FA+
Shop
205
Views
Views
1
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Music / Classical
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 50 x 50
File Size 6.39 MB
Report this content
More from Felix_Arden
Listed in Folders
Category Music / Classical
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 50 x 50px
File Size 6.39 MB
Listed in Folders
The pizzicato is indeed in the Cooke. Mahler only wrote the very first note of the line and didn't specify instrumentation, so other interpretations might be possible, but this is one case where I follow Cooke's lead because I find his solution sensible, and if there's an even better one, I haven't thought of it. The sound I use for divisi violins is disproportionally loud, so that might account for why it sounds different.
In this movement there are countless tiny differences, and a few more consequential ones-here are some examples:
Starting at 0:36, Mahler's full score has three-part clarinet chords doubled by pizzicato violas. However, a few measures later is where the full score trails off, and there is only short score. The figure continues until 0:52, and Cooke keeps the same scoring all the way through. However, from 0:36 to 0:43, the moving voice always remains between the two droning voices, while after 0:43, where the solo flute enters, it circles around the upper drone, sometimes above, sometimes below. I find that in order to make the shape of this line clear, it must have a different instrumentation than the drone, so I give it to a horn, and give the clarinets and violas the drone only. Also, at 0:47-0:48, Mahler wrote four and five-note chords in contrast to the surrounding three-note ones. Cooke ignores the extra notes, but I give them to flutes.
For the melody that enters at 0:52, Mahler wrote the two-note pickup doubled in octaves, then continued only the lower octave. Both Cooke and I assume he intended the doubling to continue. If continued at the written pitch, as in the Cooke, the upper octave repeatedly crosses through the accompaniment, which I find messy. Instead, I take the fact that the line is labeled "C.B.Fag" (double bass and bassoon) as license to take the entire passage down an octave, since double basses are notated an octave higher than sounding pitch in scores. This way, the upper octave is no higher than the lowest pitch of the accompaniment in any given beat. However, this assumption is something of a liberty, because in his short scores, Mahler customarily wrote everything at sounding pitch, including the double basses. A third possibility occurs to me just now: to not assume the doubling continues. This would avoid the collisions with the accompaniment without having to make any additional assumptions, and the fact that the oboes have pickups to nothing at the same time sets a precedent for the isolated upper-octave pickup. I'll try this out, and if I can make it convincing I'll change it.
In the central section, I often differ from Cooke over which section of the orchestra gets what. For example, the passage that goes to violins in my version and in Cooke's at 1:42 is marked as such in the short score, and I agree with Cooke that it should also go to strings when it returns at 1:52, but I feel that the top line at 1:49 should be in a contrasting color; I give it to flutes and oboes, while he keeps it in the violins.
Do you have access to a score for the Cooke?
In this movement there are countless tiny differences, and a few more consequential ones-here are some examples:
Starting at 0:36, Mahler's full score has three-part clarinet chords doubled by pizzicato violas. However, a few measures later is where the full score trails off, and there is only short score. The figure continues until 0:52, and Cooke keeps the same scoring all the way through. However, from 0:36 to 0:43, the moving voice always remains between the two droning voices, while after 0:43, where the solo flute enters, it circles around the upper drone, sometimes above, sometimes below. I find that in order to make the shape of this line clear, it must have a different instrumentation than the drone, so I give it to a horn, and give the clarinets and violas the drone only. Also, at 0:47-0:48, Mahler wrote four and five-note chords in contrast to the surrounding three-note ones. Cooke ignores the extra notes, but I give them to flutes.
For the melody that enters at 0:52, Mahler wrote the two-note pickup doubled in octaves, then continued only the lower octave. Both Cooke and I assume he intended the doubling to continue. If continued at the written pitch, as in the Cooke, the upper octave repeatedly crosses through the accompaniment, which I find messy. Instead, I take the fact that the line is labeled "C.B.Fag" (double bass and bassoon) as license to take the entire passage down an octave, since double basses are notated an octave higher than sounding pitch in scores. This way, the upper octave is no higher than the lowest pitch of the accompaniment in any given beat. However, this assumption is something of a liberty, because in his short scores, Mahler customarily wrote everything at sounding pitch, including the double basses. A third possibility occurs to me just now: to not assume the doubling continues. This would avoid the collisions with the accompaniment without having to make any additional assumptions, and the fact that the oboes have pickups to nothing at the same time sets a precedent for the isolated upper-octave pickup. I'll try this out, and if I can make it convincing I'll change it.
In the central section, I often differ from Cooke over which section of the orchestra gets what. For example, the passage that goes to violins in my version and in Cooke's at 1:42 is marked as such in the short score, and I agree with Cooke that it should also go to strings when it returns at 1:52, but I feel that the top line at 1:49 should be in a contrasting color; I give it to flutes and oboes, while he keeps it in the violins.
Do you have access to a score for the Cooke?
I did take the 3rd option after all.
The score to the Cooke (and probably any of the other versions) is unfortunately rather pricey, but definitely a valuable resource. For all the parts that Mahler never began in full score, it reproduces a transcription of his last short score draft beneath the completed score, which turned out to be particularly useful in this movement because there is a passage for which the transcription is more refined than in any of the pages available online so far; I suspect it comes from a page that's missing from the scans.
The score to the Cooke (and probably any of the other versions) is unfortunately rather pricey, but definitely a valuable resource. For all the parts that Mahler never began in full score, it reproduces a transcription of his last short score draft beneath the completed score, which turned out to be particularly useful in this movement because there is a passage for which the transcription is more refined than in any of the pages available online so far; I suspect it comes from a page that's missing from the scans.
Comments