|
Title and Programming
Mahler conducted ten complete performances of the Symphony
between 1895 and 1910, and in every case its title was entirely
non-programmatic (see the
list of performances for details). Mahler also gave three
partial performances in the years 1895–6 and in the second of
these, on
16 March 1896, the first movement was identified as
„Todtenfeier” (I. Satz aus der Symphonie in
C-moll für grosses Orchester), the only occasion Mahler used
a programmatic title in connection with a performance. As the
descriptions of the early
printed editions demonstrate, none of the early publications
included a programmatic element in the work's title. The
earliest reference located so far to the work as the
Auferstehungs-sinfonie appears in an anonymous review of a
performance
given at a Leipzig concert in memory of Mahler, conducted by
Arthur Nikisch in the autumn of 1911 (NZfM
78/44 (2 November 1911), 625), but up to the end of 1914
such formulations appear to have been rarely used.
Fig. 1
Handbill for the first complete
performance
There
is evidence that although Mahler preferred to perform the
Symphony at concerts in which it was the only work, four of his
performances were in programmes that included other items: in
three of these the Symphony was the final work. In all four
cases Mahler may well have been responding to local or
institutional traditions affecting concert duration, and both
attitudes – his preferences and his pragmatism – were reflected in
a letter responding to Oskar Fried's enquiry seeking advice
about the programming of the work at a concert he was to conduct
in Berlin on 8 November 1905 (GMUB,
52;
GMUBE,
51–2):
Wäre es aber
nicht möglich das Werk, das über 1½ Stunden dauert,
ganz allein zu bringen (wie ich seinerzeit und
überall gethan?[)] — Dieß ist nur eine unmaßgebliche
Bemerkung, denn die Berliner Verhältniße müssen Sie
ja besser kennen. |
Would it not be
possible to perform this work, which lasts more than
1½ hours, by itself (which I did there and
everywhere) — This is only my uninformed opinion,
since you must know the circumstances in Berlin
better than I do. |
Additional Literary Sources and
Programmatic References
a) The first movement
clearly reflects the impact of Adam Mickiewicz's Dziady,
in Sigfried Lipiner's translation as Todtenfeier
(Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1887): see
SHMMT, 158–260 for an extended and insightful account.
b) The first edition of the
vocal score
of Urlicht prints an additional text from Clemens Brentano's Gockel, Hinkel,
Gackeleia beneath bb. 3–13 of the accompaniment:
Stern und Blume!
Geist und Kleid!
Lieb' und Leid!
Zeit! Ewigkeit!
Many years later Anna Mahler told Henry-Louis
de La Grange that Mahler delighted in reading this story to his
eldest daughter, Maria (Putzi) (HLGIII,
690). The song was (probably) composed in 1893, but the
autograph of the voice and piano version of the
original solo
song, prepared before Mahler decided to incorporate it into
the Symphony, is lost, so it is not known whether the reference
to the unsung text was part of that version; it does not appear
in the earliest surviving autograph, Mahler's full score of the
song. On the other hand the
history of this unsung text reveals strong connections with
the themes of death and resurrection that are central to the
latter work. c) Edward Reilly pointed out
that the connection between the text of Urlicht and the
Last Judgement is made explicit in the closely related 'Vom jüngste Tage', the last
poem of
Jungbrunnen, a popular collection of German folksongs
edited by Georg Scherer (ERSTS,
5–7). Mahler could have known this volume, or some of the
earlier printed collections that contain versions of this text,
and it is worth noting that the penultimate poem in
Jungbrunnen is the Erntelied published by Brentano in
the first volume as Des Knaben Wunderhorn. The later,
much-expanded version of that text in his Gockel, Hinkel,
Gackeleia is the source of the unsung quatrain discussed in
note (b).
d) The autograph score of the last movement (AF2)
contains two programmatic headings. Der Rufer in der Wüste!
on fol. 81v refers to passages in both the Old and New Testament
– e.g. Isaiah 40:3 ('The
voice of him that crieth in the wilderness'), Matthew 3:3, Mark
1:3, Luke 3:4 and John 4:3 – and relates to the
horn solo in b. 43ff.
Der grosse Apell on fol. 105r refers to 1
Corinthians 15:52 ('In
a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible,
and we shall be changed) and relates to the passage
starting at b. 449. These headings were retained in the early
printed editions –
PF1,
PF1b,
PF2,
PT2p4
and
PTp4 – and were printed in the movement description in the
programme of the important performance, under Mahler, at
Basel in June 1903; they were omitted from the first edition of
the study score (PS1,
1906) and all later printings of it and the full
score.
Related Works
a) The third movement incorporates an orchestral
transcription of Mahler's Des Antonius von
Padua Fischpredigt (Lieder aus Des Knaben Wunderhorn, No.
6).
b) The fourth movement, Urlicht, was originally
composed as an independent song and was later included as No. 12 in
the published piano and voice and orchestral sets of the Lieder aus
Des Knaben Wunderhorn. The orchestral song version is scored
for a smaller ensemble than that used in the Symphony:
AF (Song)
1893 |
AF1
(Symph.)
1894 |
PF1
(Symph.)
1897 |
PF1
(Song)
1898–99 |
Fl 1–2 (=picc)
Ob 1–2 (=ca)
Cl 1–2 in B
Bsn 1
Cbsn (=bsn 2) |
Fl 1–2 (=picc)
Ob 1–2
Cl 1–3 in B
Bsn 1–2
Bsn 3 (=cbsn) |
Fl 1–2, Fl 3–4 (=picc)
Ob 1–2, Ca
Cl 1–3 in B
Bsn 1–2
Bsn 3 (=cbsn) |
Fl 1–2 (=picc)
Ob 1–2 (=ca)
Cl 1–2 in B
Bsn 1
Cbsn (=bsn 2) |
|
|
|
|
Hn 1–4 in F
Trp 1–2 in F |
Hn 1–4 in F
Trp 1–2 in F
Trb 1–4 |
Hn 1–6 in F*
Trp 1–3 in F
Trb 1–4 |
Hn 1–4 in F
Trp 1–2 in F |
Glock.
Harp |
Glock.
Harp 1–2 |
Glock.
Harp 1–2 |
Glock.
Harp 1–2 |
Strings |
Strings |
Strings |
Strings |
* [Hn 1–2]
neben den beiden Harfen zu placieren
Table 1
Quotations and Self-Borrowings
a) The first movement (bb. 270ff.) and the finale (bb. 62ff.)
quote the opening of the Dies irae plainchant.
b) The head-motive of the E major theme in the third
movement, bb. 257–60 is an allusion to the opening theme of the
scherzo in Hans Rott's Symphony in E major.
c) The closing bars of the third movement, bb. 577–81, quote
the end of 'Das ist ein Flöten und Geigen' from Schumann's
Dichterliebe, bb. 80–4.
Movement order
A number of the manuscript sources suggest that Mahler
changed his mind about the order of the inner movements: the
orchestral draft of the Scherzo (OD3; 16 July 1893)
is numbered '2' and that of the Andante (OD2;
30 July 1893) is numbered '4'. If Urlicht was considered
as another inner movement in the summer of 1893 and was
therefore notionally no. 3, it is striking that the numbering
sequence corresponds to the order in which the draft full scores
of the three movements were completed (see the
chronology above). However, there is other evidence that at that
time Mahler had not definitively decided on the inclusion of the
song in the Symphony: the first orchestral score of the
song (DKW12
AF; 19 July 1893) identifies the work as aus des Knaben
Wunderhorn / Nr. 7, and when, towards the end of his
1893 vacation, Mahler made an unsuccessful attempt to begin work
on the finale, he commented to Natalie Bauer-Lechner (NBL2,
28;
HLG1,
276 (revised, with editorial underlining)):
Läst du mir die Tücke des Objects
statt des 4/4 Taktes, den ich zum vierten
Satz brauche, jetzt lauter 3/4 Takte einfallen, mit
denen ich nichts zu tun anfangen kann! |
Things have a nasty will of their
own. Instead of ideas in 4/4, which I need for the
fourth movement, I now have only ideas in 3/4
time, with which I can do nothing! |
After attending
Hans von Bülow's funeral service on 29 March 1894 Mahler sketched
a setting of Klopstock's opening stanzas, followed by an orchestral interlude
that included a reference to
bb. 23–4/59–60 from Urlicht (=S5.4).¹
This allusion does not appear at this point in
the final version of the movement, and the editors of NKGII
conclude that its appearance in the sketch 'is probably not an
indication that Mahler had already decided to incorporate the
entire song.' (vol. 2, 6, 94); nevertheless its presence in this
early sketch does indicate that at some level the song resonated
in Mahler's imagination as he notated his first ideas for the
finale and moreover, there is a reference to precisely this
phrase in the final version of the movement, at bb. 640ff.
A notable biographical source, the memoirs
of J.B. Foerster, offers some interesting evidence about this
chronological conundrum (JBFDP,
406; translation from NKGII.2,
95):
Der Schlußsatz
der Zweiten Symphonie lag in der Skizze fertig vor.
Über seine Wirkungskraft konnte es keinen Zweifel
geben [...] Doch wie sollte sich die Verbindung
finden, die zwingende Verbindung zwischen dem
Scherzo und diesem Schluß? Die Erwägung dauerten
lange Zeit und es wurde mancher Einfall verforfen,
ehe Mahler bei der Durchsicht älterer Lieder auf den
Gedanken verfiel, vor das Finale einen gesungen
Worttext zu setzen. So wurde das 1892 auf einen Text
aus Des Knaben Wunderhorn, also aus Mahlers
hauptsächlichster Liederquelle, komponierte Lied „Urlicht”
als vierter Satz in die Zweite Symphonie verpflanzt |
The sketch of
the final movement of the Second Symphony was
finished. There could be no doubt as to its effect
[...] But how could the connection be found, the
compelling connection between the Scherzo and this
finale? The reflections took a long time, and many
ideas were rejected, until Mahler, as he was
examining older songs, came upon the idea to place a
sung text before the Finale. Thus the song 'Urlicht',
composed in 1892 on a text from Des Knaben
Wunderhorn – Mahler's principal text source for his
songs – became the fourth movement of the Second
Symphony. |
If Foerster correctly recalled the events
of 1894, the reference to the 'sketch' in this account seems to
suggest that the decision to include Urlicht was made
between 29 June 1894 (the completion of the composition draft of
the finale) and, at the latest, 25 July (the completion of the orchestral
draft of the movement ([OD5]) (NKGII.2, 7, 95). However, in the partial manuscript copy of the
work prepared
in the autumn of 1894 (ACF1),
the scherzo is placed second, and the Andante third, although both the
handbill for the
partial première in March 1895 and the
reviews (see
HLG1, 319–21) make it clear that the movements were played
in the now familiar sequence. One might also note that in the complete autograph full score (AF2;
completed on 18 December 1894) only Urlicht is numbered
in ink: '4'. The remaining movements are all numbered in blue
crayon and the fascicle structure is such that the Andante and
Scherzo could have been in reverse order when the manuscript was
originally prepared, and placed in their present sequence only
at a later date; the fascicles were in the final order when the
pencil foliation was supplied. Whether these features should be
interpreting as evidence that even as late December 1894 the
number and sequence of movements was still uncertain is a matter
for conjecture: in the absence of crucial primary sources the
chronology remains unclear.
However, in
October 1901, at the time of the Munich
première of the Symphony, Mahler, in conversation with
Natalie Bauer-Lechner, recalled his indecision about the order of
movements (NBL2,
169):²
In diesen Tagen Sprach Mahler wieder
davon, daß er sich das Andante der Zweiten, als zu
verschieden in der Stimmung, an anderer Stelle
wünsche. „Ich dachte schon daran, das Scherzo nach
dem ersten Satz und darauf das Andante, vor dem „Urlicht‟,
folgen zu lassen. Aber das vertrug die Ökonomie des
Werkes nicht, weil Andante und „Urlicht‟, die bei
dieser Anordnung unmittelbar hintereinander kämen,
nicht genug gegensätzlich in der Stimmung sind. Auch
wären dann die Tonarten in ihren Folge zu verwandt
gewesen, während jetzt darin das richtige Verhältnis
besteht. |
During these days Mahler once again
spoke of his wanting the Andante of the
Second, being so different in mood, to be placed
elsewhere. "I thought about placing the Scherzo
after the first movement, followed by the Andante
before "Urlicht". But the internal relationships of
the work would not tolerate that, because the
Andante and "Urlicht", which came immediately after
one another in this arrangement, are not
sufficiently different in mood. Also, in that order
the keys would have been too closely related, while
now there the correct relationship exists. |
This seems to be an important statement of
principles, that (a) similarity of mood and/or tonality was
undesirable between adjacent movements; but that (b) it was
possible for an extreme contrast in mood between adjacent
movements to be troubling. In the case of the Second such
considerations led the composer to contemplate a different
ordering of movements and it was apparently the first principle
that took precedence in his decision making process:
Original
and final key sequence
C minor - A major
- C minor - D major
- F minor/G major/E
major
Alternative
sequence
C minor - C minor - A
major
- D major
- F minor/G major/E
major
Apart from the lack of mood and strong key
contrast between the third and fourth movements in the
alternative sequence, it may be that Mahler was also doubtful
about beginning the work with two movements
in the same key and mode: more than ten years later it was clearly again
the crucial issue behind Mahler's decision to reorder the inner
movements of the Sixth Symphony.
Movement Grouping
All published editions and issues of the
full score agree in the their instructions placed at the ends of
three of the movements: a pause of at least five minutes after the first
movement, and the last three movements to be played without
breaks. This suggests a movement grouping that is not wholly
congruent with those implied by the programmes: the
January 1896 programme associates the first three movements,
but does not explicitly link the fourth and fifth together; the
March 1896 programme links the second and third movements
together (as intermezzi) and tacitly links the fourth and fifth
movements. The layout and text of the
1901 programme is explicit in its tripartite division with
Urlicht being part of the central group of three
intermezzi and this finds an echo in a letter from Mahler to
Julius Buths (25 March 1903 ) in connection with a
forthcoming performance of the work in Düsseldorf (GMB,
315–6;
GMSL, 269):
Demnach wäre also die Hauptpause im
Konzert zwischen 4. und 5. Satz. Ich staune über das
Feingefühl, mit dem Sie (im Gegensatz zu meiner
eigenen Angabe) den naturgemäßen Einschnitt im Werke
erkannt haben. Ich bin schon lange dieser Ansicht,
in welcher mich auch alle Aufführungen, die ich
bisher geleitet, immer wieder aufs neue bestärkt
haben. |
Well then, this would mean that the
main interval in the concert would be between the
fourth and fifth movements. I marvel at the
sensitive intuition with which you (in contrast with
my own arrangement) have recognized the natural
break in the work. I have long tended to this view,
and all the performances I have hitherto conducted
have reinforced the same impression. |
Trotzdem müßte allerdings auch nach
dem 1. Satze eine ausgiebige Sammlungspause
eintreten, weil der 2. Satz nicht als Gegensatz,
sondern als bloße Diskrepanz nach dem 1. wirkt. Es
ist dies meine Schuld und nicht mangelndes
Verständnis des Zuhörers. Vielleicht haben Sie dies
schon empfunden, wenn Sie die beiden Sätze
hintereinander probiert haben. – Das Andante ist als
eine Art Intermezzo komponiert (wie ein Nachklang
längst vergangener Tage aus dem Leben desjenigen,
den wir im 1. Satz zu Grabe getragen – „da ihm noch
die Sonne gelacht" –). |
Still, there really ought also to be
a lengthy pause for recollection after the first
movement, because the second movement does not have
the effect of a contrast, but simply of a
discrepancy after the first. This is my fault, not
inadequate appreciation on the listener's part.
Perhaps you have already felt this after rehearsing
the two movements consecutively.–The andante was
composed as a kind of intermezzo (as the echo of
long past days in the life of the man borne to his
grave in the first movement ‘when the sun still
smiled on him’–). |
Während dem 1., 3., 4. und 5. Satz
thematisch und stim-mungsinhaltlich zusammenhängen,
steht das 2. Stück für sich selbst da und
unterbricht in gewissem Sinn den strengen, herben
Gang der Ereignisse. Vielleicht ist dies eine
Schwäche der Disposition, deren Absicht Ihnen aber
durch obige Andeutung gewiß klar geworden ist. |
While the first, third, fourth and
fifth movements are related in theme and mood, the
second stands alone, in a certain sense interrupting
the strict, austere sequence of events. Perhaps this
is a weakness in the conception of the work, but you
will certainly see my intention from the above
indication. |
Ganz konsequent ist es, den Anfang
des 5. Satzes als Anknüpfung an den ersten zu deuten,
und durch die große Pause vor demselben wird dies
auch dem Zuhörer deutlich werden. – |
It is quite logical to interpret the
beginning of the fifth movement as a development
from the first, and the long pause before the fifth
will make the listener aware of this too.– |
In view of these comments it is perhaps
worth noting that the layout of the
handbill for Mahler's last
performance of the work, in Paris in 1910, also seems to
associate Urlicht with the scherzo rather than the
finale. Nevertheless Mahler made no changes to his instructions
in either the study score (1906) or the printer's copy (APFpr)
for the third edition of the full score (1908–9) (See
NKGII.2, 18, 106 for a discussion of this issue).
Off-stage Brass
The peregrinations of the 'off-stage' brass instruments in the finale
are complex, and, in the case of the trumpets, not always clarified in
the score. The four horns are first heard 'off-stage' in b. 83ff., before
making their way on-stage from b. 93, in readiness for b. 202ff. where
they take parts 7–10 (their inclusion at this point was first adumbrated
in an autograph revision to
ACF2). They resume their off-stage position from b. 252
in readiness for bb. 447–71, during which the verbal instructions imply
yet more movement: at the outset all are 'in die Ferne' and 'Links
aufgestellt', but in b. 461 they should be 'sehr entfernt'. After
bar 471 they return to their positions in the
main orchestra, again taking parts 7–10.
There is some uncertainty about exactly how many trumpets the work
requires in the finale. The rubric at the start of the movement lists
six on-stage trumpets in F and four off-stage trumpets in F (but see
below) of which two parts may be played by on-stage trumpets 5–6, and an
autograph addition in
ACF2
instructs them to move off-stage at b. 323 to double the offstage parts (one of which is for trumpet(s)
in C) in bb. 343–380. However Mahler seems not to have grappled with the
problem that in terms of stage management it would be difficult
for trumpets 5 and 6 to be doubling the offstage parts in
b. 380 and playing on-stage in bar 385. The first edition of the printed parts
(PO1)
- whether intentionally or in error – omits bb. 343–380 from the parts for tpt 5 and 6 (though a
pencil annotation at fig. 21 in
APO tpt
6 reads 'go to other part' which implies they may well have moved
off-stage in Mahler's 1908 performance in New York; one wonders how this move might have been managed).
A further contradiction emerges later in the movement. Despite the fact there must be a
minimum of two trumpets placed permanently off-stage, after b. 417
in the printed scores Mahler
needlessly instructs that onstage trumpets 3 & 4, as well as 5 & 6 take
up places off-stage in preparation for the four-part off-stage trumpet writing of
bb. 452–71 (see
ACF2 for a summary of the relevant annotations to that
score).
This lack of clarity over numbers seems to stem from a desire
to minimise the number of additional trumpets required, but, if so, this is
rather undermined by the demand that from bar 689 the six on-stage parts
should be 'mit Verstarkung'. This apparently implies at least twelve on-stage
trumpets at this point. The printed part set resolves these
ambiguities: the parts for on-stage trumpets 3–6 do not require the
players to move, or to play bb. 452–71 (and there are no
annotations in
APO to suggest Mahler's practice departed from the
letter of the parts), as the whole passage is given to the four
off-stage trumpets who then move on-stage to provide the
required doubling in bb. 689ff., with the six-part trumpet
writing of the passage skilfully redistributed amongst the
four doubling instruments.
Critical Edition
SWII: Gustav Mahler, Symphonie Nr. 2, Sämtliche Werke,
Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Band II, ed. Erwin Ratz (Vienna:
Universal Edition, 1970)
SWSupp1: Gustav Mahler, Totenfeier, Sämtliche Werke,
Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Supplement Band I, ed. Rudolf Stephan
(Vienna: Universal Edition, 1988)
NKGII: Gustav Mahler, Symphonie Nr. 2, Sämtliche Werke,
Neue Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Band II, ed. Renate Stark-Voit,
Gilbert Kaplan (Vienna:
Universal Edition/Kaplan Foundation, 2010)
This superb edition offers an exemplary critical commentary,
including detailed source descriptions for those documents
relevant to the editorial process. It is in two volumes: the
score (NKGII.1) and the textual volume
(NKGII.2). |