. But in reality it doesn't seem to help much. Barenboim did the Furtwangler 2nd, Karajan the Balakirev 1st, Mehta the Schmidt 4th, Toscanini the Atterberg 6th and Kalinnikov 1st and all of those works are still on the fringes of the repertoire.


I think it's safe to say that Mahler's 10th will stay in the repertoire, will become even more mainstream since most young conductors grew up with the idea that Mahler's symphony cycle consists of 10 works, not 9. What helps is that
- there's one dominant version: Cooke III. If there were a plethora of versions and sub-versions like in the case of the Bruckner 9th finale, the situation would be more difficult, and the 10th would have trouble staying in the repertoire. The public doesn't like musicological confusion the way critics and scholars do. And since there's more or less consensus about Cooke's version being the most faithful to Mahler's intentions while offering a satisfactory musical experience, it's commonly accepted as THE version, and rightly so, I think. (Not that other versions don't have their merit, but it's hard to navigate between authenticity and musical enjoyment, so there are versions that are either too spartan or too funked up (Barshai...), Cooke comfortably walking the middle way).
- after some initial hesitation there was plenty of support from (near) top-tier conductors, Ormandy leading the way with a recording that still sounds great, Inbal and Chailly doing their share and above all Rattle, whose Bournemouth recording was my first introduction to the work - terrible early digital but a gripping, intense performance, more so (imo) than his over-polished luxury edition in Berlin. And of course Sanderling, still unbeaten.

Btw, it seems I opened a can of worms by calling Elgar/Payne 3 a "train wreck". Not my own words actually, and there are reviews out there that condemn it in even harsher terms. That or it gets praised to heaven and back. Funny, hardly anything in between, it's a piece that really parts the Red Sea, opinion-wise.
My main problem with it is not that it doesn't sound Elgarian (it does at places, and people shouldn't expect an exact copy of the sound world from the first two symphonies anyway) but that it's just not a very good composition. Don't get me wrong, it's a thoroughly professional affair, with Payne's contributions more than often being the best parts. But it's a rambling hotchpotch of fragments that would never get the approval of Elgar, who was a master of symphonic form. And where are the Big Tunes? There's nice textures and ideas everywhere, but hardly any truly memorable melody, nothing that lingers in your mind for hours after your heard the piece. Maybe that's not even Payne's fault. Elgar late in his life may just not have been capable anymore of pulling off such a grand project, with his creative powers in decline for decades.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Vasks said:


> Maybe, as I have only listened to that twice, but I'm very close to concluding it shouldn't have been attempted as there are mish-mash moments stylistically. I can handle and like the Mahler/Cooke far more.


Personally I am glad it was done. I enjoy it and although it is not perfect it does give more than a taste of how the symphony might have gone. And it's not as if we have that much Elgar to spend our time with. I certainly don't get the more extreme objections to it.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Personally I am glad it was done. I enjoy it and although it is not perfect it does give more than a taste of how the symphony might have gone. And it's not as if we have that much Elgar to spend our time with. I certainly don't get the more extreme objections to it.


To some people, these matters are important. And I think that's a good thing because the resulting discussion is quite interesting and educating. Of course sometimes it gets a bit dogmatic, but we can come away at that point.

I'm not clear why I don't care for the Bruckner 9 completion, but I enjoy Mahler 10 very much. also, I've never bothered with Payne's reconstruction of the Elgar. So far this year I've pulled off the shelves and listened to recordings of Elgar symphonies by Boult (EMI & Lyrita), Barbirolli, Elder, Barenboim and Sinopoli. But from around 8,000 classical recordings that I have, I've never purchased Payne's reconstruction.


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Personally I am glad it was done. I enjoy it and although it is not perfect it does give more than a taste of how the symphony might have gone. And it's not as if we have that much Elgar to spend our time with. I certainly don't get the more extreme objections to it.


I agree. Elgars two completed Symphonies are so good you cant blame people for clamoring for a third even though this may not really fit the bill


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

MarkW said:


> I am happy with Cooke's caveat that they are "performing versions" == and a whole lot more musicologically responsible than, say, Cooper's invented Beethoven Tenth.


I think the answer is actually right there, in Cooke's expression.

In it's current forms, we are dealing with "Performing Versions of an unfinished symphony no. 10 by Mahler, completed by people other than Mahler."

So eventually I would not consider this a symphony proper but versions aiming at creating as great an illusion as possible of a such symphony.

Whether you like or appreciate the results is another matter.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

it may not be a proper symphony but it's certainly Mahler's greatest. Here everything is direct and to the point with more focus in his otherwise often somewhat rambling Ländler-like sections-- the melodic inspiration and emotional intensity surpasses even the 9th. Of course there is that little problem we don't know what the orchestration really was planned to be in detail and at times it does sound a bit threadbare. But perhaps that's even an advantage in some ways in the only Mahler work I think actually does bear some comparison with Bruckner (the 9th obviously, also unfinished) in sheer terror and heartbreak. 

This applies to the Sanderling recording which is by far the best in my view and probably the model for Rattle to attempt his version(s). Rattle hugely admired Sanderling even if their styles are totally different but for both, the work was of the utmost importance.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

dko22 said:


> it may not be a proper symphony but it's certainly Mahler's greatest..


Sorry, I disagree completely..The 10th is good, interesting in its different versions, but no way is it Mahler's greatest.. does not come close to the powerful and compelling drama and flow of the 9th, which, imo, is one of music's greatest creations. #s 5 and 6 are outstanding as well...great symphonies, among the very greatest of that genre.


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

Do you consider Schubert's 'Unfinished' a proper symphony? I do. So I would likewise consider Mahler's unfinished 10th to be a proper symphony, as well.

Alma Mahler was (eventually) keen to see this symphony completed & performed. She engaged composer Ernst Krenek (to whom she was briefly married) to create the first performing edition, but he would agree only to edit the two movements that were almost complete--the Adagio and Purgatorio. Krenek considered the other three movements, 'guesswork pure and simple" (this quote is taken from one of Krenek's letters, discussed in the Mahler X Symposium, 1986). Franz Schalk, Willem Mengleberg, & most interestingly, Alexander Zemlinsky (who had been Alma's fiance before Mahler), also worked on & conducted these two movements.

For me, the most engaging attempt is composer & Alban Berg student, Otto Jokl's first printed score from 1951 of the Adagio & Purgatorio movements, where he used the additions made by Zemlinsky & Krenek, & was criticized for it. Mahler protégé, F. Charles Adler conducted the premiere performance of Jokl's 'edition' and made the world premiere (live) recording, too, with program notes written by Alma.

Unlike Jokl's critics, I don't have a problem with the minor additions that Zemlinsky & Krenek's made to these two movements, considering that they were, IMO, both better composers than any of the more recent musicologists, and more or less contemporary to Mahler & his time--particularly Zemlinsky, which shouldn't be underestimated.

So, while I do occasionally listen to other, more finished recordings of the 10th--such as those by Chailly, Rattle 1 & 2 (Bournemouth & Berlin), & Inbal on Denon, I find Jokl's version to be the most idiomatic, especially in combination with Adler's heavier & arguably more 'Viennese' reliance on the use of violin slides in the 1st Adagio movement, etc.










However, I also like Chailly's recording with the Berlin RSO, where he uses Cooke's 1976 completion,


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Josquin13 said:


> Do you consider Schubert's 'Unfinished' a proper symphony? I do. So I would likewise consider Mahler's unfinished 10th to be a proper symphony, as well.


Schubert´s 2 movements are completely finished by him, right? There is a huge difference, at least in my mind, for there is no need/room for speculation whatsoever.

Schubert´s Unfinished Symphony is a proper unfinished symphony and it claims to be nothing that it is not.

I think Mahler´s 10th Symphony should also be labelled as "Unfinished", or with the extra information, "Performing Version".


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

Waehnen said:


> Schubert´s 2 movements are completely finished by him, right? There is a huge difference, at least in my mind, for there is no need/room for speculation whatsoever.
> 
> Schubert´s Unfinished Symphony is a proper unfinished symphony and it claims to be nothing that it is not.
> 
> I think Mahler´s 10th Symphony should also be labelled as "Unfinished", or with the extra information, "Performing Version".


Granted, there are two complete movements in the Schubert 'Unfinished" Symphony, but there are also fragments to his third movement. & especially now, with the recent discovery in the attic of the house where Schubert spent his final days of a six page manuscript in Schubert's hand of the 3rd movement. So, in that respect, the situation is similar to the Mahler 10th; although yes, Mahler didn't quite finish the Adagio and Purgatorio movements, and we now know, with the recent 'attic' discovery, that Schubert got farther with his 'unfinished' than was previously thought.

Here's an article on the Schubert discovery,

https://www.classicfm.com/composers/schubert/news/unfinished-symphony-score-found/

P.S. I thought we were close enough to April 1st, April's Fools day, to include the Schubert article...


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

Heck148 said:


> Sorry, I disagree completely..The 10th is good, interesting in its different versions, but no way is it Mahler's greatest.. does not come close to the powerful and compelling drama and flow of the 9th, which, imo, is one of music's greatest creations. #s 5 and 6 are outstanding as well...great symphonies, among the very greatest of that genre.


The fact that Mahler completed it does give the 9th more sophistication and polish certainly. But to say 10 doesn't come close to the compelling drama I certainly can't accept. No idea which recording(s) you base that on. No. 6 is among his finest -- no dispute there but 5 I find frankly rather uneven in its inspiration though it has stunning things like the mad ending of the scherzo.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I do not know and I do not care.

I have several versions in my library and I enjoy listening to all of them.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

dko22 said:


> The fact that Mahler completed it does give the 9th more sophistication and polish certainly. But to say 10 doesn't come close to the compelling drama I certainly can't accept. No idea which recording(s) you base that on.


 for Mahler 9 I go with the very best:
Giulini/CSO
Walter/ColSO
Boulez/CSO

These are great renditions....powerful, moving, very convincing; they present Mahler's genius most effectively and cogently.
#10, in it's performing versions is very good, Mahler knew what he was about, even tho the 10th is incomplete...I've grown up with the Cooke version - Ormandy, Martinon...which are excellent and exciting...but the continuity, the flow, the drama throughout that Mahler achieved in the great #9 is not matched.



> No. 6 is among his finest -- no dispute there but 5 I find frankly rather uneven in its inspiration though it has stunning things like the mad ending of the scherzo.


Both 5 and 6 rate very highly with me...#5 again has tremendous drama and flow, throughout - [no, the Adagietto is not the "soul" of the work, it's the shortest, briefest mvt, the prologue to the great finale]...mvts I, III, V are the crux....when done well, it is overpowering...


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Strange as it may seem, there are orchestras other than the CSO (and ColSO) which do things well 

As I have noted in the past, the Ormandy version, while it maybe well done, is from Cooke's initial version of the symphony therefore it doesn't include the changes that Cooke made after being given access to many of Mahler's previously unseen papers and sketches, so is not as complete a representation off Mahler's intent insofar as we can know it.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Becca said:


> Strange as it may seem, there are orchestras other than the CSO (and ColSO) which do things well


Of course, I've never claimed otherwise...



> As I have noted in the past, the Ormandy version, while it maybe well done, is from Cooke's initial version of the symphony therefore it doesn't include the changes that Cooke made after being given access to many of Mahler's previously unseen papers and sketches, so is not as complete a representation off Mahler's intent insofar as we can know it.


Yes, I realize that there have been several different versions after Cooke I...I've not really kept up with them all....I've heard several, but none have really stuck out in my mind...M10 is good, definitely worth performing and exploring...


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

Heck148 said:


> Both 5 and 6 rate very highly with me...#5 again has tremendous drama and flow, throughout - [no, the Adagietto is not the "soul" of the work, it's the shortest, briefest mvt, the prologue to the great finale]...mvts I, III, V are the crux....when done well, it is overpowering...


Incidentally, although I am not in general a Boulez fan (as a composer in particular), I really do think he has something to say in Mahler. The infamous "Adagietto" sound far less kitschy is his hands than with most others. I could go on but this thread is really about 10 so won't


----------



## gprengel (Dec 21, 2015)

All I want to say is that the Finale of this unfinished symphony contains 2 of the most finished, most beautiful, most tender and most uplifting music passages I have ever heard: 



 at 56:10 - 1:00:40 and at 1:09:10 - till the end !!


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

exactly -- the melody here is a key factor in the symphony being as moving as it is. Barshai plays beautifully but I find his approach a bit too "lieblich" for this work -- it's almost as if it's the innocent heavenly ending of no. 4 rather than the uneasy reconciliation following on from horror which is more how I see the 10th.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

I listened to the entire Chailly /Berlin RSO recording last night:






Always great to have a scrolling score to go with the music, in this case it gives you useful insight in what Cooke did to make the symphony performable. And it disproves the myth that the first movement is 100% complete in Mahler's manuscript. The orchestration has more holes than in Swiss cheese. After the first movement there's a gradual decline in textural filling, with the 2nd movement being relatively complete. Halfway the Purgatorio, the four-staves short score takes over, with the Finale being the most problematic movement, that needed the most editorial intervention.

Regarding the performance, I had a better recollection from it. At times, Chailly is stiff and unyielding where Mahler needs expansiveness and flexible tempi. That mostly bothers me in the first movement - the other movements come off better, with the finale surprisingly very good, excellent playing and balances too.

For a thorougly satisfying version of the whole work I turn to Kurt Sanderling. The much heralded Dausgaard/Seattle I find rather dull and superfically pretty, just like Rattle II.


----------

