Mahler 6 Hammer Blows
Stephen
Can anyone tell me if a recording is available/exists that includes the
third hammer blow in the last movement of Mahler's 6th Symphony? So far
research would suggest that the 1970's Solti Chicago SO recording included
it but I don't think that's available any longer as a single symphony issue.
Thanks
Stephen
boombox
Lenny in New York for starters.
eugen
frankly, I would not take it very seriously, if I remember well, that
third hammer of destiny was Alma's advice. I think Boulez also does
it.
Eugen
J.Martin
> Can anyone tell me if a recording is available/exists that includes the
> third hammer blow in the last movement of Mahler's 6th Symphony?
Didn't Zander's recording on Telarc include alternate versions of the
finale, one of which included the third hammer blow?
I culled my copy long ago but that's my vague recollection.
Stephen
that the third blow doesn't actually come where most people think, the
finale massive climax but a few bars later at the end of the harp glissadi
and final hammering of the fate motif on the timps. In that respect I
didn't think the Lenny NYPO did include it, IMHO.
Cheers (you need a drink after that music) !
Stephen
"Stephen" <arno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZiFvn.817119$Dy7.2...@newsfe26.ams2...
CharlesSmith
> Thanks for that. I should explain I am trying to prove a point to someone
> that the third blow doesn't actually come where most people think, the
> finale massive climax but a few bars later at the end of the harp glissadi
> and final hammering of the fate motif on the timps. In that respect I
> didn't think the Lenny NYPO did include it, IMHO.
I heard Bertini and OdP in concert many years ago, including all three
blows. Their hammer was very long, swinging slowly through 180 degrees
to impact. Bertini must have watched it very carefully to bring in the
rest of the orchestra in sync. I've heard many performances since, all
missing the third blow, and I'm quite happy with that. It seems to me
that the first two blows have enormous consequences, impelling the
music forward in new directions. The third is just an effect, and it
comes neither at the final tutti climax nor at the final death-blow.
It doesn't carry the same the same significance for the musical
structure. So better without it. IMHO.
Charles
boombox
Stephen wrote:
> Thanks for that. I should explain I am trying to prove a point to someone
> that the third blow doesn't actually come where most people think, the
> finale massive climax but a few bars later at the end of the harp glissadi
> and final hammering of the fate motif on the timps. In that respect I
> didn't think the Lenny NYPO did include it, IMHO.
Unfortunately, due to the variety of means by which conductors try to
make the hammer blows, it's often difficult to tell if they are
playing the third blow even if you're following the score or waiting
for it. It's been quite a while since I heard the Bernstein/NYPO, but
I recall from the notes at the time that it was supposed to be
included. There is no doubt about where it should be, at bar 783.
It's a confusing textual situation, as Mahler inserted the blows after
writing the finale and at one point had as many as 5 in there. During
the early run of performances he also made several orchestration
changes to the finale, so one has to make a lot of editiorial
decisions. All the blows he removed (bars 9, 530, and eventually 783)
come at the same musical gesture, the rising strings follwed by the
"fate" motive and drum rhythm, which is one of the reasons it seems
logical to leave the third one out.
M forever
Where is that in relation to the rehearsal numbers? The score on imslp
does not have bar numbers.
CharlesSmith
It's 7 bars before rehearsal number 165.
M forever
> tenth or eleventh bar after 164 (I'm nor quite sure how to count from a
> rehearsal number).
? The concept is fairly straightforward: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and so on.
Thanks for looking that up!
JM
> Thanks for that. I should explain I am trying to prove a point to someone
> that the third blow doesn't actually come where most people think, the
> finale massive climax but a few bars later at the end of the harp glissadi
> and final hammering of the fate motif on the timps. In that respect I
> didn't think the Lenny NYPO did include it, IMHO.
As another poster stated, the third hammerblow occurs on the downbeat
of measure 783, which is seven measures before figure [165]. It does
not occur ten measures before that (at figure [164]), even though
that's the point where it seems that it should occur, taking the
placement of the first two blows into consideration.
It's said that Bernstein included the third hammerblow in his 1967
NYPO recording, but if he did, it's buried under the other percussion
activity at that point. Curiously (and this may be what's confusing
your friend), in Bernstein's 1988 Vienna recording on DG, he very
clearly reinstates the third hammerblow, but he places it at the wrong
spot—ten measures before it's written—the spot where, as you say,
"most people think it should be." I've never heard any explanation for
this odd decision.
There are several recordings which very clearly reinstate the third
hammerblow in the proper spot—off the top of my head: Zander (both
Boston and London PO), Thomas Sanderling, and Segerstam.
There is a greater issue to be considered when replacing the third
hammerblow. At the time Mahler removed the third hammerblow, he also
made massive changes to the orchestration of the entire work. The
final modified version is what has been published as the Universal
Critical Edition, which of course indicates only two hammerblows. The
original version is available in the Eulenburg Edition pocket score
and in the cheaper Dover Edition. The problem is, when you place the
third hammerblow back into the revised version, you're creating a
hybrid that Mahler never imagined. Ben Zander claims to have done this
properly, but he really only reverted to the original orchestration in
the area immediately surrounding the third hammerblow, ignoring the
massive changes to the rest of the symphony.
James
CharlesSmith
>
> There are several recordings which very clearly reinstate the third
> hammerblow in the proper spot—off the top of my head: Zander (both
> Boston and London PO), Thomas Sanderling, and Segerstam.
? I've just tried Sanderling as an example, and I can't hear it.
> There is a greater issue to be considered when replacing the third
> hammerblow. At the time Mahler removed the third hammerblow, he also
> made massive changes to the orchestration of the entire work. The
> final modified version is what has been published as the Universal
> Critical Edition, which of course indicates only two hammerblows. The
> original version is available in the Eulenburg Edition pocket score
> and in the cheaper Dover Edition.
And is also what you see on imslp.
Charles
JM
> On 9 Apr, 22:35, JM <jmeck...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There are several recordings which very clearly reinstate the third
> > hammerblow in the proper spot—off the top of my head: Zander (both
> > Boston and London PO), Thomas Sanderling, and Segerstam.
>
> ? I've just tried Sanderling as an example, and I can't hear it.
Charles,
I just checked and you're right. Sanderling did not do the third blow.
That's what I get for speaking "off the top of my head."
James
Ed Romans
> spot—ten measures before it's written—the spot where, as you say,
> "most people think it should be." I've never heard any explanation for
> this odd decision.
are you sure the extremely loud spot you are referring to involves the
hammer? A dull thud appears later in the correct place and in the
video version from 1970s, the VPO appear to use an enormous wooden
hammer onto a wooden platform with a very dull sound that is not
especially loud.
Ed
JM
> are you sure the extremely loud spot you are referring to involves the
> hammer? A dull thud appears later in the correct place and in the
> video version from 1970s, the VPO appear to use an enormous wooden
> hammer onto a wooden platform with a very dull sound that is not
> especially loud.
Ed,
The only way I could be *sure* is to have been present at the
recording sessions, which I was not. It's a conclusion I've come to
based on the following observations:
1) There's nothing in the score at [164] to account for an "extremely
loud" event except a bass drum note, a timpani roll, and a tam-tam
strike, all marked just forte.
2) The tone quality of the extremely loud event at [164] doesn't match
the tone qualities of the Vienna bass drum, timpani, or tam-tam when
played at other spots in the recording independent of the hammer, even
at levels above forte.
3) The tone quality of the extremely loud event at [164] *does* match
the other two known hammerblows earlier in movement.
4) I hear nothing in the percussion department seven measures before
[165] except the bass drum and timpani, this time marked fortissimo. I
hear nothing there matching the tone quality of the two known
hammerblows, even considering that it might be being played at a lower
dynamic level.
Of course they may or may not have used the same gargantuan wooden
mallet in 1988 as they did in 1976. The results don't sound the same
to me.
I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on all of this.
James
operafan
Zander recorded both versions of the last movement.
CharlesSmith
>
> There is a greater issue to be considered when replacing the third
> hammerblow. At the time Mahler removed the third hammerblow, he also
> made massive changes to the orchestration of the entire work. The
> final modified version is what has been published as the Universal
> Critical Edition, which of course indicates only two hammerblows. The
> original version is available in the Eulenburg Edition pocket score
> and in the cheaper Dover Edition. The problem is, when you place the
> third hammerblow back into the revised version, you're creating a
> hybrid that Mahler never imagined. Ben Zander claims to have done this
> properly, but he really only reverted to the original orchestration in
> the area immediately surrounding the third hammerblow, ignoring the
> massive changes to the rest of the symphony.
>
> James
Are you aware of any recordings using the original version without the
other myriad changes to the orchestration? I would be interested, for
example, to hear the massive final climax (at no 164) without that
tasteless celeste chord half way through the bar as the climax
disintegrates.
Charles
Anonymous
WARDY IS THE USENET KING OF STOOPID!!!!!!!
AntiTroll Third
"Anonymous" and posting from email address
<cripto(AT)ecn.org> wrote:
> F*CK [troll trash snipped]
"PIGBOY's" attention has been momentarily distracted from
his habitual infatuation with animal sex.
Mr. "PIGBOY," AKA "George Orwell," WHY are you so obsessed
about zoophilic sex???
It must be that you are having flashback memories of your
late mother, Danish porn actress Bodil Joensen? She made
a porn classic called "Animal Farm," which is how you got
your "George Orwell" name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodil_Joensen
[***WARNING***-***WARNING***-***WARNING***-***WARNING*** :
Non-trolls should NOT click on the link in
Reference 7 of this Wikipedia article! (It shows BOTH of
the "PIGBOY's" parents in an intimate moment.) In fact,
non-trolls should probably avoid looking at the
Wikipedia article at all; it might give them nightmares.
No wonder the PIGBOY is such a mess!!!]
Just as Barack Hussein Obama is the first half-white person
to serve as President of the United States, PIGBOY is the
first HALF-PIG to serve as an internet troll.
PIGBOY is obsessed with human-pig sex relations because
that is how PIGBOY came to be born.
PIGBOY is 50% BOAR, but 100% BOOR and 1000% BORE!!! ;-)
- Anti-Troll-01
JM
>
> Are you aware of any recordings using the original version without the
> other myriad changes to the orchestration? I would be interested, for
> example, to hear the massive final climax (at no 164) without that
> tasteless celeste chord half way through the bar as the climax
> disintegrates.
>
> Charles
I'd love to hear such a recording. I'm told that the F. Charles Adler
recording from 1952 with the Vienna Symphony (not Philharmonic) is of
the original version, but I've been unable to confirm that, and it's
very hard to find.
James
Ed Romans
I've now listened all the way the movement through at a louder volume
than was possible last night!
> 3) The tone quality of the extremely loud event at [164] *does* match
> the other two known hammerblows earlier in movement.
I agree it does stand out as an enormous whack of some kind and is
similar to the others, though my speakers can't really cope and its
hard to resolve what's happening. If anything it is louder than the
other two. The only thing is that the reverb on the sound is quite
long (maybe that's the other percussion)?
>
> 4) I hear nothing in the percussion department seven measures before
> [165] except the bass drum and timpani, this time marked fortissimo.
I'm not an expert on percussion effects possible with drums/timps but
to me the sound here damps very quickly more like the hammer on the
video version.
Ed
boombox
JM wrote:
>
> I'd love to hear such a recording. I'm told that the F. Charles Adler
> recording from 1952 with the Vienna Symphony (not Philharmonic) is of
> the original version, but I've been unable to confirm that, and it's
> very hard to find.
>
I don't think Adler is the original version. It omits the third
hammer blow and uses the revised orchestration where that blow would
have been.
boombox
CharlesSmith wrote:
> I would be interested, for
> example, to hear the massive final climax (at no 164) without that
> tasteless celeste chord half way through the bar as the climax
> disintegrates.
>
Mahler didn't really get the "taste" thing until he moved to New York.
Christopher Webber
>Yes, but is the bar with the the rehearsal number included when you
>count?
The usual rehearsal language from conductors would be "two after H" or
"three before Y" etc. etc.
"2 after H" would thus mean the second bar of section H, as the letter
is (normally) *on* the barline.
--
___________________________
Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK.
http://www.zarzuela.net
CharlesSmith
wrote:
>
> "2 after H" would thus mean the second bar of section H, as the letter
> is (normally) *on* the barline.
> --
So what would "1 after H" mean?
CharlesSmith
No doubt, but this is extreme. At the moment our hero is about to be
struck down dead by the hammer of fate, we hear, from the back of the
orchestra, the sound of a cash till. What are we supposed to make of
it? Perhaps his children have got a sale for those cows that were
making such a noise earlier?
boombox
Somehow, I've never found the celesta chords cheesy. The New Viennese
liked the celesta for its other worldly or spooky qualities, so
Mahler's use of it here would seem to fit with that taste.
Interestingly, the instrument had only been around for 20 years at the
time, so it was newer to them than the synthesizer is to us today.
Bob Lombard
According to Professor Schickele, the celesta should be considered the
castrato of instruments, because it was first used by Tchaikovsky in
"The Nutcracker". Hey, it's his story, I'm just passing it on.
bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
CharlesSmith
Yes, the spooky is probably what he intended. I thought there might
also be a musical purpose for the addition. Without the chord your ear
would have a whole bar to decide that it's heard a perfect cadence,
which would be too final, so Mahler wanted to destroy that illusion at
the half-bar.
Christopher Webber
>So what would "1 after H" mean?
Confusion! (though on the spot I'd take it as meaning the same as "2
after H"!!)
If you wanted H, you'd just say "Letter H". But frankly, this is Angels
and Pinheads. In most cases it's obvious where the rehearsal pickup
point will be.
Alan Dawes
<b5dde873-d445-4266...@30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
boombox <boo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> JM wrote:
This is at odds with the Gramophone review in December 1962 of the Delta
LPs of "MAHLER. Symphony No. 6 in A minor. Vienna Philharinonia Orchestra
conducted by Charles Adler. Delta
DEL12007-8 (two 12 in., 58s. 4d. plus 18s. P.T.)"
If one assumes that by the Vienna Philharinonia Orchestra they really mean
the Vienna Symphony O then it says near the end "The three famous
hammer-blows, by the way, are clearly audible˜the only time this has
happened, in my experience". See:
http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/December%201962/44/843689/MAHLER.+Symphony+No.+6+in+A+minor.+Vienna+Philharinonia+Orchestra+conducted+by+Charles+Adler.+Delta
Conifer Records in 1997 remastering and issued a 2 CD set of Charles
Adler's perfomances with the VSO of the mahler 3rd 6th and 10th (2
movements) the set number is Conifer Classics 75605 51279 2
Alan
--
alan....@argonet.co.uk
alan....@riscos.org
Using an Acorn RiscPC
boombox
Alan Dawes wrote:
> This is at odds with the Gramophone review in December 1962 of the Delta
> LPs of "MAHLER. Symphony No. 6 in A minor. Vienna Philharinonia Orchestra
> conducted by Charles Adler. Delta
> DEL12007-8 (two 12 in., 58s. 4d. plus 18s. P.T.)"
> If one assumes that by the Vienna Philharinonia Orchestra they really mean
> the Vienna Symphony O then it says near the end "The three famous
> hammer-blows, by the way, are clearly audible�the only time this has
> happened, in my experience". See:
It's getting to be a case of "what did you hear and when did you hear
it?"
I haven't heard the Adler since I took the LPs out of my local
library40 when I was a kid, but this is from a survey of Mahler 6
recordings by Stan Ruttenberg, which was published by the Colorado
MahlerFest:
"The opening is mysterious, and at measure 8 the fine harp glissando
is heard clearly, whereas in the preceding movements the harp tended
to be much recessed, as it is a few measures later. The next section
is admirably played by winds, low brass, tuba, etc., but the great
timpani strokes at RN 107 are recessed. Building up the first blow,
Adler does not quite get the manic exuberance others do, and the first
hammer blow is weak, no doubt a result of the microphone set-up. The
brass passages leading up to RN 134 - 3 are quite good and Adler does
get a good syncopation in the timpani, as good as most, but nowhere
near the most striking [Horenstein, Olson!]. The second hammer blow is
somewhat better and, fascinatingly, the second tam-tam blow at RN 140
+ 1 is quite clear. I am not sure I ever noticed it before. The build-
up to where the third hammer blow was to be is good, but Adler does
not take the third blow. I do think, however, that he does use the
revised score for that measure. The final measures are fine but not
done justice by the recording."
M forever
> count?
I know what you meant. I was just kidding. Yes, the bar is included.
So if you start at rehearsal 165 or K, you just say 165 or K, and if
you want to start a bar later, then you say 2 after 165. So if 165 is,
say bar 755, then starting at 165 would mean starting at bar 755 and 2
after 165 would mean bar 756.
M forever
What is that supposed to mean?
JM
>
> Conifer Records in 1997 remastering and issued a 2 CD set of Charles
> Adler's perfomances with the VSO of the mahler 3rd 6th and 10th (2
> movements) the set number is Conifer Classics 75605 51279 2
Alan,
Thanks for the information. I'll try to track down a copy of this
release as I'd be curious to heard it no matter what version it
actually is. Surely, though, it was at least *three* CDs—unless Adler
took ridiculous tempi and/or made massive cuts, there's no way M3, M6,
and half of M10 would fit on a two-CD set.
James
boombox
It means I didn't find the celesta chord tasteless.
Bob Lombard
'boombox' threw a knuckleball and you swung through it. In this
instance it isn't a language thing, more like an appreciation of the
absurd. The knuckleball is an absurd pitch, really.
Alan Dawes
<babb212b-3bea-42a8...@r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
JM <jmec...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2:09 pm, Alan Dawes <alan.da...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Conifer Records in 1997 remastering and issued a 2 CD set of Charles
> > Adler's perfomances with the VSO of the mahler 3rd 6th and 10th (2
> > movements) the set number is Conifer Classics 75605 51279 2
> Alan,
> Thanks for the information. I'll try to track down a copy of this
> release as I'd be curious to heard it no matter what version it
> actually is. Surely, though, it was at least *three* CDs-unless Adler
> took ridiculous tempi and/or made massive cuts, there's no way M3, M6,
> and half of M10 would fit on a two-CD set.
> James
Sorry my mistake. I've had a quick look for the CDs but cann't find them,
I think they are in one of the boxes in the loft! However I have found in
my list of CDs that it was 3 CDs with CD1 containing Mahler 10 (edited by
Ernst Krenek) mov.1 & 2 and Mahler 6 mov.1-3, CD2 has the finale of the
6th and Mahler 3 1st movement with CD3 contining the rest. With the Vienna
Symphony Orchestra were Hilde Rossl-Majdan (contralto) the Vienna boys
Choir and the Chorus of the Vienna State Opera.
My introduction to Mahler's 3rd goes back to a performance at the Festival
Hall London conducted by Jascha Horenstein on 18th March 1965 followed by
buying a tatty second hand copy of the Adler version on the Delta LPs from
a stall just off Charing Cross Road.