Mahler

Recently I started to study the score of Mahler Symphony No.6 (one of my very favorite works) so I had to start listening several recordings of the symphony besides the one I use to listen always, I went to a site where you can listen many, many music and I found about 9 versions, and surprised me (and bother me) to see the amount of version recorded without the 3rd hammer blow, :angry: recorded by “well-known” conductors and orchestras.:thumbsdown:

It is obvious that if you play the 3rd hammer blow nothing will happen, so I guess is because of Mahler himself deleted that blow and tried to determinate the 2 blows version as definitive version but I think I can explain that:

First, Mahler writes 3 hammer blows, perform the premiere of the symphony, then, he regrets and delete the 3rd one….Mahler did want 3 blows on his symphony that was his intention, it’s just he was forced to delete it somehow (mentally mainly) because of the bad things start to happen on his life, like the death of his daughter, his health troubles, job troubles etc….

In the depth of Mahler soul, he does wants 3 blows, if he deleted the last one was a matter of nervous weakness and anxiety oppressions…. (I could probably do the same on his situation)

I think play 2 blow is wrong, if it’s for fear terrible things, that’s ridiculous, if it is for following Mahler’s last wishes, I think I already explained that …

I don’t fear Mahler’s “Symphony no.6”, don’t fear Prokofiev’s “Fiery Angel” don’t fear Gorecki’s, Penderecki’s or other music that could be consider as too dramatic….

Is there anyone here on YC that actually believes that something bad will happen if the 3rd hammer blow is played ?....

Is there anyone here on YC that actually believes bad things in Mahler’s life was because of that 3rd hammer blow ?

Also, the powerful melody at the start of the 4th mov. is only on the strings, but is always perfomed by powerful horns (which I love that) and in the strings…. Do I have an old score or what’s the matter with that ?

EDIT: 1st time of course, 2nd and 3rd are in the strings only..

what are you talking about?

what are you talking about?

WHAT ? ... mjmj ...I mean .... what ?, you don't know the hammer blows in the Symphony No.6 by Mahler ???

I think this link will clear it:

Symphony No. 6, "Tragic"

Good for Justin who did this:

I've actually heard of this before, that each hammer blow in the symphony represented a tragedy to come in in his life, it was kinda interesting because the 6th in all of its meloncholy was composed in a rather happy time of the composer's life. I however don't really think that anything would happen if the third hammer blow was to be played today in concert, I know Bernstein does it in his recording (or atleast, one of his recordings) of the symphony and I don't think he turned over and died as he cued the percussionist to strike it :P.

Perhaps the reason that it isn't played so much today is because Mahler himself was afraid to let it be played at the premiere and it was published that way, not because of some supersition that if it was to be played horrible things would come to be. I also think it interesting that after Mahler wrote in the 3 hammer blows he decided to take out the 3rd, if each hammer blow was to be a certain tragedy in his life I wonder what the 3rd one might of actually been. I have heard quite a few representations for each hammer blow, the death of his daughter, his wife's adultery, his firing from the Vienna Opera House because of his Jewish origins, his weak heart/healthproblems, his death etc. Whatever the third one represented, it was of the most fear to him to come to be. Perhaps it was his death, who knows? Mahler was always obsessed with death as evident in his fear of writing a 9th symphony because he thought that he'd die soon after its completion.

I know Bernstein does it in his recording (or atleast, one of his recordings) of the symphony and I don't think he turned over and died as he cued the percussionist to strike it :P.

Exactly

.... you see Dead Chicken how there are culture people in here who know what I'm talking about .... (don't feel bad, surely you have heard the symphony but not realized that)

I see no reason to avoid the 3rd blow today, not a single reason.

.... you see Dead Chicken how there are culture people in here who know what I'm talking about .... (don't feel bad, surely you have heard the symphony but not realized that)

though I don't think listening to Mahler's 6th is a defining criteria for "cultured people"

and actually, I have never taken the time to listen to it. lol

you can ignore me, I am just a barbaric piece of dead bird... :glare:

well, I was joking I hope not to offend ....

If you haven't .... you should, you must..... go! right away, listen or watch the one Justin uploaded on youtube, ....

Listen all symphonies if you haven't.

"I see no reason to avoid the 3rd blow today, not a single reason."

You see no reason to perform a piece according to its latest version by the composer?

There are tons of reasons why composers change pieces after the first version and who is to say that some of those reasons are "valid" and others (such as you are arguing in this case) are "invalid" and decide based on that which version of a piece to play? There's no way for us to read Mahler's mind and figure out what all his reasons for such a change might have been - some might be stated by him (but even those are not beyond doubt), others might be pure speculation. Saying he was "mentally forced" to do some things while others were his "intention" is in the end rather meaningless, since there aren't any clear borders between such things in the creation of music in the first place and there's no reason only to assume one of them as a valid justification. In the end we just have a score, which the composer apparently considered final.

Of course, in some cases there may be reasons to perform an older version of a music, which is certainly acceptable - especially if there are musical qualities in the older versions, which don't appear to be there in the later ones (in the eyes of the conductor). Personally, I don't see any how three hammer blows are musically preferrable to two (I actually prefer two), so the most logical approach would be to stick to what Mahler wrote down as a last and final version.

O come on .... without the 3rd blow the symphony is UNCOMPLETED....

I do know very well what is to have health and Anxiety troubles, and is something I don't wish that to anybody,... (seriously) .... and I assure you, I'm right, Mahler had no option than delete the 3rd one, but must be played, if you would have a phone to the "other life" and you call Mahler, he would agree with me, I'm completely sure .... Sorry do disagree with you on this because you're such a great member but the deletion of the 3rd is not a matter of revising the score, find a mistake or something that can be improved and fix it, is not that case, (like Bruckner), and I do not consider the number of hammer blows as a trivial matter, "well, today we play 2, tomorrow 3" ......there are other few things Mahler changed on the score, like some Glockesnpiel, Cymbals, and Flutes... but those are "revising the score" ....

I completely disagree with the 2 blows versions whatever may be the reason (pretext)

I'm kind of angry with this, I thought only "very superstition" conductors played with only 2, but I saw wonderful conductors doing that....

Those Conductors may have very much experience but they made a mistake on those recordings ... ( about 6 on those 9)

.... you may think that I can not read Mahler's mind .... but it is obvious that Mahler was pressured somehow to delete the 3rd, he just couldn't hold the possibility of the relation between his symphony and the events on his life was true .... He decided not to "take the risk" ....

Well, for all we know he wasn't pressured from the outside, i.e. there were no gangsters holding a gun to his head and telling him to take away the third blow. It may very likely have been an inner compulsion, it may have come from superstition, he may not have felt "free", while doing so, but in the end those are just certain psychological conditions that led him to changing his piece - not much differently than somebody writing a piece because of a terrible event that psychically "forced" the composer to write in a certain way, a mental condition that made a composer write things in a way he wouldn't have written otherwise, or even just religiosity, which may have prompted composers to write some things because they just felt "compelled to" for spiritual reasons, or to "do god's wish". The thing is that we always have certain mental conditions that change the way we act - and write music. And we may alway regret those actions later. But ultimately we just know that Mahler, at the time he wrote down this last version, "decided not to take the risk" or whatever, and this is what produced this final version. For me, a decision "to chicken out" because of superstitious fear is just as valid as writing a certain chord because you think it "symbolizes the love of god", to write a certain melody out of a momentary feeling of sadness over the loss of a friend, or to write a certain note because your carefully calculated structural concept demands it.

But maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

there were no gangsters holding a gun to his head and telling him to take away the third blow.

of course not, ... :) or maybe we didn't know :P

But maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter

Yeah probably.....

Well as structure I thing the 3rd blow is needed, ... there are other moments where a hammer blow could be, and not... the Bass Drum masquerade the necessity of the hammer ....

I really don't thing Mahler regret his actions like saying "hey... I think this hammer really doesn't fit here, I better delete it" totally cool and calmed. It is obvious he was thinking in the life events ....

Besides the "last" wish is not always the best thing to do, Bruckner said that "if I don't finish my 9th Symphony, play the Te Deum as 4th mov" ... but who does that ? .... nobody (as far as I know) because is not a good decision.

ok... if I conduct the Symphony one day, I will play the 3rd hammer blow, and then I'll die if I have to ....:D

I'm all for the deletion of the third hammer blow provided it gets the piece over with sooner.

^ :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Tyler, you just made my day, I love you. xDDD

On topic: I like the two for aesthetic purposes IMO. To a first time listener, the first blow is a real shocker. Hell if they'd actually expect a second one. But a third? Now it's just getting old.

Just to sound off on this one, I prefer the 3 blows version for three reasons:

A) Because Mahler didn't just delete the 3rd hammer blow, he also switched the order of the middle movements, putting the adagio before the scherzo. Mahler set up the harmonic form to be as such: Mov. 1, A minor, Mov. 2, A minor, Mov. 3, E-flat Major, Mov. 4, C minor - A minor. The first two movements are meant to be a set, similar to the 5th's first two movs. It only makes sense in the original order. This revision was done at the same time as the hammer revision, both possibly intended to soften the tragic and terrifying ending of the hero being cut down by tragedy.

B) Structurally, the 3rd blow completes the sonata form. It shows the ending of a section. The first blow indicates the end of the exposition, the 2nd the end of the development, and the 3rd, the end of the recap. (The trombone thing is a coda.)

C) Musically, the 3rd Hammer blow makes a lot of sense. The music finally gets triumphant towards the end (like the 1st mov.) and Mahler makes an interesting episode where you expect the hammer blow, but it doesn't happen. The music actually sounds surprised. But then only a few bars later, the 3rd blow hits when you least expect it. This is what makes the symphony truly tragic. It is the first truly tragic symphony there is. The hero is cut down once he actually achieves his goal, albeit only briefly. The revision's impact is so much less to the point that the form doesn't really make sense and seems anti-climactic.

you seem not to understand the meaning of the blows, 3 is a magic number, 2 is certainly not...

This is a text by Michael Kennedy who writes a comment on the CD booklet of the recording I always listen (Chicago Symphony Orchestra with Sir Georg Solti ...:

[...] Much has been made of the prophetic, premonitory aspect of this work, particularly the three blows of fate of which the last proves to be fatal. Mahler became so agitated by his superstitious fear of the prophetic nature of this movements that he deleted the third blow, leaving a rather anaemic version of a climactic movement, (some conductors restore it, as the present recording)

How can you may think is better without the third one ?

you don't see the importance of what it is ?

you don't see the strength that represents ?

I don't get it .... But I see very much people think that way, even great conductors ....

Edit:

Mexican proverb:

"La tercera es la vencida" (in other words, "La tercera se la mera mera")...meaning ... the third is the one

you seem not to understand the meaning of the blows, 3 is a magic number, 2 is certainly not...

This is a text by Michael Kennedy who writes a comment on the CD booklet of the recording I always listen (Chicago Symphony Orchestra with Sir Georg Solti ...:

How can you may think is better without the third one ?

you don't see the importance of what it is ?

you don't see the strength that represents ?

I don't get it .... But I see very much people think that way, even great conductors ....

Edit:

Mexican proverb:

"La tercera es la vencida" (in other words, "La tercera se la mera mera")...meaning ... the third is the one

If everyone else around you thinks one thing, and you think another, then you're probably wrong. Or a genius.

That may or may not apply to this situation, it's just an interesting thing to keep in mind.

This seems like a largely subjective matter, to me. I'm not familiar with the score enough to say which side of the fence I am on, but I will say that I do dig Enigmus' concept of surprise.

It is a surprise to me to find these thoughts here in YC, I'm completely sure that 2 blows is wrong, I feel myself perfectly able to understand Mahler and that Symphony, maybe you all just haven't thought this matter profoundly....

but if you have the chance to make a deep study over this symphony, do it, is such a great work.

OK, great. You have a clear opinion on an aesthetic issue of interpretation. A bunch of other people have a different one. That's it.

What puzzles me the most about this thread is that you haven't made any effort to explain why it's stupid to prefer two hammer strokes--except for the single clearly stated motivation, "3 is a magic number", which, in all honesty, isn't very convincing--you merely respond with continued bafflement that not everyone understands whatever it is that you understand.

I don't see what keeps this thread going.

Quote

First, Mahler writes 3 hammer blows, perform the premiere of the symphony, then, he regrets and delete the 3rd one….Mahler did want 3 blows on his symphony that was his intention, it’s just he was forced to delete it somehow (mentally mainly) because of the bad things start to happen on his life, like the death of his daughter, his health troubles, job troubles etc….

In the depth of Mahler soul, he does wants 3 blows, if he deleted the last one was a matter of nervous weakness and anxiety oppressions…. (I could probably do the same on his situation)

EldKatt read again please .....

my God, now results that this thread is useless when is a serious matter ....

---------------------------------------

You know .... I've been thinking about what **** said, also about what could be the reason those great conductors found to play only 2 blows .... and I found this:

(this is still not enough not convince me that 2 are better than 3)

The frist two blows belong to a climatic segment that appears only twice, the 3rd blow belongs to a climatic segment that appears three times BUT there is no hammer blow in the firsts two only the last one.

So an "starter" student would say, "yes, of course, the 3rd blow does not belog to that climatic segment" ... but that posture of mind belongs to a kindergarten kid.

it is obvious that what I called "Climatic peak type B" can not appear a third time, so Mahler set it in the last climatic peak to finish the serie of emotional dramatic points,

like "strong, stronger, strongest" "high, higher, highest" "1,2,3" ... it's easy to understand that.

I posted this thread to communicate you how many people fear or misunderstand the 3rd blow, not to find "those people" are right here too.

If you're so absolutely, dead set sure that three hammer blows is the "correct" way and that three is a "magical" number but two is not then why bother starting a discussion topic on this in the first place?

I posted this thread to communicate you how many people fear or misunderstand the 3rd blow, not to find "those people" are right here too.

That's why, besides, I never thought I would find this kind of reaction from all you... :(

That's why, besides, I never thought I would find this kind of reaction from all you... :(

Just think of how boring it would be if you always got the reaction you expect. :P

yeah probably, .... it's, just I "thought"...

I find this whole discussion dreadfully tiresome.

I believe that either version is perfectly acceptable depending ENTIRELY on one's preference. I believe in no superstitions and I believe that Mahler was wrong for changing it if he did change it due to superstition. On the other hand, we have to live with the fact that he did change it and no speculation into the life of Mahler can determine whether or not he changed it just because he thought two hammer blows would sound better. I don't think there is a necessarily correct way to play the symphony and I think that the choice of version is entirely up to the listener.

So I guess I should have posted a poll for 2 or 3 version and let you vote ....

Forgive me if I started something could be useless, it's just I do consider the 2 blows version as wrong, and I don't like to see Mahler works being performed wrongly, that's all.