TubeNet

So I've asked just about every professor I've met this upcoming question and have yet to get an informed response. So do any of you have any knowledge on the subject of Mahler's Orchestration of Beethoven Symphony(s)? To the best of my knowledge, the only one I have evidence of him orchestrating is the 9th symphony, in which he added lots of instruments, the one that applies most to this forum is obviously, the tuba.

I have heard both recordings that I am aware of, and they are definitely interesting as lessons on orchestrating. I would love to hear more, but I don't know if there is anything else to hear. So the question:

Did Mahler orchestrate any of the other Beethoven Symphonies besides 9 AND/OR What (if anything) else did Mahler orchestrate?

What recording of Beethoven 9 orchestrated by Mahler have you come across? Those sound interesing to hear

Re-instrumentations always have happened at least since the days of J. S. Bach.

In the renaissance music was written with a certain ensemble of viols, recorders, or zinks (cornettos)/trombones in mind. And it was fully legal and accepted to play such music with any of the other instrument groups. Larger courts had all of these ensembles as sections within their orchestras plus several other instrument types not in common usage any more. More modest households might resort to what was called a “broken consortâ€

Onebaplayer wrote:Did Mahler orchestrate any of the other Beethoven Symphonies besides 9 AND/OR What (if anything) else did Mahler orchestrate?

I have a recording (BIS) of Mahler's reorchestration of Schumann's first two symphonies. To my ears, they sound better than Schumann's own orchestrations, but I still think they are rather dull (even more so than the second two).

finnbogi wrote:I have a recording (BIS) of Mahler's reorchestration of Schumann's first two symphonies. To my ears, they sound better than Schumann's own orchestrations, but I still think they are rather dull (even more so than the second two).

Do they include tuba?

AFAIK, Schumann himself didn't write a note for tuba in his entire lifetime, which extended well beyond the invention of the tuba. (Yes, his Adagio & Allegro works well on tuba and is performed frequently today on tuba recitals, but that wasn't Schumann's idea.)

Greetings,

The Hot Springs Music Festival:

http://www.hotmusic.org

has performed this very arrangement of Beethoven's 9th that you speak of (twice! once in 1996 and then again just this past summer). The conductor of that orchestra and the musical director of the festival may be able to help you know more about this interesting topic. His name is Richard Rosenburg and would probably reply to an email sent him through the website above. Beyond the addition of instruments, I think what's most remarkable about Mahler's "new" version of Beethoven 9 is the way he made it his "interpretation" as a conductor:

1) drastically changing and altering dynamics
2) greater rubato and expressive qualities
3) and while there is a tuba part, it certainly isn't anything to write home about. I think there are 4 notes in the 1st mvt.

Email Richard for more info.

Best wishes,
Mike

Steve Marcus wrote:AFAIK, Schumann himself didn't write a note for tuba in his entire lifetime, which extended well beyond the invention of the tuba.

Actually not quite true, as the BBC Music Guide for "Schumann Orchestral Music" by Hans Gal states about the Julius Caesar Overture (of 1851):-

The Orchestra contains not only trombones but - the only time Schumann used this instrument - a bass tuba.

Yes, the tuba part is hardly present. I do feel it is adequate though. It comes in at very appropriate times. It would indeed be a disaster if it was present throughout.

I will have to hunt down those cd's I have when I get home tonight, I have 2 different recordings.

Steve Marcus wrote:Do they include tuba?

Yes, it sounds like there is a tuba there in a few places, mainly acting as a fourth trombone - no solo lines.

With regard to orchestration, the craft of was not highly developed until after Beethoven. Indeed it can be heard in his later scores that Beethoven's hearing loss affected the way he wrote for the instruments and his orchestrations suffered. Most orchestration was a pretty simple affair, with rigid rules that were usually dictated by the limitations of the instruments. I think many older works could enjoy a revitilization with some patient and thoughtful re-orchestration.

TonyZ wrote:Most orchestration was a pretty simple affair, with rigid rules that were usually dictated by the limitations of the instruments. I think many older works could enjoy a revitilization with some patient and thoughtful re-orchestration.

Yes, I have never gone along with the authentic performance brigade, that works by Beethoven (or whatever great composer of the past) should be set in stone and can never be improved with more modern orchestration. There can be little doubt that Beethoven would have used more modern techniques and additional instrumental resources, such as the tuba if they had been available to him at the time. The key point here is "thoughtful re-orchestration" which improves upon and does not destroy the nature of the work.

The problem is that Beethoven's music is so revered today, that any change to the original is seen in the same light as desecration of an ancient monument. Although, in the case of music, no harm is done to the original at all. In Mahler's day, a more pragmatic approach was obviously taken.

What (if anything) else did Mahler orchestrate?

I was just listening to a Mahler orchestration of Schubert's Death and the Maiden Quartet. Mahler did it for string orchestra (sorry, no tuba), and for the most part, it works very well. I wasn't too impressed with the 2nd mvt., but that may be the performance and not the orchestration.

Speaking of the Beethoven 9/Mahler orchestration, there was a special on PBS a few years back with the Detroit Symphony discussing and performing the work. Does anyone know if this ever made it to DVD?

Cheers!

The propensity for modifying works came largely out of modernization of instruments.

For Mozart and Beethoven, wind instruments were still limited in range compared to their modern capabilities.

Mozart found creative solutions. In one symphony (I forget which...in the 30's maybe...I'll look it up if anyone's dying to know), the bassoon's range at the time prohibited the part from having the melody exactly the same as the violins, so he's drops the line down where needed, creating an altered melody. However, in the recapitulation, the violins play the melody with the alteration from the bassoon part.

Beethoven would often have the instrument sit out a beat or two rather than altering the line.

So conductors (including Mahler) reasonably thought, "Well, if the instrument in their time could have, they would have, so why not?" A lot of conductors, many of them not composers, altered parts. So if you "fill in the blanks," why not make "other corrections." Schumann was not the greatest orchestrator. But I do think something gets lost in the arrangements. It just doesn't sound like Schumann anymore. I think the push for "performance authenticity" was due, at least in part, to what became a trend of conductors making each work "their own." This often meant offenses as simple as drastically altering tempi or as involved as rewriting parts. The end result was often that the works started to sound less and less like "what the composer intended."

If any conductor had the "right" to reorchestrate, it was Mahler. If you've ever studied his scores (and study the Universal Editions; they're reliable and the most accurate), you've seen how he notates like a conductor. He includes indications that are performance directions (like Bells in the air!) more than anything. He didn't want to leave anything to question for some other conductor.

Additionally, Mozart and, if memory serves correctly, Beethoven both expressed the desire/wish for larger orchestras. They simply didn't have access to them. I believe Mahler's intention (can't find the book I have that discusses it) was as much a "If Beethoven had a 100-piece orchestra, it would've sounded like this." Although it's no direct comparison, it might be like colorizing Hitchcock's notorious, adding Dolby/THX surround, and a soundtrack by John Williams with DMX and digitizing in appearances by John Glenn. Were Hitchcock making movies today, he might using all the technology available today, so why not recreate it with that stuff? I think it's the same thinking to all the reorchestrating.

If interested, you should also check out the Bach suite that Mahler threw together (1909).

Mitch wrote:The propensity for modifying works came largely out of modernization of instruments. For Mozart and Beethoven, wind instruments were still limited in range compared to their modern capabilities.

That's why Mozart's Grand Partita for 13 Winds was originally scored with string bass. But the usage of contrabassoon instead of string bass, which is occasionally performed and recorded today, is much more satisfying.

Beethoven would often have the instrument sit out a beat or two rather than altering the line...So conductors (including Mahler) reasonably thought, "Well, if the instrument in their time could have, they would have, so why not?"

Would Wagner still have left out the high notes in the tuba part in the first entrance of the trombone theme in the Prelude to Act III of Lohengrin if he were confident that the players and instruments of his time were capable of playing them in good balance with the trombones?

A lot of conductors, many of them not composers, altered parts. So if you "fill in the blanks," why not make "other corrections."... I think the push for "performance authenticity" was due, at least in part, to what became a trend of conductors making each work "their own." This often meant offenses as simple as drastically altering tempi or as involved as rewriting parts. The end result was often that the works started to sound less and less like "what the composer intended."

Stokowski was one of the most notorious for this. His editions/orchestrations so dramatically changed what the composer wrote that they require appreciating them virtually as a completely different piece from the original. Another example of this is the Eugene Goosens re-orchestration of Handel's Messiah. When it was recorded by RCA in the late 1950's, some considered it an "improvement" of the original and an answer to the question, "What would Handel have done if he had a 20th century symphony orchestra at his disposal?" When one listens to that recording today, it's almost laughable to hear trombones, cymbals, triangles and, yes, tuba on the "Hallelujah Chorus" and other portions of the oratorio.

...it might be like colorizing Hitchcock's Notorious, adding Dolby/THX surround...

Although remotely related to this subject, does anyone know anything about Sir George Martin's remixing of the Beatles' recordings for surround sound?

There is a web site that can shed some light on these issues. It also contains a lot of good information about tubas in general.

http://www.bandparenting.net/tuba.html

It is refreshing to read a web site that has only facts, and does not contain mere opinions.

Cheers,
Allen