Dynamics markings in Mahler's Second Symphony -- FIVE p's ?
Robert W. Holzel
While listening to the Mahler Second with score in hand, I noted at
one point that he called for the strings to play "ppppp". Yep,
that's *five* little p's.
Now I ask, is this credible? After achieving three p's, a fourth
would seem next to inaudible. And five, well...
Do other composers resort to this, or is Mahler merely opening himself
up to more accusations of excess.
I love Mahler's music, by the way. I'm just curious.
Rob
David M Tate
at which individual violinists cannot detect the sound that they are making,
but the section as a whole produces a sighing sound, sort of an instrumental
version o"sotto voce".
Of course, my violin skills were never honed to the point of being able to
*do* this and stay in tune, but that's a mere technicality :-).
Incidentally, Rossini calls for sudden swells between ff and ppp in his
"Petite Messe Solennelle", in the vocal parts. Is this credible? To change
that much in the space of 2 beats (andante) and be musical about it?
--
David M. Tate | "The concept of weight of evidence was central
dt...@unix.cis.pitt.edu | to my first book, and occurred also in at least
| 32 other publications [of mine]. What I say 33
"A Man for all Seasonings" | times is true." -- I. J. Good.
music
>
>
>
> While listening to the Mahler Second with score in hand, I noted at
> one point that he called for the strings to play "ppppp". Yep,
> that's *five* little p's.
>
> Now I ask, is this credible? After achieving three p's, a fourth
> would seem next to inaudible. And five, well...
>
> Do other composers resort to this, or is Mahler merely opening himself
> up to more accusations of excess.
>
modern works, such as the music of Babbitt, Stockhausen and other
'serialist' composers 4-5 'f's and/or 'p's is not that unusual. One of
the most remarkable of the early 20th century composers in this
respect is the piano score to Iberia by I. Albeniz, written shortly
before his death in 1909. The dynamics in this extended (apx.80 min.)
work range from 'fffff' to 'ppppp' (with modifiers). I can only assume
this to indicate a _very_ relative dynamic as opposed to the rather obvious
'fff-ppp' range of most other composers. Performers seem to treat this
simply as "very loud" to "very soft".
Steve
James Burgess
volume level of piano reduced four times, but rather a
composers way of calling attention to the fact that he
desires it to be very soft. ... Verdi often will mark
solo voice parts pppp ..... often parts that are nearly
impossible to execute at that tessitura ..... but I think
he wanted it done as closely as possible.
Check out the last note of "Celeste Aida" ..... a high
B flat for dramatic tenor. Not exactly the type of voice
to ask this of. I think he just wanted to make sure it
wasn't screamed.
Another interesting note along these same lines is the
dynamic markings in Wagner's later works. Often the marking
will be 'pp' and in this day and age (especially Jimmy Levine !!!)
they just blare away. I don't think Wagner intended this.
He was a great champion of Italianate singing. The loud Wagner mode
is of this century.... where orchestral texture and lushness
(and the excitement that it brings with it) are valued much
more than a singer's vocal health.
JB>
.............. "Falke, mein Falke, was ist mir das ? " ..............
******************************^^^^^^^^^^^*****************************
Roger Lustig
>While listening to the Mahler Second with score in hand, I noted at
>one point that he called for the strings to play "ppppp". Yep,
>that's *five* little p's.
>Now I ask, is this credible? After achieving three p's, a fourth
>would seem next to inaudible. And five, well...
>Do other composers resort to this, or is Mahler merely opening himself
>up to more accusations of excess.
Actually, it only took Tchaikovsky 5 years to do Gus one better. In the
Pathetique, the clarinet solo in the slow part of the first movement
varies between 3 and 5 p's, swelling all the way up to single p at one
point. The timp and string parts there are similarly marked.
BUT -- the last four notes of the clarinet line are too low for the
instrument, so Pete gave them to the bassoon, and, just to get across
what he meant, marked it pppppp -- yes, SIX p's!
Only one problem, though; the bassoon can't do that so easily. so the
four notes are played by the second clarinetist, who has brought out his
bass clarinet for just this purpose. (The score doesn't call for one.)
One instrument for four pppppp notes...a miracle of modern
reorchestration. 'course, the bass clarinet can play quieter than just
about any other wind instrument.
>I love Mahler's music, by the way. I'm just curious.
So is Mahler's music, on occasion...
Roger
R. Wilmer
Verdi got down to ppppp in Otello. Toscanini, then a cellist in
the orchestra, played what he thought ppppp was. Verdi complained
that he couldn't hear the cello part. When Toscanini respectfully
confronted him with the five p's, Verdi admitted that he didn't
mean ppppp literally, it was just that he could never get the
cellos to play as soft as he wanted.
So you might imagine that Verdi (or Mahler) first writes a pp or ppp
in the score, and then as rehearsals progress and the composer
becomes increasingly frustrated by the part not being as soft
as he wants it, he adds another p and then another.
I studied singing with Zinka Milanov, a soprano who was known
for her pianissimo singing. We worked hour after hour on
how to sing pianissimo for six years (until she died last
spring). The advice she most often gave me was: ``Don't disappear.''
She very rarely said that the pp was not soft enough. Most
of the the work was making sure that the pianissimo sound
was firm and well-supported with plenty of carrying power.
The technique consisted of giving more breath and keeping
the throat open while diminishing the volume (as compared
with many singers who squeeze their throats to sing piano).
She herself was able to sing extraordinarily beautiful
pianissimos on high B-flats in the last acts of Il Trovatore
and La Forza del Destino and on a high C in the Nile
Scene of Aida.
Now when it came to Otello, her part did demand one or
two extra p's beyond pianissimo (at the beginning where Desdemona sings
``Te ne rammenti'' and at the end where she sings ``Salce'').
There Milanov did make a difference, somehow narrowing the
sound down to a more private, intimate sound floating into a silent
house than her full pianissimo of ``Ah come t'amo'' that
effortlessly soared over the strings in the first act of
La Gioconda.
Still in Otello, the part of Iago, has more p's than Desdemona,
particularly in ``Era la Notte'' where he is poisoning Otello's
mind by telling of Cassio's dream. So here I would say that
going beyond ppp means a special effect outside the singer's
bel canto vocal line. It is like a voiced stage whisper
sustained on musical pitches.
The same in Mahler. No, I would not say it is excessive. I
would say instead that unless the markings came from
troubles in the rehearsals before the premiere, Mahler
intends (like Verdi for Iago) a sound that is softer than
is normally sounded even at its softest for that particular
instrument. I think Mahler wanted a special effect.
As Zinka Milanov taught me, if the sound gets so soft that
it loses its intensity and carrying power, then it also loses the
possibility for communicating all the beauty that the
voice (or instrument) is capable of.
So ppppp in Mahler could mean that he doesn't mind losing
that particular beauty. A wind instrument could lose
its firmness, the strings (in your example) could sacrifice
their richness, a chorus could be making a whispering effect.
It is a special, different, striking quality that Mahler wants.
Richard
Robert Coren
> In article <4...@visual.UU.NET> r...@visual.UU.NET (Robert W. Holzel) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>While listening to the Mahler Second with score in hand, I noted at
>>one point that he called for the strings to play "ppppp". Yep,
>>that's *five* little p's.
>>
>
> in the score, and then as rehearsals progress and the composer
> becomes increasingly frustrated by the part not being as soft
> as he wants it, he adds another p and then another.
Well, this is probably not the case in the Mahler 2nd (and it's clear
R. Wilmer doesn't really think so either) because, in one instance
that I recall, the violins are asked to decrescendo from ppp to ppppp.
This is right before the coda to the first movement, and everything is
in the process of vanishing away to nothing.
> So ppppp in Mahler could mean that he doesn't mind losing
> that particular beauty. A wind instrument could lose
> its firmness, the strings (in your example) could sacrifice
> their richness, a chorus could be making a whispering effect.
> It is a special, different, striking quality that Mahler wants.
Indeed. And in practice it means "OK, play as softly as you possibly
can. Now play even softer." And the fact is, of course, that players
can and do do it.
Of course, none of these markings (p, pp, ppp, etc.) have absolute
meanings, and this ppp is probably louder than some others in other
places; the marking may be regarded as unrealistic in some sense, but
it's not frivolous.
Robert
Ulrik Serges
>would seem next to inaudible. And five, well...
>
>Do other composers resort to this, or is Mahler merely opening himself
>up to more accusations of excess.
As well known, Tchaikovsky writes a few bars with pppppp for the basoon in
his Pathetique symphony (first movement, at the end of the exposition).
But basoons can't play that quiet, so this passage is usually taken over by a
bas-clarinet. Cf. Norman Del Mar's fascinating book "The Companion to the
Orchestra", in which many such details are revealed.
--
Ulrik Serges Reply to: ser...@daimi.dk or ser...@kemi.aau.dk
Mark Gresham
>one point that he called for the strings to play "ppppp". Yep,
>that's *five* little p's.
>
>Now I ask, is this credible? After achieving three p's, a fourth
>would seem next to inaudible. And five, well...
>
>Do other composers resort to this, or is Mahler merely opening himself
>up to more accusations of excess.
Actually excesses of accuracy. :-)
Yes, other composers do that.
Would you prefer 5 f's? :-)
Cheers,
--Mark
========================================
Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA
E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham
or: artsnet!mgre...@gatech.edu
========================================
Mark Gresham
>Incidentally, Rossini calls for sudden swells between ff and ppp in his
>"Petite Messe Solennelle", in the vocal parts. Is this credible? To change
>that much in the space of 2 beats (andante) and be musical about it?
I think it depends on other factors for a complete answer, for
example the vowels and tessituras involved. I don't really know
Rossini's "P.M.S." (hey, it's just an abbreviation! :-)) so I
can't say for those particular circumstances. But under otherwise
ideal circumstances, it is quite credible. Bear in mind that a
diminuendo is more difficult to control than a crescendo, in that
situation.
Mark Gresham
I personally haven't used anything below 'ppp' or above
'fff' but I won't say that I never will.
Generally, Though, if I really want something to fade away below
'pp' or 'ppp' I'll use 'dim. al niente' and let the sound vaporize
in performance. If that 'vaprization' isn't physically possible,
I won't use that marking.