MONDAY, APRIL 2, 2012
Gustav Mahler and the Embrace of Failure
See more about MusicaNova Orchestra of Scottsdale at
www.MusicaNovaAz.org
www.MusicaNovaAz.org
Mahler's idea that the a Symphony must "contain the world" led him to move in directions other composers would not consider. To me, one of the most fascinating-and, from a conductor's standpoint most frustrating-is his embrace of failure.
The Ninth Symphony is particularly startling in this regard. We have the second movement, in which the theme of the first part of the movement tries to come back in the second part, and very clunckily and publically fails to hold on. There is the “academic” music in the third movement, trying and failing to be clearly presented-themes and ideas fall over themselves and each other, in the attempt to be properly contrapuntal.When the lovely third theme appears it is mocked by the Eb clarinet bringing back the "academic" main theme (is the musical equivalent of bullying?) The movement ends in a sinister collapse, an angry response to the intractable rigidity of the material.
Overall, the embrace of failure in the middle movements is easy to understand, because the music itself is overtly satirical.What is harder to understand is the failures in the first and last movements. I remember when I first studied the Symphony being slightly disappointed that in both the first and last movements the music reaches an intense climax, comes back down, and then reaches for one more climax that does not quite happen before ending quietly. Structurally, this breaks all the rules. There is at the end, a sense of failed climax, of assertion and will undermined. Worse, this failure is at least partly the point of the music. But how do you communicate that dramatically in a way that is convincing?
The Ninth Symphony is particularly startling in this regard. We have the second movement, in which the theme of the first part of the movement tries to come back in the second part, and very clunckily and publically fails to hold on. There is the “academic” music in the third movement, trying and failing to be clearly presented-themes and ideas fall over themselves and each other, in the attempt to be properly contrapuntal.When the lovely third theme appears it is mocked by the Eb clarinet bringing back the "academic" main theme (is the musical equivalent of bullying?) The movement ends in a sinister collapse, an angry response to the intractable rigidity of the material.
Overall, the embrace of failure in the middle movements is easy to understand, because the music itself is overtly satirical.What is harder to understand is the failures in the first and last movements. I remember when I first studied the Symphony being slightly disappointed that in both the first and last movements the music reaches an intense climax, comes back down, and then reaches for one more climax that does not quite happen before ending quietly. Structurally, this breaks all the rules. There is at the end, a sense of failed climax, of assertion and will undermined. Worse, this failure is at least partly the point of the music. But how do you communicate that dramatically in a way that is convincing?
I must say I am not entirely sure of the answer. Any successful performance must include at least two elements. One is that the large penultimate climax must be extremely intense. The next is that the final failed climax must have a sense of drawn out urgency, of holding on. This will require a slower tempo for the failed final climax. If this is timed right, the collapse will be an essential part of creating the mood of the final minutes of each movement. The extraordinarily melancholic, slightly ironic, wistful and nostalgic mood of the first movement will seem sadder for the previous failure of grandeur. The last movement ends in a mood of serenity that is unique in all music. All the tension is in the silences that dot the last minutes of the piece. Having failed with noise to reach catharsis, the choice of the music is to reach peace through silence-and the failure of the climax is ironically, the key to the success of the music.
Come hear this wonderful work-and its wonderful silences- in the next MusicaNova Orchestra program-on Sunday April 29 at 4PM at Scottsdale Center for the Performing Arts .
THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012
Embracing the World of Gustav Mahler
See more about MusicaNova Orchestra of Scottsdale at
www.MusicaNovaAz.org
In the fall of 1907, occurred one of those moments in history where I imagine many people, myself included, would have loved to have been a fly on the wall. Gustav Mahler arrived in Helsinki to conduct a concert, and during his stay there spent a day with Jean Sibelius. At the time, no one could imagine that one hundred years later these two men would be considered the two greatest symphonists of the era. Mahler was more famous as a conductor, and his music was considered eccentric, and Sibelius was just starting to become an international figure. It seems that they got along well enough, although there was no immediate spark, and Sibelius did not ask Mahler to conduct his music (nor did Mahler offer to). They did have what sounds like a most interesting discussion on the meaning of a Symphony. Mahler thought a Symphony should be "like the world" and "embrace everything" (he was working on No.8 at the time) while Sibelius thought that a Symphony was all about "the inner logic that unites all the themes by an inner band". When moving from preparing a Sibelius Symphony to preparing a Mahler Symphony I was immediately struck by the emotional difference created by preparing such different works. In both cases, you try to work out balances, you try to create a complete picture of the whole, you work relentlessly on transitions, but I find that despite the fact that Mahler's themes have a great deal of internal connections, what matters most is finding the right color for every moment of the score, whereas with Sibelius it was trying to see how each moment fit into and enhanced the whole work. I felt there were very few options for developing and building climaxes in Sibelius, and that we had to work them out within certain parameters or the work would not read correctly. In the case of Mahler, there seemed to be many more possibilities (and certainly the diversity of successful performances supports that idea) but one must create unity through the use and development of color rather than the thematic material itself.
And the colors in Mahler are quite something. Both middle movements depend on creating a calculated satirical effect, which means doing away with conventional notions of what sounds good and "pretty". I heard somewhere-I wish I could find or remember the source- that Mahler thought the second movement was everything he hated about the country and the third was everything he hated about the city. The second, with its clumsy and vulgar popular music and folk ideas, and the overt satire of academic music in the third movement present real challenges to the interpreter. Do you go overboard on all of this? How clearly do you underline the satire? How vulgar should the Eb Clarinet really be? Will the audience know you are joking? Do you aim for clarity in the third movement in the moments where there is too much happening at once, or do you underline that the whole thing is really a mess? Then there is the supreme challenge of the piece-the last page of the last movement, where music and silence merge, where it is almost impossible in a good performance to know when the piece has ended. How do you manage that?
I am still in the process of working through all this, and there are no right answers. I already know that preparing Mahler means embracing the extreme things he throws at you, and it means breaking down musical inhibitions. If you do it right, the audience will also experience the catharsis of something incredibly intense, inspirational and profound. Come hear this wonderful work in the next MusicaNova Orchestra program-on Sunday April 29 at 4PM at Scottsdale Center for the Performing Arts .
No comments:
Post a Comment