How Mahler performed his Second Symphony

Gilbert E. Kaplan

Apart from a,few precious piano rolls, there are no recor-
dings of music performed by Gustav Mahler. Research
about his performing practices must rely on printed sources
- letters, official records, recollections and reviews. In
preparation for the publication of a facsimile of the
autograph of Mahler's Second Symphony ('Resurrection')
this spring' - the first facsimile edition of a complete
Mahler symphony - I searched out information concern-
ing the 13 performances of the symphony that Mahler
himself conducted to shed some light on his approach to
this epic work. The autograph itself provides fresh clues
on a number of issues, including his ideal tempos, and on
a problematic note in the last movement.
MAHLER AND THE PREMIERE. The premiere of the Second
Symphony took place in two parts. Mahler conducted the
full work for the first time with the Berlin Philharmonic
Orchestra on 13 December 1895, at his own expense.
Earlier that year, on 4 March, he conducted the first three
movements with the same orchestra. Richard Strauss
directed the rest of the programme, which included pieces
by Mendelssohn, Saint-Saens, Chopin, Liszt and Weber.
Some Mahler scholars have reported, in error, that
Strauss conducted the whole concert. The printed pro-
gramme reveals how such an error could arise: it does than
pear that Strauss was the conductor, but under the specific
listing for Mahler's symphony it is pointed out as 'Unter
Leitung des Componisten' ('under the composer's
direction').
Mahler's involvement as the conductor of this part of
the concert came about through a last-minute decision. An
early announcement of the Berlin PO season does not men-
tion him. On 27 January, only a little more than a month
before the concert, Strauss was still scheduled to conduct;
on that date, Mahler wrote to him offering to help by con-
ducting the first rehearsal: 'I would be glad to relieve you
of this rehearsal . . . and do the "rough work" for you'.2
Four days later, Mahler wrote to a friend expressing con-
cern that the concert might not even come off:
Look, how do I know it really is going to be? Strauss did 'ac- in New York, he made two five-minute pauses; presumably
cept' it in a few non-committal words. But I am by no means the second was between the fourth movement and the
convinced he is really going to do it. If he does, you will get fifth.7 But he never inserted into the score any indication
your information from the newspapers, just as I shall. In that that a second pause should be made. And, in the critical
event I shall go myself.3
As the date of the concert drew closer, Mahler again wrote
to Strauss offering to conduct the first rehearsal.4 At some
point Strauss must have decided to turn Mahler's own work
over to him at the concert.
THE FIVE-MINUTE PAUSE. From the moment he finished
composing the Second Symphony, Mahler was troubled
about placing the Andante second. He felt that the con-
trast between the power of the opening movement and the
gentleness of the Andante was too extreme. At first, he con-
sidered placing the Scherzo immediately after the first
movement. In fact, the rehearsal numbers in the critical
edition of the score still show the first movement ending
with no.27 and the third beginning with no.28. Even after
the symphony had been performed several times, Mahler,
concerned that the Andante seemed to be an afterthought
compared with the first movement, still tinkered with the
order of the movements. He solved the problem by keep-
ing the Andante as the second movement, but in an unusual
way: by directing conductors, in the published score, to
make a pause of 'at least five minutes' between the first
movement and.the second. There is no mention of the
pause in the autograph score. Although few conductors
observe the full five minutes, most try to pause for longer
ap- a normal break between movements.
Mahler seemed to change his mind about the pause when,
in 1903, he agreed with a suggestion from the German con-
ductor Julius Buths that there should be a second pause,
between the fourth movement and the fifth. 'I marvel at
the sensitive intuition', Mahler wrote to Buths, 'with which
you (in contrast with my own arrangement) have recognized
the natural break in the work'.5 This was clearly a major
departure for Mahler. Only a few years earlier, in a per-
formance he conducted in Vienna, he actually repeated
'Urlicht' (the fourth movement), because the applause
following it had prevented the fifth movement from star-
ting immediately. 6 At that time, Mahler clearly was deter-
mined not to have a break at this point.
Yet in 1908, when he conducted the American premiere
edition of the published score (based in part on Mahler's

'to be published by the Kaplan Foundation, New York, on 18 May 1986, on the
75th anniversary of Mahler's death (the British distributor is Faber Music)
'letter to Richard Strauss (5 Feb 1895), H. Blaukopf, 39-40
'letter to Richard Strauss (27 Jan 1895), Herta Blaukopf, ed.: Gustav
Mahler-Richard Strauss Correspondence, 1888-1911 (London, 1984), 39 'letter to Julius Buths (25 March 1903), Martner, 268-70

'undated letter to Arnold Berliner (31 Jan 1895), Knud Martner, ed.: Selected Let- 'Natalie Bauer-Lechner: Recollections of Gustav Mahler (New York, 1980), 126
ters of Gustav Mahler (London, 1979), 158 'New-York Daily Tribune (9 December 1908)

266

This content downloaded from 194.82.127.49 on Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:48:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
final editing, in 1910), the end of the fourth movement is tate the decision. For at least one concert - Mahler's
marked 'folgt ohne jede Unterbrechung der 5. Satz' ('the farewell concert to mark the end of his ten-year reign as
5th movement follows without any interruption'). This director of the Vienna Court Opera in 1907 - he placed
seems to be the last word on this subject; it is, in fact, the the soloists in the first row of the chorus. That is signifi-
only way the symphony is nowadays performed. cant, since this was the eleventh time Mahler had con-
THE CHORUS. A troublesome issue for anyone conducting ducted the symphony himself. An unusual feature of the
same concert was that Mahler used four soloists instead
the Resurrection Symphony is determining at what point
the chorus should stand. Most conductors have the chorus of the two called for. Whether they doubled or divided the
roles is unknown.
stand before its first entry, typically in the eighth bar after
no.26 of the last movement. Mahler, on the other hand, There are many different ways in which alto soloists sing
their music. Mahler was quite definite, however, about the
felt strongly that the chorus should be seated when it sang
character of the singing he wanted. He described this in
its first notes 'to avoid an unbearable disturbance . . . the
mysterious sound of human voices . . . should come as aa poetic way, saying: 'For this I needed the voice and the
simple expression of a child, as I always think, starting with
surprise'.8 He recognized that once the chorus stood - even
if that was minutes before it sang - the fact that their en- tolling of the little bells, of the soul in heaven where
the
trance was imminent was telegraphed. it must begin again as child in the chrysalis stage'. 13
Conductors who keep the chorus seated for its entranceFinally, it should be mentioned that Mahler made a prac-
face the question of when the chorus should then stand; tice of assigning one important singing part to either the
and there is considerable debate about this. The most soprano or the alto, depending on which he thought bet-
ter
popular places are no.33 (after the first chorus entrance), suited to it at the performance in question. This infor-
no.37 (after the second), two bars before no.42 and mation
one comes from a letter of his; unfortunately, it cannot
before no.44. None of these, however, was Mahler's be determined which part he had in mind.14
choice.
He recommended that the chorus remain seated until the
TEMPOS. Mahler believed that the opening tempo of each
bass entry 'Mit Flugeln', one bar before no.46. For Mahler,
individual movement was not nearly as important as the
having the chorus stand at this point was 'astonishingly tempo relationships between sections. Nonetheless, for this
effective'.9 It should be noted that he himself tried one
symphony he wrote some metronome markings in the
other variation. When he conducted the symphonyautograph. in He indicated that the first movement starts at
Munich in 1900, the chorus remained seated, rising only crotchet = 84 - 92 (with the opening cello and bass figure
for the 'last stanza' 0 - presumably the final 'Aufersteh'n'
at 144) and by bar six ('a tempo') it becomes 84; then at
at no.48.
no.2 it rises to 100; at no.7 it drops to 72; and at no.16
Finally, the chorus is supposed to make this entry a
it becomes 69. The second movement starts at quaver = 92.
cappella, but many choruses cannot hold their pitch without
The third movement starts at dotted crotchet= 52; by bar
accompaniment. Accordingly, conductors often have some 14 it is 58, then slowing to 54 at no.40.
of the strings play softly to support them (sometimes only However, Mahler changed his mind about indicating
players not visible to the audience). The record shows precise
that metronome marks, and none of these appear in the
in one performance, where Mahler himself had a particular-
published critical edition except for the indication for the
ly weak tenor section, he had the clarinets play softlyopening
in of the first movement. There has never been a
support - these instruments were placed close to the tenormetronome mark for the opening of 'Urlicht' (the fourth
section and to his mind had a similar sound. ''
movement) or for the last movement - though,
There is one other point to note in this context: Mahler
presumably, Mahler believed his words 'in the tempo of
obviously wanted a large chorus. For the 1895 premierethe Scherzo' (the third movement) to be clear enough for
he wrote to the director of the chorus to request that the
the start of the finale.
number of the basses and tenors be increased from the 30
Scholars who have searched for the 'authentic' Mahler
of each originally scheduled.12
interpretation of the Second Symphony often look to per-
SOLOISTS. Where should the alto and soprano soloists in formances by Willem Mengelberg, Bruno Walter and Oskar
the Second Symphony be placed? The two obvious choices Fried because each of these conductors enjoyed a special,
are either at the front of the stage, near the conductor, orpersonal relationship with Mahler and each heard the com-
at the rear, within the chorus. Sometimes the acoustics dic-poser conduct the work himself. Yet, judging from recor-
dings, the interpretations of Walter and Fried, who made
the first recording of the symphony in 1924, 5 are very
'letter to Julius Buths (25 March 1903), Martner, 268-70
"ibid
'3Natalie Bauer-Lechner, ed. Knud Martner: Gustav Mahler: in den Erinnerungen
"Natalie Bauer-Lechner: 'Mahleriana' (unpublished diaries, Henry-Louis de La (Hamburg,. 1984), 168
Grange Collection, Paris) 'undated letter to Oskar Fried (probably Oct 1905), Herta Blaukopf, ed.: Gustav
'ibid Mahler: Unbekannte Briefe (Vienna, 1983), 53
'letter to Friedrich Gernsheim (29 Oct 1895), Martner, 169 'originally recorded in 1923-4 and reissued in 1983 by Opal (no.821-2)

267

This content downloaded from 194.82.127.49 on Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:48:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
different. And although there is no recording by is only speculation, but at a brisk opening tempo,
Mengelberg, judging from his general approach to Mahler's crotchet = 92, the scale does not sound plodding and is, in
music one would expect his interpretation of the Second fact, close to the tempo adopted by many conductors even
Symphony to be quite different from the others'. when they take the opening of the movement much more
(Mengelberg wrote in his own score a fast starting tempo, slowly.
crotchet = 92.)
DIVISI PRACTICE. Mahler was quite specific about the dif-
Mahler actually expressed disapproval of early efforts by
ferent ways he wanted to divide the strings when he wrote
both Walter and Fried. According to Mahler's biographer,
'getheilt' and 'Halfte'. 'Where it is marked "Halfte"', he
Henry-Louis de La Grange, after hearing a performance
said, 'just the front desks play and later at the tutti the
prepared by Walter of a two-piano, eight-hand arrangement
others join in. At the marking "getheilt"', he continued,
by Heinrich von Bocklet, Mahler voiced extreme disap-
'please arrange for the right- and left-hand players to take
pointment, saying:
a part each - divided into several parts, from player to
that was directed and rehearsed by someone who will imagine
player - not from desk to desk'.19
and claim that he inherits the 'tradition' straight from me!
From this you may learn the truth about every so-called 'tradi- THE OFFSTAGE BANDS. A novel feature of the Second Sym-
tion': there is no such thing! Everything is left to the whim phony is the imaginative use of offstage bands. For the
of the individual, and unless a genius awakens them to life,
'marching band' section, beginning at no.22 of the last
works of art are lost . . . Now I understand perfectly why
movement, Mahler was deeply concerned that the sound
Brahms let people play his works as they pleased. He knew
of the band not intrude on the onstage orchestra. In one
that anything he told them was in vain. Bitter experience and
resignation are expressed in this fact. 6 of his most detailed comments in the autograph score he
In Oskar Fried's case, Mahler went to hear the rehearsals wrote that the offstage band 'must sound so faintly that
and performance when Fried first conducted the symphony it in no way touches upon the character of the song of the
in Berlin in 1905. After the rehearsal, Mahler had a long cellos and bassoons. The author thinks here approximate-
talk with Fried about his tempos. And in a letter to his ly of the sounds of an almost imperceptible music that are
wife Mahler reported about Fried's forthcoming concert, wafted across, one at a time, by the wind.'
saying: 'The occasion will tell me whether he has any talent; He was sufficiently concerned about this at the time he
first wrote the music that he added another comment:
yesterday he took it all too fast by half' '7 The next day,
just before the concert, Fried made a speech to the musi- 'Should it prove impossible to obtain a performance of this
cians, saying, 'Gentlemen, everything I did during the passage entirely in keeping with the author's intention, it
is better to omit the instruments positioned a great distance
rehearsals was wrong. This evening I will take entirely dif-
ferent tempos. Follow me, if you please'. 18 off. However, after conducting the work himself and realiz-
ing that the offstage music could be played effectively, he
THE END OF THE FIRST MOVEMENT. Mahler's tempo in- removed this comment before the score was published.
dication for the final scale of the first movement (no.27) The other major offstage section, sometimes called 'der
is marked 'Tempo I'. As mentioned previously, at the grosse Appell' ('the great call') comes just before the chorus
beginning of the symphony, Mahler indicated that Tem- enters (no.29) - 'one of the most inspired and awesome
po I is crotchet =84. At that tempo the scale can sound pages of musical literature', according to Ernst Krenek. 2
very plodding, and few conductors play it that slowly. Although it takes only a few minutes to play, Mahler con-
Mahler's own thinking on this point evidently evolved. sidered this passage 'the most difficult in the whole work' 2
In the autograph, the opening of the first movement is and always sought a separate rehearsal for it. 'The passage
marked 'Maestoso' and the scale at the end of the move-
is rhythmically very difficult to keep together', Mahler once
ment 'Allegro'. In an early published score the opening told a conductor, 'and the effect I want can be obtained
became 'Allegro maestoso' and the end 'Schnell'. Only lateronly after several attempts.'22 Mahler required that the
did Mahler change the 'Schnell' to 'Tempo I'. flute and piccolo (on stage) 'must play with such accuracy
Perhaps Mahler's direction to return to 'Tempo I' is not
and polish that they hardly need the conductor, so that you
really a change from 'Schnell' but reveals that he may have
need not beat time during the whole passage'.23
changed his mind about the opening 'a tempo' (bar 6), later
preferring a faster tempo in general for the movement. This

' letter to Hermann Suter (27 May 1903), Kurt Blaukopf, ed.: Mahler: a Documen-
tary Study (London, 1976), 234
:?Bruno Walter: Gustav Mahler (New York, 1941), 190
'"Natalie Bauer-Lechner: Recollections, 141; see also Henry-Louis de La Grange:
Mahler, i (New York, 1973), 508, n.44 2'letter to Julius Buths (25 March 1903), Martner, 268-70
'letter to Alma Mahler (8 Nov 1905), Alma Mahler, ed. Donald Mitchell: Gustav
letter to Hermann Suter (27 May 1903), K. Blaukopf, 234
Mahler: Memories and Letters (Seattle, 1975), 267 3 letter to Julius Buths (25 March 1903), Martner, 268- 70; undated letter to Oskar
18cited by Henry-Louis de La Grange: Gustav Mahler, ii (Paris, 1983), 726
Fried (autumn 1905), H. Blaukopf, Unbekannte Briefe, 51

269

This content downloaded from 194.82.127.49 on Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:48:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ex. 1
Mahler was adamant that the trumpets in this section a

must sound from different directions. He did not put this

instruction into the autograph but added it later, and the
critical edition reflects trumpets 1 and 3 placed on the right
and 2 and 4 on the left. Many conductors overlook this
and place the offstage trumpets together.
THE SYMPHONY SHOULD BE PLAYED BY ITSELF. Many
conductors, including Walter, have performed other works
with the Second Symphony, even though by itself it takes
approximately 90 minutes. Mahler never did this and once
specifically tried to dissuade Oskar Fried 24 from doing so.
Fried failed to take his advice and planned to give several
other pieces with it. As a result, at the end of the allotted
time for the final rehearsal, he had reached only the se- x

cond movement of the symphony. When orchestra person- dissonance created by it is parallel to the harmony of the
nel said that the time had run out, Fried became hysterical, first fortissimo chord in bar 3 of the movement, where a
grabbed the nearest chair and threw it into the auditorium. B flat minor chord is combined with a pedal C in the cellos
MODIFYING THE SCORE. Mahler continuously edited and and basses - exactly analogous with the harmony of an
re-edited his symphonies each time he conducted them and E flat minor chord with an F. While the opening chord
the Second was certainly no exception. His final editorial shows Mahler's readiness to use this harmony, he may not
changes are in his score dated September 1910, five months have intended to use it in one of three otherwise similar
after he conducted the work for the last time (in Paris on passages.
17 April). Theory aside, a closer examination of the autograph
Many of his changes were made to accommodate the reveals a light pencil notation next to the F: it reads 'es'
acoustical or personnel problems of a particular concert. (E flat) (fig. 1, right). This discovery raises some questions:
Conductors must decide which were made for the occa- 1) Is the 'es' in Mahler's own handwriting? The autograph
sion and which were intended to be permanent. For ex- reveals that he capitalized the E elsewhere when he wrote 'Es'
ample, during rehearsals in Vienna in 1907, he asked the (see fig. l, left). Moreover, at the bottoms of many pages in
trombones not to play the notes accompanying the soprano
at 'O Tod! Du Allbezwinger' (the 8th and 7th bars before
no.45 in the last movement) because they could not play Fig. : Mahler's 'Es' (1) and that in the autograph (r)
softly enough and were covering the singer. The trombonethe autograph of the finale there are notations - in what ap-
pears to be a similar handwriting to that of'es' - punctuated
notes, however, remain in the score. Mahler then said: 'I
with question marks. Are these and the 'es' perhaps written
salute conductors who, when the occasion arises, modify
by a copyist, as a query?
my score to suit the acoustics of the hall'.25
2) Even if Mahler wrote the 'es' himself, did this indicate a
A WRONG NOTE? One of the puzzles facing interpreters of definite intention to change the note to E flat? If so, why did
the Second Symphony is what to do about a note in the he not correct it in the autograph score? And why did the F
timpani part in the finale that simply sounds wrong. The appear in an early copyist's score and remain in all the publish-
problem involves one of Mahler's most haunting melodies, ed scores? Mahler obviously heard the 'wrong' note each time
he conducted the symphony for more than a decade after the
the 'O glaube' theme, which appears three times. It is first
completion of the autograph.
played by the english horn and flute (no.7: ex.la) returns
3) Then there is a technical question: if Mahler had wanted
first on the trombone (no.21: ex. 1 b) and appears finally with E flat, why did he write it for an instrument that could not
the english horn and the alto soloist together (no.39; the
play it? For the timpanist to play the figure as B flat - E flat
notes are identical with those in ex. la). The opening notes
he would need to retune two timpani within about four bars
of the theme are answered by a two-note figure: at its first
(certainly in less than 10 seconds) - a practical impossibility
and third appearances the answering figure, on the cellos
before the time of pedal timpani. In that case, would Mahler
really have written an F, as a solo note, that he did not want,
and basses, is a perfect 5th, F - B flat, but at the second,
on the timpani, it is a perfect 4th, B flat - F. simply so that he could use the timpani? He could, of course,
The F (marked X in ex.lb) sounds like a mistake; one have continued to use cellos and basses, which were capable
of playing the E flat, or could even have divided the two notes
would expect to hear E flat, and some conductors so change
between two timpani players as at no.50 of the finale.
it. It is certainly difficult to justify the F, although one
Did he, then, or didn't he want the E flat? Musical logic
leading Mahler interpreter has suggested that the
and the mysterious 'es' point to an E flat; but most of the
evidence, at least to date, suggests that he wrote the F and
'4undated letter to Oskar Fried (autumn 1905), H. Blaukopf, 52 remained with it. Scholars and conductors will undoubtedly
:cited by La Grange, Gustav Mahler, iii (Paris, 1984), 156 debate this matter for years to come.
271

This content downloaded from 194.82.127.49 on Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:48:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms