# Beethoven - Mahler: 1825 & 1900 & Orchestral Balance



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I considered putting this post in the 'Recordings & Publications' forum, but the recordings are not the only thrust of the issue.

Beethoven - Symphony No. 9 (arranged by Mahler)
Kristjan Järvi/Tonkünstler-Orchester Niederösterreich
Stowakischer Philharmonischer Chor
Preiser Records SACD (Hybrid) PR90773

Beethoven's 9th symphony was premiered in 1825; unsurprisingly, it employed an orchestra containing (with the obvious exception of the voice parts) an approximation of the usual forces of its time.

Mahler, in the year 1900, had available orchestral forces 75 years removed from those of Beethoven. Late 19th C orchestras employed approximately four times as many strings, and about twice the number of winds/brass, and none of those instruments projected _less_ than their 1825 counterparts. Hence, the music the orchestra produced had balances far removed from those Beethoven composed for.

Mahler decided to restore those balances, to the extent he could do so, using the instruments and knowledge of performance practice available to him. The result is the music recorded on this disc.

[I am treating my reaction to this music as an aside. It was the first time in a long time that I have enjoyed and been stirred by a performance of this work. The first three movements are once again interesting, the orchestral colors are vivid and detailed. The finale is, after the short lead-in, a joyous, exciting -and loud - celebration.]

The liner notes say that public reaction to the first performances was 'mixed'. The public reaction was wildly enthusiastic - the second performance was a complete sellout. The critics were disgusted. When Vienna critics were disgusted, they made it quite clear.

It seems to me that Mahler pursued the only option he had available, given his intent to restore Beethoven's balances. There were no 'period' orchestras, nor musicians playing 'period' instruments available. No extensive studies of period performance practice either.

I have not heard a HIP performance of the 9th. I have ordered a copy of the HIP-est recording I know of (the Norrington). There are several 'late 19th C massive' versions in my collection; maybe I will run one of them by me too.


----------



## Praeludium (Oct 9, 2011)

(Interesting. I have quite a few prejudices against Mahler and the other post-romantics. Knowing that Mahler was a great director in his time, I shouldn't have been surprised he thought of that. I was. One prejudice destructed  )


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

There have been a few recordings of the Mahler adaption previously, although I cna't recall who the conductors were offhand . There are a number or period instruments; Norrington, Gardiner,Hogwood, 
Jos van Immerseel , Bruggen etc.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

superhorn said:


> There have been a few recordings of the Mahler adaption previously, although I cna't recall who the conductors were offhand . There are a number or period instruments; Norrington, Gardiner,Hogwood,
> Jos van Immerseel , Bruggen etc.


William Steinberg and the Pittsburgh Symphony recorded the Mahler edition a long time ago on Command Classics and very good it was. I wonder where their catalogue is now?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I considered putting this post in the 'Recordings & Publications' forum, but the recordings are not the only thrust of the issue.
> 
> Beethoven - Symphony No. 9 (arranged by Mahler)
> Kristjan Järvi/Tonkünstler-Orchester Niederösterreich
> ...


Very interesting. (And one of the more interesting threads in the whole of TC of late).

You might like to quote the orchestral forces assumed by Mahler. It would be interesting to compare. The reason is according to the sleeve notes I am about to quote, Beethoven's forces at the premiere would easily have rivalled a modern orchestra as far as number of players and singers were concerned. It is not surprsing that forces gradually swelled even more by the time Mahler came along. I am quoting from the sleeve notes that accompany the Christopher Hogwood/Academy of Ancient Music version (the first HIP version), as follows:

_"In a conversation book from March 1824, ... Anton Schindler wrote wrote: 12 to 24 for each part in the chorus are already to hand", and it seems the finl number was about 24 per part.

For the strings, the figures of "24 violins, 10 violas, 12 basses and cellos" were mentioned; these were to consist of members of the theatre orchestra augmented by amateurs from the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde together with a few notable professionals who gave their services out of respect for the composer. Initially, there was to be a single complement of wind instruments, but at rehearsal the tone did not, apparently, seem powerful enough, and it was decided to double the numbers. Doubled wind sections were not uncommon in Viennese orchestras of the period. Beethoven had used doubled wind in his 1813/14 concerts where the Seventh and Eighth Symphonies received their first performances ..."_ Professor Clive Brown

I am curious to see what Mahler presumed were the Beethoven forces. It is not just about size of orchestra but of course the instruments themselves, pitch, vibrato, observing Beethoven's metronome marks etc.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Very interesting. (And one of the more interesting threads in the whole of TC of late).
> 
> You might like to quote the orchestral forces assumed by Mahler. It would be interesting to compare. The reason is according to the sleeve notes I am about to quote, Beethoven's forces at the premiere would easily have rivalled a modern orchestra as far as number of players and singers were concerned. It is not surprsing that forces gradually swelled even more by the time Mahler came along. I am quoting from the sleeve notes that accompany the Christopher Hogwood/Academy of Ancient Music version (the first HIP version), as follows:
> 
> ...


I hear your "very interesting, and match it with one of my own to your post. My only reference in response is to extract bits from the liner notes in the subject Preiser booklet.

In its first paragraph Mahler is quoted thus: "... in Beethoven's time the whole orchestra wasn't as large as the string section alone is today. If you don't get the other instruments into the right proportion to this, it cannot come out the right way. Wagner knew this exactly, but he, to, had to suffer the most terrible attacks because of his view on the topic."

I'm not sure how the quote relates to material further on in the text, which states that in Beethoven's time there were 8 violins for every 2 woodwind instruments, but by 1900 the ration of violins to woodwinds had increased to 20-24 t0 2.

The text goes on to say that Mahler doubled the woodwinds, and added horns, a piccolo, and an E-flat clarinet. In some performermances he further added a bass tuba and a second tympani player. He also added notes to the brass parts, because the modern instruments were able to play "all the required notes". During quiet passages only half of the string section would play.

There is more, but it gets increasingly technical, difficult for this hillbilly to follow. The actual number of instruments per section in his arrangement is not given here, though it must be stated in print somewhere, eh?

What conclusions you can safely manage from this account, I dunno. About all I am be sure of is that it sounds fine to me.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> ... About all I am be sure of is that it sounds fine to me.


That's all it matters. The HIP versions that I have sound surprisingly "Classical" to my ears, as opposed to heavy late Romanticism under some maestros from the 1950s (give or take).


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> That's all it matters. The HIP versions that I have sound surprisingly "Classical" to my ears, as opposed to heavy late Romanticism under some maestros from the 1950s (give or take).


I'm not sure that it should sound "classical" at this stage of Beethoven's life.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> I'm not sure that it should sound "classical" at this stage of Beethoven's life.


Except for the finale of the 9th, which in places sounds either Romantic or Handelian Baroque, your choice, Beethoven's symphonies after the 1st sound very little like Haydn's or Mozart's or anyone elses to me. To what extent they follow the Classical 'rules' I have no idea. I notice effects in music, but seldom know what procedure caused them. Just another case of blissful ignorance.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Just listened to the Gardiner recording (on DG Archiv) this morning. Unlike the Norrington's quickness (which I haven't heard, going by reviews), the pace is much the same as the Mahler-arranged recording above. Duration is about 3 minutes longer, but Mahler made a few small cuts... . Quite enjoyable. The periodness of the instruments fled my notice early on, and Gardiner has better singers. There being several days between hearings, the only _glaring_ difference I noticed in orchestral sound is Mahler's percussion; it's much more up front. The modern instruments are mellower I suppose, but it ain't a big deal.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Ukko said:


> Beethoven - Symphony No. 9 (arranged by Mahler)
> Kristjan Järvi/Tonkünstler-Orchester Niederösterreich
> Stowakischer Philharmonischer Chor
> Preiser Records SACD (Hybrid) PR90773
> ...


Here is the same treatment for Beethoven's symphonies 5 and 7:










And here is an interesting page discussing the Mahler Retuschen.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Florestan said:


> Here is the same treatment for Beethoven's symphonies 5 and 7:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks Florestan, by the way, like the cover also.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Pugg said:


> Thanks Florestan, by the way, like the cover also.


Yeah, but I am sitting on the fence. I don't necessarily like reorchestrations (except with Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition). I refuse to listen to reorchestrations of Handel's Messiah. But now we have a curious case of a man who is right up there with Beethoven as one of the greatest composers, and so it seems we ought to trust that Mahler would handle reorchestration of Beethoven's works with the greatest of respect for the former master. Perhaps I should check it out.


----------

