?

MAHLER
The Symphonies in Sequence

daniel barenboim

Gustav Mahler (1860–1911) pierre boulez

Daniel Barenboim of instruments sometimes playing the
same notes simultaneously. In the sec-
Musical Reflections ond movement of the Fifth Symphony, to
on Gustav Mahler take a classic example, the clarinets play
fortissimo and then make a diminuendo
while the violas play the same music in
pianissimo and then make a crescendo.
The compound result, a single statement
completely transformed in color from be-
ginning to end, is only possible when the
dynamics are observed precisely, almost
fanatically. The overwhelming number
of instructions for dynamics and tempo
fluctuations in every score is evidence of
Mahler’s desire—and ability—to create
The studying and restudying of a score is a structure for the “emotional” elements
demanded not because of any incoher- of sound. However great the temptation
ence in it, but precisely because of its may be to enhance this emotionality in
inexhaustible expressions of coherence. Mahler, it is erroneous to believe one is
A piece of music allows for an indefinite emphasizing the emotional qualities by
range of interpretations, each of which exaggerating, for example, the barely
may illuminate, yet none of which concealed references to Jewish klezmer
exhaust the meaning of the text. For music as heard in the third movement
this reason there is a need for perpetual of the First Symphony. It is impossible
interpretations and reinterpretations, any to make more powerful what Mahler
of which may be competent or correct, himself has so carefully designed. It is
but none of which can be final; any worth noting that the word klezmer in
given performance presents aspects of Yiddish, which derives from the Hebrew
the music but never its totality. In the kli zeme, means simply an instrument of
interpretation of music, it is essential song and must in this sense be equally
that no single aspect of the music or the at home in a street-music band as in a
music making should be unimportant symphony orchestra.
enough not to be dealt with—and the
genius of great talent defines itself by Although it may be undesirable and
the ability and willingness to attach more even contradictory to the composer’s
importance to the smallest detail than is intentions to imitate the style of the
actually necessary—but it must never be bands and folk music Mahler quotes,
an end in itself. It must never become an it is of the greatest importance to be
ideology. Ideology—in other words, the familiar with certain conventions of
systematization of an idea—deprives it sound production common during his
of its very essence because a system is lifetime. One such technique that has
a set of rules that eliminates the neces- fallen entirely into disuse is portamento,
sity for further thought, whereas an idea the sustained connection of one note
is in constant development. to the next on a stringed instrument
(portare, in Italian, means “to carry”).
The key to understanding the music This type of shift was altered irrevocably
of Gustav Mahler, in my opinion, lies by the modern school of violin playing,
in his dual craftsmanship as composer exemplified by Jascha Heifetz, whose
and conductor. Mahler was the first playing was of such intensity that he
composer to create his own par- needed to introduce a new and strident
ticular orchestral sound by isolating the brilliance to the portamento by aiming
dynamic capacities of each separate with great direction and speed for the
group of instruments, assigning con- second note. For the contemporary
tradictory dynamics to different groups string player, therefore, the old way
2
of creating portamento, in which the virtuosic piano music whose musical
lower note is sustained and becomes form and content are closely related. In
the foundation out of which the slide this way of thinking, Mahler has often
to the next note arises, is completely been paired with Bruckner. The Wagner
foreign, even tasteless. Furthermore, the influence is obvious in both; the scope
harmonic implications of the portamento and length of the symphonic discourse
have been lost, a fact that renders have many points in common, but serve
its use meaningless in the intended very different purposes in expressing
context. Rather than evoking the release their respective content. Bruckner’s af-
of harmonic tension, it becomes simply firmative construction (which to my mind
a means of transportation from one tone has more in common with an archaeo-
to the next. The original portamento is no logical excavation than with an architec-
longer a part of modern schooling and is tural construction because of the way his
therefore necessary to discuss and study symphonies unfold in such a way that ad-
when performing Mahler, who very often ditional layers are constantly unearthed)
indicated the use of portamento in his is in complete contrast to Mahler’s
scores. The modern string player tends statements, which often make their first
to either ignore this indication or execute appearances as already deconstructed
it in an erroneous manner. elements. A comparison with both ninth

?
Mahler’s unique instrumentation, together with that of Richard Strauss,
signifies the beginning of a new era in the exploration of color in German music.

The brilliance of Mahler’s orchestration symphonies shows this very clearly.

demands the virtue of pure expression Bruckner’s begins out of nothing and
rather than virtuosity itself. Often the very gradually develops into the grandeur
high register of the trumpets and clari- of the complete first statement, the
nets is an expression of an emotional very equivalent of the philosophical
attribute rather than an athletic demon- concept of becoming rather than being.
stration of the capabilities of modern Mahler’s is at the outset already broken
instruments. It is a difficult undertaking up into small units, imparting a feeling
to present the symphonic works without of something that was once part of a
either resorting to reckless self-expres- complete form but now exists only in
sion and total abandon on the part of the fragments, leftovers of the grandeur
interpreter, or adhering to the details of that has not been sustained in its full
the score without characterizing each form. This may explain why for many
different element present in the music to years conductors chose one composer
the utmost. or the other. Wilhelm Furtwängler, for
example, who was a pioneer of Bruckner
History has often given us composers symphonies and helped establish their
in pairs: Handel and Bach, Haydn and original versions as absolutely necessary,
Mozart, Schumann and Brahms, Chopin regarded Mahler as artificial. Celibidache,
and Liszt, Debussy and Ravel, Bartók another great Bruckner conductor, said
and Kodály, Falla and Albeniz. It is much “bei Mahler sind die Empfindungen
easier to attach more importance to unecht, deswegen kommen sie immer
what these composers have in common nur als Zitat” (“Mahler’s emotions are
than to explore the subtlety of their dif- unauthentic, they are always as quota-
ferences. The similarities are obvious but tions”). Added to that, Mahler’s music is
the contrast between Chopin’s rigor and unfortunately still most often discussed
Liszt’s declamatory style, to take but one not in musical terms but in a psychoana-
example, seems to me more interesting lytical context that explains its neuroses
to observe than the fact that both wrote according to the theories of Sigmund
3
Freud. For a long time I was deterred and yet, in the later works, there is a
by these two elements and, believing fragility that must inevitably lead to the
as I do that the content of music can be breakdown of the tonal system in much
expressed only through sound and not in the same way that classical painting was
words, came to perform his symphonic broken down into pointillism, cubism,
works relatively late in life. The songs and abstraction.
always seemed to me a more natural
form because of the symbiosis between As an interpreter, one must accept the
text and music. printed score as the infinite, or final,
expression of content and not forget that
Mahler’s unique instrumentation, as performers we are finite or temporary.
together with that of Richard Strauss, Therefore, we stand in relation to the
signifies the beginning of a new era score as the finite to the infinite, not
in the exploration of color in German only recognizing our indebtedness to it,
music. Mahler had, both literally and but trying to overcome this very
figuratively, one foot in the 19th century contradiction. Our own finite essence is
and the other in the 20th century. In precisely—or paradoxically—our striving
observing composers of the past, there to exist forever, to become infinite. No
are different criteria in determining their human being, unless at the edge of
importance: On the one hand there despair, has the free will to cease exist-
is the simple question of the merit or ing. The score is final but gives us infinite
beauty of a body of work, and on the possibilities of realization. Therefore,
other its position in the development of no performance can be final. It is never
music within history. We would undoubt- once and for all—on the contrary,
edly be much poorer without the music performances have to have the quality of
of Mendelssohn, his Violin Concerto, all for once. We have at our disposal an
Lieder ohne Worte, Octet, and many infinite range of expression under infinite
other works. The beauty and perfection attributes.
of his music is obvious and beyond all
criticism, but the history of music would The Staatskapelle Berlin was the first
have developed in much the same way orchestra to record a complete Mahler
if Mendelssohn had not existed. Liszt, symphony, the Second, under Oskar
on the other hand, a composer of genius Fried in 1924. The arrival of the Nazis
but perhaps lacking the craftsman- signified the end of performances of
ship and perfection of Mendelssohn, Mahler in Germany. It has been my
influenced tangibly and forcefully the special joy to bring back and develop
path that music was to take. Berlioz the study of these symphonies with the
represents a similar case; the influence Staatskapelle Berlin.
of these two composers on Richard
Wagner is impossible to overestimate
and we know that without Wagner there
would have been no Bruckner, Strauss,
Mahler, or Schoenberg. There are only a
handful of composers who summarize—
and culminate—the entire period of
composition until their time, whilst at
the same time showing the path to the
future. Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, and
Debussy are all examples of this kind of
synthesis and historical importance.
For his part, Mahler provides the
essential link between Wagner and the
Second Viennese School. The influence
of Wagner and Bruckner are obvious
4
Pierre Boulez For many years, this little bit sufficed. The
traditional symphonic appetite was sated
Mahler Today by other movements—less complex, less
demanding. No supporters emerged after
the rare performances, leaving doubts
not only about the worth, but also about
the quality of the undertaking. On the
other hand, modernity passed him by,
only to leave him with the leftovers of an
outdated romanticism looked upon with
smug pity. In this fin de siècle, everything
was going in the opposite direction:
excessive abundances in everything,
How long he took to come back, not
while everyone else was more and more
from the shadows, but from purgatory!
severely fixated on economy. Abundance
A tenacious purgatory which for a
of time, abundance of instruments,
thousand reasons would not let him go.
abundance of sentiments, of gestures …
Too much of a conductor, not enough of
form collapses under these excesses!
a composer; in the end, a composer who
What is the worth of a music in which
cannot free himself from the maestro:
the rapport of ideas to form is lost in the
too much facility, not enough control.
quagmires of expressivity?
And he muddled everything up! Of
opera, which he conducted with passion, We meet a world that is coming to its
there is no direct trace in his work; yet in end, gluttonizing on plenty, suffocated
the noble world of symphony he sowed with plethora: Smugness and sentimen-
the bad seeds of theatricality: sentimen- tal Apoplexia are the best and worst that
tality, vulgarity, insolent, and unbearable can happen to it. Farewell, bloated and
disorder entered this elite world with degenerated romanticism! Farewell?
noise and length. Nevertheless, a When works decide to survive, there is
handful of fanatics keep watch in this no Farewell … Do you repudiate them?
posthumous exile. They can easily be Abruptly? Well, they argue to stay!
divided into two camps: avant-gardists Superbly!
and conservatives—the latter vaunting
to be the true defenders of an opus they And now, purification having had its day,
consider betrayed by the former. it left some real skeletons along the way.
Out of this long inattention the work’s
Next, the mistake of being Jewish at a authentic quality reappears, forcing us
time of intense nationalism—reducing to reconsider, insistently interrogating us
him to complete silence in his home about our negligence. What were we?
country—the memory of this “impurity” Guilty or superficial? Do we have any
wanes to the point of disappearance. excuses to bring forward? This oeuvre
Furthermore, this mythology, where has been presented to us in a way that
Bruckner and Mahler unremittingly recur could inspire a great degree of wariness.
as the Castor and Pollux of symphony. It was certainly treasured by devout
After Beethoven, impossible to go hands. Devout but also rapacious hands
further than to the ninth: The symphonic that lacked that generosity that opens
dynasty is doomed by destiny when- the future by means of the past—hands
ever it dares to overcome the fateful trammelled by faithfulness (at what point
figure. (Less talented composers have is fidelity turning into treason?). Our
since succeeded in this exploit …) The wariness could even make us suspect
memory of a musician, prodigious and the composers of the Viennese School of
uneasy, demanding and eccentric. Some sentimental localism. At first glance, the
of his scores, the shortest, easy to bonds weren’t that visible—but opposi-
understand, acceptable. tion was, it was flagrant.
5
However, as modernity ended its vignettes. Some are delighted, others
asceticism, luxuriance returned to annoyed—and both are equally hindered
consciousness with persistence—so to transcend this primary appearance,
much that a retrospective exploration which happens to be only the antecham-
started, enriched with new perspectives, ber … True, this material exists. To us, it
whereas the mind, warned by contem- may sometimes seem limited, foresee-
porary experiences, stayed armed with able to the utmost; from work to work,
a bitterly acquired acuity. Perception— the source of inspiration hardly changes.
probably saturated with simple meanings When we cite the march and all its mili-
and bored with lopsided significations— tary and funerary derivations, the dances
starts dreaming of ambiguity, longing in three-quarter time—ländler, waltz, or
for a world where categories aren’t that minuet, the regional and parochial folklor-
simple anymore, longing for a world istic inventory—we roughly circumscribe
where categories aren’t so simple that this as a “borrowed” and easily traceable
one can easily find one’s way. And order? theme. A palpable constant, from the
Why this restrictive concept! Let’s flout all first to the last opus: cliches inherited
restrictive conceptions: order, homogene- from the cultural or from the menial past.
ity of ideas, style, legibility of structures. Opposing this reservoir of “banalities,”
the reservoir of mighty theatrical ges-
For a certain time let’s put aside these tures: heroic and sublime—a music of
paralyzing rules. But is it that easy? spheres and of infiniteness; a dimension
Certainly not! This is especially so when of grandiosity, about which can be said,
one doesn’t want to be influenced by in the least, that it lost its urgency.
external circumstances. In this particular
case, it is difficult to escape the legend But where does this come from? That
that obstinately amalgamates life and these gestures, dead in the works of
work, direct experience and artistic other composers, still keep their moving
accomplishment, melodrama and agony! emotional force in Mahler’s work? Isn’t
Let’s give enthusiastic exegesis what’s it so, that these gestures, far from being
due to it and let’s confront ourselves triumphant, camouflage insecurity in
directly with the heterogeneous, unequal the highest degree? How distant now
monuments Mahler left us. that self-confident romanticism, once
so proud of its own heroic valor! And
One first ambiguity provokes uneasi- how far back the naivete of the first
ness: The borderline between senti- approaches to popular sources.
mentality and irony, between nostalgia
and criticism—a borderline sometimes There’s homesickness in Mahler’s world,
impossible to define. It’s not so much an undeniable nostalgia; yet it shares,
about a true contradiction, but more willy-nilly, its terrain with criticism,
about a pendular movement, a sudden sarcasm even. Sarcasm? Isn’t it the most
change of illumination that, as soon as unmusical of all characters? Music loves
it passes this difficult prism, transforms undisguised, genuine values; it doesn’t
certain musical ideas—usually consid- lend itself easily to double-cross irony
ered to be well-worn and superfluous— and sincerity! Impossible to be sure: Is it
into indispensable revelations. The truth, is it caricature? Orientation would
banality once reproached him—to the be easy if combined with lyrics; but in
point of considering it a lack of inventive- “pure” music?
ness; do we still feel this banality as
being unbearable? Isn’t it the origin of a Ambiguity, mockery can only be truly
large misunderstanding concerning his understood against the background of a
popularity? “First degree”—listening text based upon accepted, recognized
is often based on easygoing cliches, conventions. To play this seesaw game
on sweetish hits and insipid phrases, a it’s often enough to simply distort
quickly waning landscape, a past kept in conventions—through exaggerated or
6
displaced accentuation, using anoma- disorder and bafflement, an example too
lous, prismatic, decomposing instrumen- for the dilation, beyond “rationality,” of
tation, by compressed and protracted the forms he could take as models?
tempos. In its aggressiveness, the
humor goes as far as to enwrap every- Is it possible to talk about an extra-
thing in a surreal, eldritch color, until the musical dimension? One hasn’t failed
subject-matter is x-rayed, presenting us to do so, and the programs written
that sooty arborescence that alerts and by Mahler—later highly regretted by
agitates us: a world of fleshless, clacking him—started the misunderstanding.
bones, realistically described through Descriptive intention would be neither an
bizarreness, let’s plainly say, preposter- innovation, nor a personal characteristic;
ous, grotesque combinations of sound, on the contrary: It would be more the
a world arisen from a nightmare, ready mark of an epoch, which—after Berlioz
to dwindle back down in it; a colorless and Liszt—pleased itself to excite musi-
world of shadows—a cinder-world cal imagination largely through imagery,
without substance. How avidly grasped literature in the first place, but equally
and vigorously captured is this spectral borrowed from visual arts, inadequately
universe where memory is frayed! competing, on an unequal terrain, with
“painting.”
What is it that’s attracting us? Just
the bizarre, sentimental, or sarcastic Mahler’s extra-musical dimension quits
reflexes of a sinking world a man was this landscape of assimilation only to
able to capture with lucidity? Could impinge upon the very substance of
this be enough to grab and enthrall our music, its organization, its structure, and
attention? Nowadays, all fascination its power. His vision and his method pos-
is certainly deriving from that keen sess the epic dimension of a narrator;
hypnotic ability of a vision that embraced procedure and material links him, above
with passion the end of an era—an era all, to the novelist. The title of Symphony
that inevitably must die, so that a new remains; the principles of the move-
one may emerge from its annihilation: ments subsist: scherzo, slow movement,
This music is portraying nearly too liter- finale, albeit their number and their
ally the myth of the Phoenix. order are constantly changing from one
composition to another.
Meanwhile—beyond this crepuscular
substance—more surprising is the The oftentimes repeated intrusion, at
upheaval he brings into the symphonic various moments, of the vocal universe
world. With what resoluteness, with within the symphony, the inclusion of
what savageness sometimes, is he theatrical effects by means of instru-
attacking the formal hierarchy of these ments placed outside the stage, are all
forms! Forms which, up to his day, had elements that erode the limitations of a
indeed been amplified, but frozen in well-defined genre. Only the novelistic
rigid and decorative conventions. Was universe has enough freedom to afford
it theater that pushed him towards a such a game with the material employed
dramatic devastation of constraining and with the way it is employed. Freed
forms? Like Wagner—who reversed the from visual theater—his professional
artificial world of opera just to arouse an obsession—Mahler virtually abandons
infinitely more “demiurgical” proceeding himself frenetically to this liberty of mix-
in music drama—Mahler turns upside ing all genres; he refuses to distinguish
down the symphony, ravaging this between noble and other materials,
too well-ordered terrain by interfusing merging all the source material available
his phantoms into the sanctum of to him, building up a structure certainly
logic. Wouldn’t Beethoven be the true examined with care, but freed from
example to evoke? That barbarian who, inadequate formal limitations. Quite
in his time, had profusely disseminated unconcerned about homogeneity and
7
hierarchy, absurd definitions in this case, would be exhausting or boring. (If this
he communicates to us his vision with all problem is faced by the listener, even
its nobility, triviality, tension, loosening. more so for the interpreter: The only
He doesn’t choose from this abundance difference is in acuity and foresight.)
because choosing would mean betrayal, Referring to classical architecture, with
to renounce his primordial plan. its reliable benchmarks, is useless.
What’s needed is to imbibe the density
And thus, while listening, we find of the musical events, the density of
different ways of listening to the musical musical time, which changes between
process. At first, there’s a persisting im- relaxation and tension, following the
pression that the proper musical form is demands of the dramatic circumstance.
incapable of holding up to such an accu-
mulation of facts. That the narration—the Certainly, this malleability of musical
musical one, I insist—seems to trail away time is fundamental in all music, but it
in useless meandering. It appears as if isn’t the primal phenomenon of percep-
the surcharged ornateness erases the tion. With Mahler, however, it constantly
intention: That form is dissolving in this tends to be so, often enough forging
complexity; that direction is seemingly ahead of all other categories, guiding
disappearing under endlessly multiplying and helping us to discern between
insertions; that overflowing movements what’s better to be easily heard and
?
His vision and his method possess the epic dimension of a narrator;
procedure and material links him, above all, to the novelist.
collapse beneath this rhetorical excess what should be perceived with a nearly
and the abundance of material. analytical acuity. It’s this ductility of musi-
cal time that helps us to sound out the
A listening that was strictly musical different narrative levels and to instantly
would concede to such arguments. But classify the narration’s proliferation. One
then, how shall we listen? How shall must adapt one’s hearing to the inside of
we perceive? Is it enough to—and may the movements themselves—especially
we—let narration carry us away, going concerning large epic movements. But
along with the psychological flow, not within the symphony itself, each move-
letting ourselves be distraught by detail ment also requires a specific quality of
in order to concentrate on the epic listening, due to a distinct aesthetic pos-
dimension and the verve it gives to our ture between them, their importance—
imagination? Yes, we may! or rather their density—differing within
the general arrangement. It’s a non-
The power of this music is sufficient homogeneous universe, if there is one,
enough to accommodate the passive that risks incoherency, including citation
listener. But is this truly enriching? The and parody as legitimate methods. The
ideal would be an exact following of the world of Mahler reinstructs us to listen in
density of the narration. What hasn’t a manner more varied, more ambiguous
been said about Mahler’s protracted and richer.
lengths! If, with Schubert, it’s called
himmlische Länge (“celestial lengths”) What curious extremes is Mahler’s
[quoting Stravinsky: “One goes to sleep entire work presenting: one goes from
with Schubert only to awake in heaven”], the far too short Lied to the excessively
what expression should be invented to long symphony. There are no in-between
describe the formidable dimension of works! One may be amazed … One
time dominating certain movements in may even prefer the instantaneous,
Mahler’s symphonies? Only a misguided the immediate perfection—without
listening of this immense expansion any problem—of the sharp-sighted
8
transcription that characterizes his short invention, the less it needs, perhaps, the
Lieder. Why then this protraction, this readily available external device; rejecting
amplification, this stretching, when the apparent richness in order to attain
the essential idea has already been the profound communion in which the
expressed? And yet—as perfect as the means of communication become utterly
conciseness of his “poems” may be— irrelevant. Perfectly mastered, the aural
Mahler’s true dimension reveals itself material finds itself thrown not only into
in those long, excessive, sometimes the most modest of roles, but also doted
problematic movements, just because with the most uncommon of attributes:
the difficult struggle with the epic absence! Music for contemplation, a
dimension appears to be more fascinat- book of meditation, a song for itself, to
ing than a success within dimensions communicate beyond sound’s reality.
too visibly contoured by the limitations This is nothing new: Bach, certainly,
of a well-defined genre. and Beethoven, who couldn’t bear the
“wretched violin,” perhaps. In contrast,
Mahler would probably be less appealing Wagner still rejoices—in the depths of
if he wasn’t also, sometimes, difficult. his reflection—in sonorous profusion and
His “hyper-dimensional” approach has instrumental plenitude: purified, clarified,
very little to do with that sated fin-de- transparent, but still there, underlying,
siècle pleasure in orotundity, mega- forcefully, underpinning the very essence
lomania’s gigantism and the zenith of of expression. How could this example
opulence. Rather a demiurgic anxiety be forgotten, this amalgam, this fusion
becomes apparent: the fear of arous- within musical thought—concept and
ing a world which proliferates beyond means?
any rational control; the upcoming of a
vertiginous inebriation caused by the With Mahler, didn’t the means take a dis-
creation of a work, where accordance proportional place vis-à-vis the concept?
and contradiction rank equal; the Didn’t he push his own ability to the point
discontentment with the acknowledged of abusiveness, reduced to a seductive,
dimensions of musical experience; the but vain virtuosity? The immediate reac-
search of a less evidently established tions to his works are nearly all like this:
and complaisantly accepted order. They praised or criticized the virtuosity or
the eccentricity. His skillfulness is never
The ideal piece of work eludes all contested. He is blamed, however, of
well-defined categories, rejecting them masking a lack of substance and content.
as such, but still participating in each of He is accused of diverting attention,
them. On the crossroad of an imaginary deflecting musical perception towards
theater, an imaginary novel, an imaginary the superficial and the superfluous.
poem, the symphony becomes the
meeting place par excellence. Musical Mahler, the conductor; doesn’t he have
expression demands everything that’s that fault considered inherent in the
denied it. By deciding to accept all interpreter: to camouflage the absence
eventualities and potentials of being, of originality in the conception—or, at
it becomes truly philosophical—while best, its incertitude—by a manipulation
escaping the constraints of pure verbal for which his profession, almost unduly,
transmission. provides him with all the means? We
resent this hybrid breed for knowing
The ambition of the idea and the too well how to manipulate. We easily
economy of means—are they compat- declare it guilty of cheating, treason even.
ible? Is auditory asceticism possible in
such a concept? Of course, we know Yes, there is virtuosity of sound with
that rules and discipline can achieve Mahler. Constantly visible, rarely
remarkable results, and that the more conspicuous. Even when he becomes
the spirit penetrates into the depths of conventional, it’s mostly by pulling all the
9
stops of invention in a superb manner. It’s this, and not any empty virtuosity,
Undoubtedly, this music is placed within that reveals the professional interpreter:
a well-outlined historical perspective. The man that was in daily contact both
Parting from such a strict point of with the grandeur of a passionate
view, it’s not even exploring absolutely profession and the meticulous tasks and
unknown territory. It accepts—if only obligations of a constricting technique.
to transgress it—romantic instrumental
practices that had gradually become the This is the reason why there’s the belief
standards of the 19th century; the predi- that the exigency of the score would
lection, alone, for the French horn would lead to a rigid interpretation of the
be sufficient to confirm this, if there notation; that the living authority would
weren’t already enough other charac- posthumously become constraining;
teristic clues to prove this mindset. The that accuracy and correctness would be
adroitness of the instrumentation is so sufficient to understand a philosophy of
great that it could be easily confounded moving extremes; that mere objective
with nonchalance, if the extreme me- observance of rules could replace the
ticulousness of the transcription did not “re-creation” of a powerful subjectivity.
constantly remind us to stay vigilant. All this creates an immeasurable
distance, a distance that servility without
Mahler is obsessed, not without cause, imagination will never transcend.
with his notation’s effectiveness; as a
conductor he had experienced, often- If Mahler is cautioning, he never acts
times, how “permissively” instrumen- to inhibit his interpreter. After what we
talists read the indications and how know, he himself was not in the least
“freely” they reproduced them, how struck by this tendency to inhibition.
often they were even ignored—by sheer On the contrary, in fact. However, he
unresponsiveness or by pure laziness. In couldn’t accept to confuse “interpreta-
his notation, he fights as best as he can tion” with inexactness: The most
against inertia and passiveness, against demanding liberty requires precisely
formed habits, mechanical and “natural” the most severe discipline. Without
reactions. Aware, as he was, of the this, it would be reduced to caricature,
ambiguity his musical material some- contented with approximations—a
times carried, sliding between irony and somewhat unpolished travesty of an
sentimentality, he is unceasingly warn- otherwise profound and respectable
ing, calling to order. It’s his indomitable truth! The more so, because an abandon
personal voice that speaks out of his to frenzy, or even the hysteria of the mo-
numerous indications, equally positive ment, leaves the primordial motivation
and negative: He gives the impulse and plundered, destroying the ambiguity es-
revives the critical sense, exhorting, sential to this music. In such a case, one
encouraging, and holding back. First, would render it eminently trivial and one
what’s necessary to do, is to know would empty it of its profound content.
what’s not to do: The required quality Moreover, one destroys the fundamental
is a result of avoiding the mistake. In structure that balances every moment of
truth, what he’s doing is to include the development, making it a chaotic jaunt of
interpreter’s scheme into the scheme a befuddled jack-of-all-trades!
of composition to a degree unknown to
composers before him. He incorporates Mahler’s magnetic fields are infinitely
the interpreter’s requirements into the subtler than the coarse display of filings.
invention’s course without being tyran- The difficulty of reading Mahler consists
nically determined by them, because undoubtedly in the discrepancy between
he dominates them well enough not to gesture and material. The gesture tends
settle for what exists. On the contrary, to become increasingly “grandiose” while
he rather anticipates what’s possible, by the material tends to become more and
means of extension and enhancement. more “vulgar.” This incoherency is born
10
equally in this fundamental contradiction They saw the sentimental aspect, but
as well as the impossibility of joining refused the critical aspect that should
end to end the multiple moments of the have made them ill at ease. There is, on
course of events in the composition itself. the other hand, such an obstinate will
This approach multiplies the musical ideas to override the categories of the past,
around a few fundamental polarities. forcing them to express things for which
they were never destined. There is such
The more one advances within the persistence in extending the limits, that
composition, the more one sees the it isn’t possible to confine Mahler to a
texture acquiring density, not so much by characterization of “end of a race.”
its thickness, but more by the multiplicity He contributes, in his own personal
of lines: Polyphony develops through a way, to the future. Today—stylistic
constant and continuous crisscrossing, notions having been purged, leaving
where the elements increasingly attach us confronted with a more composite
themselves to a determining idea: not language, a more complex expres-
elements of filler or complementarity, but sion and a more open synthesis—this
cells derived from the principal themes. contribution appears more evident.
To conciliate the meticulousness of the
detail with the grandeur of the design, Allowedly, his inspirational sources, the
this is what can’t be easily achieved and, very geography of these sources, may
yet, this is what restores the unstable seem closely circumscribed, enclosed in
balance of forces within the work’s a world that—far from evolving—stays
invention; the difficulty of apprehending obsessively fixated on certain means of
these opposed dimensions, forcing expression, reflecting an inevitably dying
them to coincide according to a shared form of society. Since, practically, these
perspective, posed Mahler the same sources no longer exist, we’re able to
problems it poses us, problems that consider them, calmly, as valid testimo-
define the most profound and personal nies we cannot immediately understand.
character of his music. Consequently, this material becomes
valuable as a record, and, instead of
That such a work took its time to repudiating it, we may consider it as the
convince doesn’t seem unjustified starting point of the creation. Hence,
nowadays. Abundance and excess may we’re able to attach ourselves almost
seduce us more today than in times exclusively to the transformation, the
past, recalling an opulence forgotten transmutation. Throughout the work, we
or rejected as being superfluous and follow the evolution of the expression
impure. This simplistic reaction alone created from identical source elements
wouldn’t justify the growing attrac- serving as essential points of reference.
tion to this work once rejected for its The scope and complexity of gesture, as
ambiguity—this ambiguity that, today, well as the variety and intensity in the
is esteemed. Still, attaching this work degrees of invention, this is what makes
to the “progressive” movement leading Mahler contemporary. This is what
directly towards, and at the same level makes him indispensable to present-day
as, the Viennese School would be contemplation on the future of music.
reading more into the things than they
actually signify. Translated by Luís Madsen

There’s too much nostalgia in Mahler,

too much attachment to the past to
make of him, without reservation, a
revolutionary starting an irreversible
process of radical renewal. This is what
his first adepts clearly felt, who attached
themselves, above all, to this nostalgia:
11
Photos: Mahler (cover) by Aimé Dupont, Barenboim by Steve J. Sherman, Boulez by J Henry Fair.