Mahler's Reorchestration of Schumann's 'Spring' Symphony

7/23/2019 Mahler's Reorchestration of Schumann's 'Spring' Symphony

1/36

Mahler's Reorchestration of Schumann's 'Spring' Symphony, Op. 38: Background, Analysis,IntentionsAuthor(s): Veronica Mary FrankeSource: Acta Musicologica, [Vol.] 78, [Fasc.] 1 (2006), pp. 75-109Published by: International Musicological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25071266Accessed: 28/07/2010 15:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=inmuso.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

International Musicological Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Acta Musicologica.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25071266?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=inmusohttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=inmusohttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25071266?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/36

Mahler's

Reorchestration of

Schumann's

'Spring'

Symphony,

Op. 38

Background,Analysis,

Intentions

Veronica Mary Franke

University

of

Kwazulu-Natal

1.

Critical

reception

of Schumann's

Symphonies

Schumann's four symphonies remain, in both performing and musicological circles, the

most

controversial

of

all

symphonies composed during

the

nineteenth

century.

On

the

one

hand,

we

have inherited

the

verdict of

Felix

Weingartner

whose

unfavourable

observations

on

Schumann's orchestral music have

been reiterated

by

scholars

through

to

the

twenty-first

century,

and

have

led

to

such

critical

pronouncements

as:

"of all

the

nineteenth-century

composers,

Robert Schumann

probably

has the

spottiest

track

record;"1

or:

Schumann

"did not

think

naturally?as

did Berlioz

or

Wagner?in

terms

of

the orchestra.

A

pianist

by

training,

he seemed

to

think

of the

piano

when

orchestra

ting;"2

or:

"Schumann's bland

orchestration

does

little

to avert

the

very

real

danger

of

ultimate

tedium;"3

or

finally,

what

must

be

considered the

most

defamatory

comment

of

all:

"Schumann?

My

dear

fellow,

what

are

you

talking

about? He

never

wrote

a

symphony

in

his

life.

He

just

couldn't "4

On

the other

hand,

Daniel Barenboim

has

rejected

these

stereotypes.

In

a

recent

interview

printed

in

The

New

York

Times he

states:

I think

Schumann's

symphonies

have suffered for

many

years

from

the

clich?

that

they

are

badly

orchestrated,

don't

sound,

are

not

Schumann's

best

music,

and

I

don't think this is

so...

There

is

a

particular

Schumann

world

of

music?I

won't

say

a

world

of sound.

It has

to

do with

music,

with

form,

with

sometimes

abrupt

transitions

from

one

theme

to

another.

In

many ways

it

gives

you

a

foretaste of what

is to

come

with

Wagner....

Beethoven and Schumann

made

Wagner possible,

and

Mahler.

Schumann

was

historically

one

of the

most

important

composers

of

the

19th

century.5

Indeed it is

interesting

to

trace

the

history

of the

critical

reception

of

Schumann's

sym

phonies

and

of

the

formation

of

standard

opinions

about these works.

Such

an

historical

overview

provides

us

with

an

understanding

of

the

most recent

thought

on

Schumann's

1.

Allan

KoziNN,

"Robert

Schumann,"

in

Classical

Music:

A

Critic's Guide

to

the

100

Most

Important

Recordings (New

York: Times

Books,

2004),

p.

120.

2.

Eric

Frederick

Jensen,

Schumann

(Oxford:

Oxford

University

Press,

2001),

p.

202.

3.

Alexander

Ringer,

"The

Rise of

Urban Musical Life

between

the

Revolutions,

1789-1848,"

in The

Early

Romantic Era: Between Revolutions:

178c

and

1848,

ed.

Alexander

Ringer

(London:

Macmillan

Press,

1990),

p.

26.

4.

Quoted

in

Stephen

Williams,

"Robert

Schumann,"

The

Symphony,

ed.

Ralph

Hill

(Middlesex:

Penguin

Books,

1949),

p.

173.

5.

Quoted

inAnne

Midgette,

"That

Special

German

Sound,"

New

York

Times,

23.01.2004.


3/36

76

Veronica

Mary Franke

compositional

process

within the

symphonic

realm. One

of

the

most

significant

outcomes

confirms

that,

while

positive

re-assessments

of

Schumann's

thematic

development

have

recently appeared, thorough reappraisals

of

his orchestral

language

have

been

far less

evident.

In

connection

with

the

latter,

probing

Mahler's

procedures

of

alteration

and

adaptation,

as

exhibited

in

Op.

38,

produces

new

and

enlightening

evidence,

disclosing

Mahler's

intentions and

their

implications

for

Schumann's

orchestration.

Reviews

of

Schumann's

four

symphonies

in

his

own

lifetime

reveal

that

they

were on

the

whole successful

and

were

accorded

much

admiration.6

For this

reason,

Schumann

had little

difficulty

in

finding

publishers immediately

for these

compositions.

However,

the

rise

to

dominance

of

Wagner's

music and of

Wagnerian

criticism

in

the

second

half

of

the

nineteenth

century

produced

a

decisive

shift of

opinion.

Schumann

became

the

target

of

criticism

for

several

reasons,

including

his

supposed inability

to

compose

a

successful

opera,

his

alleged

adherence

to

classical forms and

traditional

genres,

and

his

so-called

'deficiencies'

as

an

orchestrator.

The last

point

was

thoroughly

explored byWeingartner

in

his

published study

of

1897

on

the

development

of

the

symphony

after Beethoven.7

He

condemned

technique

and

orchestral

sense

in

Schumann's

symphonies

as

follows:

Generally speaking,

a

Schumann

symphony

produces

more

effect

when

well

played

as

a

piano

duet

than

in

the

concert-room.

The

reason

is,

as

the

most

fervent admirers

of

the

master

dare

not

refuse

to

acknowledge nowadays,

that

Schumann

had not

the

slightest

idea

of

handling

an

orchestra,

either

as

director

or

in

writing

for it.

He

nearly always employed

the full

band,

seldom

trying

to

group

the different

bodies

of

instruments

according

to

the individual "timbre". With

an

almost childish

lack

of

skill,

he

thought

he could

produce

a

fullness and

power

of

sound

by doubling

the

parts.

His

instrumentation

became,

through

this,

so

thick and

dull

that

if it

were

played

as

he

marked

it,

nothing

of

any

meaning

would

be

given

out

by

the

orchestra,

and

it

would be

as

impossible

to

produce

a

true

forte

as

an

expressive

pianissimo.8

6.

The

First

Symphony

was

first

performed

under Felix Mendelssohn's direction

on

31

March

1841,

in

Leipzig.

According

to

Alfred

D?rffel,

historian of

the

Gewandhaus

concerts:

"the

performance

of

the

symphony

went

magnificently.

The listeners

were

extraordinarily

excited...

the

success

with all

present

was

such that the symphony

was

much discussed and Schumann

was

viewed in

a

much different light

and

recognized

to

a

greater degree

than

previously."

D?rffel's

account

is

quoted

and translated

in

Jon

Finson,

"Schumann,

Popularity,

and

the

Overture, Scherzo,

and

Finale,

Opus 52,"

The

Musical

Quarterly

69

(1983):

pp. 3-4.

The

First

Symphony

continued

to

enjoy

considerable

success

and

popularity

in

the

years

that

followed,

attaining

a

secure

place

in

the concert

repertory

of

many

European

musical

centres,

including

Berlin,

Vienna,

Dresden,

and

Hamburg.

The

Second

Symphony

was

judged,

in the

nineteenth

century,

to

be

one

of

Schumann's

highest

achievements.

Anthony

Newcomb

examines

con

temporary

reviews

of

the work in

"Once More 'Between Absolute and

Program

Music':

Schumann's

Second

Symphony,"

Nineteenth-Century

Music

7

(1983/4):

pp. 234-237.

The Third

Symphony

was

first

performed

in

February 1851,

to

great

acclaim.

As

Jensen

(in

"Schumann,"

p.

300)

states:

"What

seemed

to

contribute

to its

success

was

its

tunefulness

and

genial

nature." The Fourth

Symphony

received

mixed reviews

at its

premiere

in

1841, "maybe

because

in

Mendelssohn's absence

it

was

conducted

by

Ferdinand David, whom Schumann found less than

adequate"?see

Robert Layton, A Guide to the

Symphony

(Oxford:

Oxford

University

Press,

1995),

pp.

134-135-

Schumann

subsequently

abandoned

the

work

but returned

to it in

1851,

revising

and

rescoring

it for

one

of

his

D?sseldorf

concerts. It

was

published

in

1853.

7.

See

Felix

Weingartner,

The

Symphony

Writers

since

Beethoven,

trans.

Arthur

Bless

(London:

William

Reeves,

n.d.),

pp.

29-41.


4/36

Mahler's

Reorchestration of

Schumann's

'Spring'

Symphony, Op.

38

77

It

was

also

Weingartner

who

first

argued

that

Schumann's

approach

to

composition

was

essentially

unsuited

to

symphonic

form

because

it

was

dominated

by

a

conglo

meration of small-scale

repetitive units,

or

"little

themes."

He

referred

to

Schumann's

"customary uniformity

of

rhythm

and tiresome

repetition,"

and

alleged

that the

compo

ser's

"larger

orchestral works

easily

become monotonous."

Weingartner's unrelenting

objections

to

Schumann's

assumed lack of constructive

ability

culminated in

his

claiming

that: "With

Schumann,

the

sound

structure is

only

upheld,

in

a

semblance of

solidity,

by

the

repetition

of

the

theme,

and the

adoption

of

phrases

which

often have

no

raison

d'?tre

in

the

organic

whole."9

The

twentieth

century

continued

to be

puzzled

by

aspects

of

Schumann's

symphonies.

Esteemed

music

historians,

such

as

Donald

Tovey,

Mosco

Carner

and

Gerald

Abraham,

questioned

the

quality

of Schumann's achievements

as

a

symphonist

from

the

same

two

angles

as

Weingartner:

firstly,

Schumann's

treatment

of

orchestral

colour and

textures,

and,

secondly,

Schumann's formal

content,

in

particular

his

generation

and

development

of

thematic material.

In

the

opening

of his

analytical

discussion

of Schumann's

sympho

nies,

Tovey

criticized

Schumann's

ineptitude

in

relation

to

the

establishment

of

organic

structure in

large

forms,

asserting

that

"it

is

quite

true

that Schumann's

treatment

of

large

forms

is

no

model for students."

Tovey

also

berated

Schumann for the

"incredible

clumsiness" of his

scoring,

declaring

that

"tragedy

was latent in it from the outset, and

became

manifest

in his

pitiful

failure

as

a

conductor."10

Both

Carner

and

Abraham

de

plored

Schumann's

"static

mosaic-like

conception

of

form" and

emphasized

his

"inability

to

invent

true

symphonic

themes,

themes

capable

of

development

and

further

growth."

Furthermore,

they

felt that

Schumann's

symphonies

were

frequently handicapped by

"thick and

generally unimaginative scoring"

and that he

conceived his

orchestral music

in

terms

of the

piano.11

While recent Schumann scholarship has begun to

assess

his contribution to sympho

nic

writing

on

its

own

terms,

negative

appraisals

persist.

In

his

critique

of

the

'Spring'

Symphony,

Carl

Dahlhaus,

for

instance,

stresses

that

this

work embodies the

structural

limitations of

many

nineteenth-century

sonata

forms.

He feels

that the absence of

diverse melodic ideas "works

against

the

large-scale

form

Schumann

was

seeking

to

8.

Weingartner,

pp.

36-37.

9.

Weingartner,

pp.

33-38.

10.

Donald

Francis

Tovey,

Essays

in

Musical

Analysis: Symphonies

II

(London:

Oxford

University

Press,

1935),

pp.

46-47.

11.

See Mosco

Carner,

"The Orchestral

Music,"

in

Schumann: A

Symposium,

ed.

Gerald

Abraham

(London:

Oxford

University

Press,

1952),

pp.

178-186;

Gerald

Abraham,

"Robert

Schumann,"

The

New

Grove

Early

Romantic

Masters,

vol.

1,

ed.

Stanley

Sadie

(London:

Macmillan,

1985),

pp.

178

and

183fr;

and

Abraham,

"New

Tendencies inOrchestral

Music:

1830-1850,"

in The

New

Oxford

History

of

Music:

Romanticism,

ed. Abraham

(Oxford:

Oxford

University

Press,

1990),

pp.

41-44

and

55-56.


5/36

78

Veronica

Mary Franke

create." What is

more,

"the

elaboration

of the main motive

lacks

the

sophistication

and

refinement

necessary

to

save

the thematic

process

from

degenerating

into mecha

nical

development."

Dahlhaus concludes

that

"by substituting

the

motivic

unity

of the

character

piece

forthat

of

the

Beethoven

symphony [Schumann]

became

embroiled

in

contradictions between

lyricism

and

monumentality,

contradictions that led

not

so

much

to

a

productive

dialectic

as

to

mutual

paralysis

of

its various

components."12

For

Charles

Rosen,

Schumann had

difficulty

in

"sustaining

movement"

in

his

chamber

music and

sym

phonies

in

his late

years.

He

succinctly

attributes Schumann's limitations

to "a

difficulty

in

dealing

with the Classical

forms of the

previous

generation,"

and

cites

Schumann's

later

works

using larger

forms

to

epitomize negative

elements of

post-Beethoven

music.

In

particular,

Rosen

focuses

on

the

difficulty

of

"integrating

some

kind

of

rhythmic

variety

into

large-scale

structures,"

and

proclaims

that

in

Schumann's late

works

"the

obsessio

nal

rhythms

are

now

unenlivened and

unrelieved."

This

obsessional

quality

results in

a

"continual

disparity

between

traditional

form and

musical idea."13

The

silence

of

other

leading

contemporary

historians,

such

as

Richard Taruskin

in his

multivolumed critical

study

on

the

history

of

Western

music,

would

suggest

similar

negative

assessments.14

On

the

other

hand,

the number of scholars

arguing

for

a more

positive

evaluation

of

Schumann's

achievements

in

symphonic

writing

is

growing.

In

this

regard,

the work of

such

prominent

musicologists

as Linda Roesner, Michael

Musgrave,

Joel

Lester,

Jon

Finson

and

Anthony

Newcomb

is

significant.15

They

have

concentrated

on

the

area

of

thematic

development

and tonal

organization,

and the

way

in

which these

and

other

processes

create

cogent,

integral relationships

and interconnections

in

Schumann's

large-scale

instrumental

compositions.

Newcomb,

for

instance,

focuses

on

the

thematic

metamor

phoses

found

throughout

Schumann's Second

Symphony,

op.

61,

and affirms

that "the

thematic

unity

of

this

symphony

is

thorough

and

deeply

worked

out."16

Lester

argues

12. Carl Dahlhaus, Nineteenth-Century Music, trans. J. Bradford Robinson (Los Angeles: University of

California

Press,

1989),

pp.

159-160.

13.

Charles

Rosen,

The Romantic Generation

(Cambridge:

Harvard

University

Press,

1995),

pp.

689fr.

14.

See

Richard

Taruskin,

The

Oxford

History

of

Music,

vol.

3:

The

Nineteenth

Century (Oxford:

Oxford

University

Press,

2005)

which

contains

no

critical discussion

or

evaluation

of

Schumann

in

relation

to

the

romantic

symphonic

tradition.

15.

See

Linda

Roesner,

"Schumann,"

in The

Nineteenth-Century Symphony,

ed. Kern Holoman

(New

York:

Schirmer

Books,

1997),

pp. 43-77;

Michael

Musgrave,

"Symphony

and

Symphonic

Scenes:

Issues

of Structure and Context

in Schumann's

'Rhenish'

Symphony,"

in

Analytical Strategies

and

Musical

Interpretation: Essays

on

Nineteenth-and

Twentieth-Century

Music,

ed.

Craig

Ayrey

and

Mark Everist

(Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

Press:

1996),

pp.

120-148;

Joel

Lester,

"Robert

Schumann

and

Sonata

Forms,"

Nineteenth-Century

Music

18

(1994-95),

pp.

189-210;

Jon

Finson,

Robert Schumann

and the

Study

of

Orchestral

Composition

(Oxford:

Clarendon

Press,

1989);

Finson,

"The Sketches

for

the

Fourth Movement

of Schumann's Second

Symphony,

Op.

61,"

Journal

of

the

American

Musicological Society,

39

(1986),

pp.

143-68;

Finson, "Schumann,

Popularity,

and

the

Overture,"

pp.

1-26; Finson,

"The

Sketches

for Robert

Schumann's

C

Minor

Symphony,"

Journal

of

Musicology,

1

(1982):

pp.

395-418;

Newcomb,

"Once

More 'Between

Absolute and

Program

Music',"

pp.

233-250.

16.

Newcomb,

p.

240.


6/36

Mahler's Reorchestration

of Schumann's

'Spring'

Symphony,

Op. 38

79

persuasively

that

"applying

Beethoven-based,

sonata-form theories

to

Schumann's music

invariably denigrates

his

accomplishments."

His

sonata

forms

present

a

"definable

mix of

traditional and innovative features," and his individual characteristics offer plasticity

to

the

form

and

the

ability

to

evolve.17

Musgrave

discusses the

extraordinary degree

of

motivic

integration

in the "Rhenish"

Symphony,

which,

he

feels,

"provides

a

background

from

which the

composer

can

effect

the

contrast

of

tension

or

relaxation

in

the

unfolding

of

the

structure."18 The

views

of

the

remaining

scholars,

Finson

and

Roesner,

as

they pertain

to

Op.

38,

are

examined

in

the

concluding

remarks

of

the

present

study.

When

compared

with defences of

his

thematic

processes

and formal

procedures,

de

fences

of

Schumann's orchestral mechanics

have been slow to

emerge.

The

only

scholar

who has

shed

some

valuable

light

on

this

subject

is

Finson.

Focusing

on

sketches,

drafts

and

revisions

of the

'Spring' Symphony,

he has shown that

Schumann

scrupulously

fashio

ned and refined this

work,

always

with the

exigencies

of

performance

in

mind.

Within

this

process

it

becomes

clear that

Schumann

was

profoundly

concerned

with

balance

and

sonority.

Finson has also demonstrated

that the

perceived

problem

of imbalance

in

Schumann's

symphonies

had

more

to

do

with the increased

size of the

late nineteenth

century

orchestra

than with

Schumann's

purported incompetence:

It

seems

incredible that

Weingartner

did

not

imagine

an

alternative

means

of

achieving proper

balance

in

Schumann's orchestration:

reducing

the

proportions

of the

ensemble

to

resemble

those

for

which

the

composer

so

meticulously

fashioned

his...

[symphonies].

If

e

adopted

this

practice,

orchestras

playing

Schumann

would

not

exceed Mendelssohn's

or

Taubert's

optimistic

maximum

ensemble of

around

fifty players.

The

relatively

low tessitura for the

more

colourful wind

parts

could

then

be

distinguished

amidst

the

frequent

string

doubling,

and the fullness Schumann

hoped

to

achieve would be

preserved.19

Jensen,

in his

recent

book

on

Schumann,

echoes Finson's sentiments:

What needs

to

be

remembered

is that the

orchestra

Schumann

wrote

for

was

about

half

the size

of

the

orchestra

of

today.

With

a

comparable

reduction

greater

clarity

might

result,

and

complaints

about his orchestral

bumblings

might

diminish in their

ferocity.20

The

writings

of

Finson

and others have initiated

a

re-evaluation

of

Schumann's

sym

phonies,

such

as

iswitnessed

in

Barenboim's

statement

quoted

above.

Moreover,

recent

performances

on

period

instruments,

including

John

Eliot

Gardiner's

exhilarating

and

17.

Lester,

pp.

209-210.

18.

Musgrave,

p.

135.

Also

see

John

Irving,

"The Invention

of

Tradition,"

in The

Cambridge

History

of

Nineteenth-Century

Music,

ed.

Jim

Samson

(Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

Press,

2002),

pp.

203

205.

Irving

examines

integrative techniques

and

cyclic

principles

of

organization

in

Schumann's

sym

phonies

as

a

whole.

19.

Finson,

"Schumann

and

the

Study

of

Orchestral

Composition,"

pp.

140-41.

20.

Jensen,

Schumann,

p. 204.

Note

that

while

Jensen

feels

that "Schumann

at

times

thought

of the orchestra

as

a

piano,

and

tried

to

transfer

pianistic

effects

to

it"

he

also

confirms

that Schumann

managed

his

orchestration

with

"conspicuous sensitivity".


7/36

8o

Veronica

Mary

Franke

insightful

rendition

of

the

Schumann

symphonies

with

the

Orchestre R?volutionnaire

et

Romantique,

have

brought

into

question

the

impugning

of

Schumann's

sound

world.21

Itwould

appear

that much

of the

criticism

in

the

past

and

present

has

been due

to

the

discrediting

interpretations

of

a

few

scholars and

conductors.

Their dismissive attitude

was

widely adopted

and

reaffirmed

without

question

and without

further

analysis

of

Schumann's

original

manuscripts

and sketches.

Weingartner,

Tovey,

Carner and Abraham

were

especially

influential

in

causing

twentieth-

and

twenty-first-century

critics

to

mis

understand

and,

in

varying

degrees,

to

discount

Schumann's

ability

as an

orchestrator.

I

would

venture to

suggest

that,

of

all

the

opponents,

Weingartner

did the

greatest

damage

as

his

disparaging

views

had

a

decisive

bearing

on

the

arguments

of

subsequent

commentators

and

critics,

who,

in

turn,

influenced

later scholars

so

that

it

became

com

monplace

to

criticize Schumann's

symphonic

abilities

in

terms

of both

formal

articula

tion

and

orchestration.

And,

as

Arnold

Schoenberg

foresaw,

any

student,

even

today,

encountering

such

widespread

denunciation

of

Schumann

as

an

orchestrator

may

"never

listen

to the

orchestra

of

Schumann

naively, sensitively,

and

open-mindedly."22

When

one

examines

the

structure

and orchestral

texture

of

Schumann's

'Spring' Symphony

more

intimately,

and

in

relation

to

Mahler's

rescoring

of

it,

then

a

direct

challenge

to

the

familiar

hackneyed

condemnations is

in

order.

This

brings

me to the main focus of this article. As iswell

known,

conductors from the

late nineteenth

century

to

the

present

day

have

endeavoured

to

'improve'

Schumann's

instrumentation

in his

orchestral

music,

the

best

known of these revisions

being

Gustav

Mahler's.23

In the

light

of

recent

scholarship

and of

contemporary

performances

with

period

instruments,

the

question

that arises iswhether Mahler's

rescorings

are

justifiable.

Do

his corrections enhance

Schumann's

musical

structures,

creating

greater

orchestral

transparency,

balance of

tone

colour and

variety

of

dynamics,

or are

these

changes

new

shades added

to

an

already

pleasing

canvas?

In

order

to

address this issue the

present

article undertakes a comprehensive investigation of Mahler's interpretation and transfor

mation

of Schumann's

Symphony

No.

1

in

B

flat,

Op. 38.

Itclassifies

the

types

of revisions

made

by

Mahler,

and includes

analyses

of

passages

exemplifying

these

'emendations'.

The

examples

clearly

show that while

Mahler

re-orchestrated the

symphony

at

a

time when

orchestral

scoring

had

arrived

at

a

brilliance

never

before

known,

Mahler

does

not

impose

on

Schumann's

music

a

sound

that is

incompatible

with Schumann's intentions and their

realization.

Analyses

of

the

examples

also reveal that Mahler's

alterations

and

adaptations

21.

See Gardiner's

1998

CD

recording

of

Schumann's

complete

symphonies (Archiv production

457

591

2).

22.

Arnold

Schoenberg,

"New

Music,

Outmoded

Music,

Style

and

Idea,"

1946;

in

Style

and

Idea,

ed.

Leonard

Stein,

trans.

Leo

Black

(London:

Faber

and

Faber,

1975),

pp. 113-14.

23.

Other

conductors

who have rescored Schumann's

symphonies

include

Weingartner,

Carl

Schuricht,

Bruno

Walter,

Hamilton

Harty

and

Benjamin

Britten.


8/36


of

Schumann's

'Spring' Symphony, Op. 38

81

are

not

extensive,

nor are

they

futile

as some

contemporary

critics

postulate.24

Indeed,

Mahler's revisions

are

subtle

and

skillful,

and

involve

a

process

of

refining,

at

all times

unveiling his principal aim: to give prominence to thematic lines and essential rhythms.25

Certainly,

Mahler

did

not

rescore

Schumann's

passages

because he

felt

they

had been

"erroneously

conceived

or

notated"

or

because

they

uncover

"apparent

deficiencies

in

orchestral

technique,"

as

some

writers

have

casually

inferred.26

He

revised Schumann's

orchestral music

in

the

light

of

the

expanded techniques

used in

late romantic

sympho

nies

performed

by

large

orchestras.

Thus,

as

the

ensuing

discussions will

demonstrate,

Mahler's

rescorings

should

never

be used

as

a

platform

to

perform

the function

of

cor

roborating negative

lines

of

argument

in

relation

to

Schumann's

orchestration.

At

the

same

time,

the

analysis

and

its

conclusions

reveal

the

magnitude

of the

im

portance

Schumann

attached

to

orchestral

sonority

as

well

as

his astute

knowledge

of

instrumentation,

and

suggest

that critics

of Schumann's

orchestral texture

and

scoring

have

overlooked the

conditions under

which

Op. 38

was

written?the

original

orches

tral

size,

layout

and available instrumental

techniques.

When

we

pay

attention

to

these

matters

a

fresh

understanding

of the

orchestral

sense

of

Op. 38

emerges.

Moreover,

it becomes

absolutely

clear that

whether

we

perform

the

'Spring'

with the

original

condensed orchestral forces of

Schumann's

day,

or

apply

Mahler's

revisions

for

a

larger

'modern'

ensemble,

the conclusion is the same: Schumann's orchestration in

Op.

38

is

not

'deficient'

or

'defective'.

2.

The

Nature

of

Mahler's Revisions

It

was

during

the

early

1900s

that Mahler revised

all the

Schumann

symphonies.

He

seems

to

have had

a

special

affection

for

the

first

symphony,

for he

conducted

it

on

numerous

occasions,

the first time

in

1895

at

a

subscription

concert

of

the Association of

Friends

of Music

in

Hamburg.

Mahler

must

have valued

his

rescorings,

as

shortly

before

his death he spoke to hiswife, Alma, about these and other re-orchestrations, declaring:

"They

are

worth

a

lot?have

them

printed."27

Mahler's

arrangements

were

published

by

Universal

Edition in

1927.28

24-

See,

for

instance, Layton,

"A Guide

to

the

Symphony"

p. 133,

which

discusses the

alleged

ineffecti

veness

of Mahler's re-orchestrations.

25.

Mahler

explained

to

Natalie

Bauer-Lechner,

close

friend of

Mahler,

that:

"I

always

give

precedence

to

the

principal

voices."

See

Henry-Louis

de La

Grange,

Mahler

(London:

Camelot

Press,

1974),

vol.

1,

P- 499

26.

Jeremy

Siepmann,

"The

History

of

Direction

and

Conducting,"

in

The

Cambridge

Companion

to

the

Orchestra,

ed.

Colin

Lawson

(Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

Press,

2003),

p. 119

and

Layton,

"A

Guide

to

the

Symphony,"

p.

133.

27.

Alma

Mahler,

Gustav

Mahler: Memories

and

Letters,

ed.

Donald

Mitchell,

trans. Basil

Creighton

(London:

John

Murray,

1968),

p.

190.

28.

The

edition that

I

am

using

for

analytical

purposes

is:

Robert

Schumann,

Symphonie

Nr

1

B-dur mit

Instrumental Retouchen

von

Gustav Mahler

(Vienna:

Universal

Edition,

1977).

It is

interesting

that

perfor


9/36

82

Veronica

Mary Franke

The

nature

of

the

changes

which

Mahler

makes

in the

course

of

his

work

has been

analysed

by

Mosco

Carner.

Carner's

article,

though

not

recent,

is

a

good starting point,29

especially

as

his findings

have been

widely repeated by musicologists up

to

the

present

time. He

draws attention

to

seven

features,

including

the

thinning

of

thickly

overscored

passages,

the clarification

of thematic lines

and

rhythmic procedures,

changes

to

dynamic

effects,

modification

of

phrase

structures,

changes

in the

manner

of

playing,

transfor

mation

of

themes

and,

finally, suggestions

for abbreviation.

Carner

analyses

a

number

of

examples

from all four Schumann

symphonies

to

illustrate

Mahler's methods.

Whilst

Carner

does

not

claim

to

make

a

detailed

investigation

of Mahler's

'corrections',

his

ac

count,

in

my

opinion,

is

too

cursory

and

his

examples

are

too

brief. He leaves

us

with

no

appropriate,

solid

conclusion

justifying

Mahler's

adaptations

and

probing

his

intentions.

Other

scholars have

claimed that

Mahler

lavishly

reorchestrated

the

Schumann

symphonies

and wrote them

out

afresh.30

Even

Carner

mentions

that Mahler's

work

was a

thorough

revision,

with

not

a

single

movement

in

the

four

symphonies

remaining

untouched

and

with

alterations

and corrections

covering

many

pages

of

the

score.31

This

is

most

certainly

not

the

case

with

Op.

38.

Mahler

neither adds

to

nor

subtracts

from the

content of this

symphony.

He renders discreet

alterations,

additions

and

deletions

to the

score

encompassing

a

limited number

of

bars

at

a

time

and

involving

a

few instruments

only,

never the entire ensemble. His most substantial

changes

concern

dynamic

effects

and

tone

colour.

There

are

dozens

of

pages

in

which Mahler

makes

no

modifications.

Moreover,

Carner's

categories

of "thematic alterations"

and

"suggested

cuts

to

repetitive

passages"

do

not

apply

at

all.32

As iswell

known,

the

opening

of

the

symphony

has made

history

and

remains

a

controversial

matter

for

conductors. Schumann

wanted

the

opening

fortissimo

'to

sound

as

if

from

high

like

a

call

to

awaken'.

The

opening

was

originally

written

at

this

pitch:

Example

1:

*

*

^

manees

of Mahler's

re-orchestrations

have

so

far been

exceedingly

rare.

The

only

CD

recording

that

Iknow of is

BIS-CD-361,

a

recording

made

in

1987 by

the

Bergen

Philharmonic

orchestra,

conducted

by

Aldo

Ceccato.

The

CD

includes

Mahler's re-orchestrated

versions

of

Schumann's first and

second

symphonies.

29.

See

Carner,

"Mahler's

Re-Scoring

of

the Schumann

Symphonies,"

The

Music

Review,

2

(1941):

pp. 97

110.

30.

See,

for

instance,

Bernard

Shore,

Sixteen

Symphonies

(London:

Longmans,

1949),

p. 103;

Henry

Raynor,

A

History

of

the

Orchestra

(New

York: Charles

Scribner,

1978),

p.

117;

Leon

Plantinga,

Romantic Music:

A

History

of

Musical

Style

in

Nineteenth-Century

Europe

(New

York:

W.W. Norton &

Company,

1984),

p.

244;

and

Michael

Steinberg,

The

Symphony:

A

Listener's Guide

(Oxford:

Oxford

University

Press,

1995).

P-

508,

n.

4.

31.

Carner,

p.

99.

32.

Carner,

p.

98.


10/36

Mahler's

Reorchestration of Schumann's

'Spring'

Symphony,

Op.

38 83

However,

at

the

first

rehearsal

it

was

a

disaster

because the

sixth

and

seventh

notes

were

impossible

to

play

on

the

trumpets

and

could

only

be

played

in

a

muted,

muffled

manner on the horns. Mendelssohn transposed the passage up a third, and itwas with

the

opening

in

this last version

that

the

symphony

was

published.

Even

if

Schumann

en

countered

problems

on

this

one

occasion,

Barry

Tuckwell has

stressed that

Schumann

had

a

great

love

for

the

horn,

was

well-acquainted

with

writing

for

the natural

horn,

and

wrote the first

major

work

for

the

valved

horn,

namely

his

Adagio

and

Allegro

for

horn

and

piano.33

Thus,

this

singularly unlucky

incident

over

two notes

in

an

entire

symphony

should

never

have become

"an

almost automatic

response

to

dismiss Schumann's

or

chestral

skill."34

Mahler

restored

the

infamous

passage

at

the

opening

of the

'Spring'

to its

original

pitch

starting

on

B

flat and

not

on

D,

evidently

because

of

the

greater

capabilities

of

modern valve horns

and

trumpets,

and

it is

surprising

that

Schumann himself did

not

revert to

the

rehearsal

version.

By

the time

his

orchestral

score was

published

in

1853,

the

valve horn had been

developed.

If he had reinstated the

original

passage

it could

have been

played

with the

effect he intended.

Steinberg

has

suggested

that Schumann

either

became used

to

the

revision,

or

did

not want to

trouble

Breitkopf

and H?rtel.35

Certainly

the

opening

call

on

B

flat,

as

re-established

by

Mahler,

sounds

more

vibrant,

has

greater

clarity

and

sonority,

and has the

advantage

of

relating

thematically

more

closely

to

the

ensuing

first

subject

and

the

opening

of

the

development.

Mahler's

remaining

adjustments

and

modifications

in

Op.

38

may

be classified

under

five

categories,

a

detailed

account

of which is

presently

given.

It

needs

to

be stressed that

these

changes

become

more

understandable

if he work is

o

be

performed by

a

modern

symphony

orchestra.

It

would

appear

beyond

any

doubt that Schumann

composed

his

symphony

with

a

specific performing

medium

inmind -the

Leipzig

Gewandhaus

orches

tra, an ensemble comprising approximately forty-nine players,36 which, because it con

tinued

to

play

a

repertory

of

eighteenth-and early nineteenth-century

works,

followed

the structural

pattern

of the

high-classical

orchestra.

In

the decades

after Schumann

composed

this

work,

orchestras

expanded

significantly,

so

that

by

the

late nineteenth

33-

This work

was

composed

in

1849.

His Konzertst?ck

for

four horns and

orchestra

also

dates

from this

time.

See

Barry

Tuckwell,

Yehudi

Menuhin Music

Guides:

Horn

(London:

Macdonald

and

Co.,

1986),

pp.

78-79.

34.

Bernard

Keeffe,

"Robert

Schumann,"

in

Heritage

of

Music:

The

Romantic

Era,

ed.

Michael Raeburn

and Alan Kendall

(Oxford:

Oxford

University

Press,

1989),

p 203.

Keeffe

claims that "this

unhappy

experience

affected Schumann's

subsequent

writing

for

the orchestra."

35.

Steinberg,

"The

Symphony:

A

Listener's

Guide,"

pp.

507-508.

36.

See

Finson,

"Robert Schumann

and

the

Study

of Orchestral

Composition,"

p.

139.

Also

see

Daniel

Koury,

Orchestral

Performance

Practices

in the Nineteenth

Century:

Size,

Proportion

and

Seating (Michigan:

University

Microfilms

Inc.,

1986),

pp.

148-150.


11/36

84

Veronica

Mary Franke

century

symphony

orchestras

featured

100

players. By

this

stage

the

Wagnerian

orchestra

and

Wagnerian

techniques

of orchestration

had

made their

way

into the

symphonic

and

concert repertory, including the symphonies of Mahler himself More important than the

overall increase

in

the

size

was

the

inner

balance between sections. When Schumann's

'Spring'

was

first

performed

in

1841

the

woodwind-to-brass-to-string

ratio

was

1:1:3.

When

Mahler conducted the

'Spring'

approximately

60

years

later in

1899

the ratio

was

1:1:4

-

a

33%

increase

in

the

strings,

a

consequence

of

the

burgeoning

winds and their

technological

advances.37

It

is such

an

expanded

orchestra,

coupled

with

concert

halls

possessing

sizes,

acoustics and

seating plans

unknown

to

Schumann,

that Mahler would

have had inmind

when

he

amended

Op. 38

to

avoid

prospective

imbalances.

Mahler's

changes

to

Schumann's first

symphony

are

now

explored

separately

with

musical

examples

substantiating

and

expanding

upon

the

enumerated

headings

below:

1.

Greater

adjustment

to

balance of melodic lines

2.

Revision

of

timpani scoring

3.

Modification

of

horn and

trumpet

parts

4.

Changes

to

string

orchestration

5.

Dynamic

adjustments

&

rethinking

of

phrasing

and articulation

1.

Greater

adjustment

to

balance

of

melodic

lines.

There

are

a

number of

instances where

Mahler redistributes the

parts

in

Op.

38

inorder to

clarify

the

accompanying

figuration

and

to

articulate the melodic

and

contrapuntal

lines

more

clearly

within the

context

of

larger

orchestral forces.

An

excellent

large-scale

illustration of this

procedure

may

be

found

in

the

exposition

of

the Finale

(bars

21-28),

and

again

in

its

recapitulation

(bars

196-203).

In

order

to

appreciate

the

full

impact

of

these alterations the

passage

in

Ex. 2b

below should

be

compared

with its

original

(Ex.

2a).

In he first four

bars

of

the Schumann

original,

the main theme

is

scored for

first

violins

only.

The

flutes and oboes

play

a

three

note

motive

as a

counterpoint against

this theme whilst the

horns,

clarinets, bassoons,

second violins, violas, cellos and basses provide the accompaniment. With conventional

symphonic

forces,

the

scoring

of

the

accompaniment

can

sound

overdone.

In

his

revision,

Mahler reduces

the

accompanying

parts,

removing

the clarinets

and bassoons

altogether,

thus

allowing

the

principal

subject

on

the

violins and

the

melodic entries

of

the

flutes

and oboes

to

be heard

much

more

clearly.

In

the

next

three bars

of

this

passage,

the

main

theme is scored

for flutes and

first

violins

(bars

i^ff)

whilst the remainder of the

orchestra

accompany.

The

density

of

Schumann's

orchestration here

reflects,

as

Finson

has

pointed

out,

Schumann's

intention

to

"elicit the

most

massive

sonority

available

from

the

Gewandhaus ensemble

of

49

players".38

Schumann

accomplishes

this

full

orchestral

37-

See

the

chapters

on

nineteenth-century

orchestras

and

relative

strengths

and

proportions

in

Koury,

pp.

143-171.

38.

Finson,

"Schumann and

the

Study

of Orchestral

Composition,"

p.

78.


12/36

Mahler's

Reorchestration of Schumann's


85

sonority

by doubling

his

accompanying

lines

playing

chords

to

support

the

melodically

and

rhythmically

active

themes.

The darker instrumental

colours and

closely-spaced

harmonies

also

help

to

increase

the full

texture.

Mahler, however,

eliminates the

alto,

tenor

and bass

trombones

completely,

lightening

the

texture

of the

accompanying

parts

and

enabling

a

complementary

accentuation of

the

melodic lines.39

A

further

example

which shows

Mahler

securing

melodic

clarity

and

satisfactory

balance within

a

bigger

ensemble

occurs

in

the

first

movement

from bar

166.

Here

the

focus is

on

the

crisp

rhythm

of the

motto

portion

of

the

primary

theme.

This motive

is

played simultaneously by

the

strings

and

woodwinds

with

occasional

interjections

from

the

horns. Schumann doubles

the

flutes

with

the

oboes

at

the lower

octave

for

sixteen

bars. Mahler allows the

oboes

to rest

during

the

first

eight

bars and

only

subsequently

continues

with

the

original scoring.

This

minor

adjustment

to

the

structural

balance

brings

the flute's

presentation

of the

primary

theme into

greater

relief

so

that

it

penetrates

the

richness of

sound

generated

by

the

accompanying

instruments of

a

larger

ensemble.40

Similar

procedures

are

adopted

in

Trio

I

f

the Scherzo

(bars

142-148

and

bars

218-224).

On

these

occasions,

however,

Mahler

apparently

finds

the

primary

melodic

line,

pre

sented

by

the

flutes

alone,

scored

too

thinly

against

the

static chordal

accompaniment

in

the

remainder of

the orchestra. He alters the oboe

melody

so

that

it

duplicates

the

flute. At the same time the bass trombone inthe

surrounding

and

accompanying

music

is

omitted. These

adjustments

result

in

the

reinforcement of

the main

motive

through

a

reduction

in

the number

of

background

instruments

within

an

expanded

nineteenth

century

orchestra.

Another

way

inwhich

Mahler

attempts

to

enhance

thematic

contours is

by

trans

posing

material

an

octave

higher

into what he

evidently

considers

a

more

discernible,

effective

register.

He

does

this

with

oboes,

clarinets

and,

to

a

lesser

extent,

with

the

strings. A good example may be found inthe coda of the first movement. This section,

marked

animato,

commences

with

a

strong

reference

to

the

primary

theme inthe violins.

39.

Also

note

the

changes

to

dynamics

and

articulation

in

this

passage.

A

further

example

of such

lightening

of

the

original scoring

in

the

finale

occurs

in

bars

40-42.

In these

bars Mahler

removes

the

oboes,

clarinets,

bassoons and horns

so

that

the

motives

on

flute

and

first

violin stand

out

clearly.

40.

In

bar

166

Mahler also inverts

the

clarinet

parts

so

that

they

present

the theme in

a

higher

register

a

sixth instead of

a

third

apart.

He

alters the

dynamics,

marking

the

beginning

of

the

passage ppp

and

allowing

the crescendo

to start

later

so

that there

is

a

more

effective

sf

at

the

end of

the

phrase

in

bar

181.

The

culmination

of this

phrase

is further reinforced

by

the

accents

added

to

the

strings (on

the

second

beat

of

bars

174-176),

and

by

the alterations

to

the

timpani

parts,

which

now

coincide

with the

bassoons and basses

instead

of the inner voices.

Other

examples

of

Mahler's

attempting

to

accentuate

melodic

writing

and

adjusting

the

balance

in

the first

movement

include

bars

19-20,

where

the oboe

passage

is

removed

in

order

to

sharpen

the cadenza-like

flute

melody;

and

bars

117-119,

where

the

clarinet

part

ismade

to

reproduce

the

dotted-rhythmic

rising

scalar

theme

of

the oboe

and bassoon

parts

in

order

to

highlight

the

melody.


13/36

86 Veronica

Mary Franke

Example

2a: Schumann

(original). Symphony

No

1,

movement

4,

bars

21-27.

Fagotti

Trombone

Altoet Tenor

Trombone

basso

Timpani


14/36


of

Schumann's

'Spring' Symphony,

Op. 38

87

Timp.

nai

?^n

rm

rm

?n^

A

1

^

?;

g fe

g

te

^


15/36

88

Veronica

Mary Franke

Example

2b:

Schumann

(Mahler version). Symphony

No

1,

movement

4,

bars

21-27.

Clarinetti inB

Fagotti

Trombe

inB

Trombone

Altoet Tenor

Trombone

basso

Timpani


16/36


of Schumann's

'Spring Symphony,

Op. 38

89

Timp.

irnn i^nnn ?J77*rr^i


17/36

90

Veronica

Mary

Franke

It

reaches

a

peak

of

excitement

in

bars

396-405

where

all the winds

join

the

strings.

At

this

point

Mahler

transposes

the entire clarinet theme

(which

Schumann

presents

in

the

lower middle register of the instrument)

an

octave higher so that itduplicates the flute

and oboe

parts,

thus

strengthening

the

melodic

line.

Similar

examples

of the

transposi

tion of clarinet

melodies

are

to

be

found

throughout

the

first

movement,

but

these

are

mostly

minor and

very

subtle.41

Whilst

these

changes

are

evidently

effective

in

a

large

ensemble,

Schumann

apparently

preferred,

and

required,

"more

sombre

instrumental

colours

in

the

middle

register,"

which could be

clearly distinguished

amidst

the

remainder

of

the

smaller

instrumental

group

at

his

disposal.42

2.

Revision

of

timpani scoring.

Mahler's alterations

to

the

timpani

parts

are

interesting.

Schumann tends

to

maintain the

tuning

determined

at

the

beginning

of

each

movement.

His

timpani

parts

frequently

do

not

coincide

with the

bass

line,

rather

doubling

a

middle

note of the

harmony.

Mahler

probably

felt that

this

caused

some

blurring.

He

requires

the

timpanist

to

retune

his

instrument.

In

the

first

movement,

for

instance,

Schumann

uses

three

timpani,

tuned

to B

flat,

G

flat

and

F

Mahler

in

addition writes

rolls

on

A,

C,

D

and

D flat.

Examples

of Mahler's alterations

to

Schumann's

timpani

parts

are to

be

found

throughout

the

first

and fourth

movements.43

In

each

case

Mahler's

version

of

the

timpani

part

has the

true

bass

giving

more

emphasis

to

this

register.

His

doubling

of the bass

line

by timpani

can lead to an

over-heavy

bass,

especially

ifa smaller ensemble is

employed.

One

must

also

take into

consideration the

fact that

a

straightforward

performance

of

Mahler's modifications

today

demands the

use

of

modern

pedal-tuned timpani.

Towards

the

end

of the

nineteenth

century,

when Mahler

revised

Schumann's

timpani

parts,

these

instruments

had

undergone

significant

advances

in

technology, enabling

reliable,

rapid

tuning

and

using foot-operated

pedal

devices,

mechanisms that had not been available

to

Schumann,

and

offering

late Romantic

composers

additional freedom

in

writing

for

the instrument.

As it

stands,

the

use

of

three

timpani

instead of

two in

Schumann's

first

symphony was considered innovative at the time.44

3.

Modification

of

horn

and

trumpet

parts.

The

group

of

instruments

to

which

Mahler makes

considerable

adaptations

is

the

brass.

Examples

of his

adjustments

can

be found

in

all

41.

See,

for

instance,

bars

179-181,185-189,

and

195-201.

In

bars

330-333

of the

first movement

the flute

melody

is

marked

ottava. I

have noted

only

one

occasion where the violin

part

is

transposed

up

an

octave

-

bar

29

of the

Finale. There

are

no

further

transpositions

of

melodies

in

the

symphony.

42.

See

Finson,

"Schumann and

the

Study

of

Orchestral

Composition,"

pp.

76-82.

43.

Mahler

changes

the

timpani

parts

in the first movement

in

bars

63-72,

116-117,

177-181,

and

310-316.

In

the Finale alterations

occur

within bars

65-73,

159-160,

and

167-168.

In

the

second

movement

the

timpani

are

not

used,

and

in

the

scherzo,

Mahler

occasionally

deletes

timpani

punctuations,

particularly

in

the

two trios

(bars

146-52,

216-228,

and

336-344).

44.

In

this

regard

Schumann

was

influenced

by

Pfundt,

an

excellent

timpanist

in

the

Leipzig

Gewandhaus

Orchestra and

a

cousin

by marriage.


18/36

Mahler's

Reorchestration

of Schumann's

'Spring' Symphony, Op.

38

91

four

movements.

Again,

it

must

be

remembered

that

at

the

time

Schumann

wrote

this

symphony

valve

instruments

were

not

yet

in

use

in

Leipzig.

At

times,

chromatic

notes not

available to Schumann in the early 1840s are included inMahler's revision of the brass

parts.45

What

we

especially

need

to

take

into consideration

is

that the

reinforcement of

passages

given

to

brass instruments

at

crucial

moments

in

the

symphony

was

a

major

source

of

concern

to

Schumann.

Finson

has shown

that

Schumann raised this issue

in

his

correspondences

with various

conductors,

namely

Ferdinand

David,

Ludwig

Spohr

and Wilhelm

Taubert.46 As

Finson

points

out,

"Schumann's

letters

to

conductors of

Op. 38 provide

not

only

indications

of

how he

thought

it

might

be

performed

but also

his

developing

sentiments about

his

scoring."47

Itwould

appear

that Schumann altered

his

score

because

of the restrictions

of

intonation of the brass.

The natural

horns,

for

instance,

played

limited

pitches

and

required special

attention.

They

also

produced

a

thin,

inferior

quality

of

tone

which

Schumann

complained

about

in

his

communiqu?s.48

And

what is

most

interesting

is that

a

number of

the brass

passages

which

Schumann

had doubt

about

are

revised

by

Mahler,

often

along

lines

similar

to

Schumann's

envisaged

aural

perception

of

the

orchestration

projected

originally

in

his sketches.

All

of

the

en

suing examples

show Mahler

redressing

balance

in

the

light

of the evolution of

intricate

technological designs

that

enhanced

brass

instruments'

capacity

for

greater

tonal

power,

range,

and

agility

in

the last

quarter

of the

nineteenth

century.

Our

first

example

is taken

from

the

development

of the first

movement

of

Op. 38.

Here Mahler

seems

to

feel that

the

polyphonic

nature

of

the

passage

from bar

253

through

to

bar

281 demands

a

lighter,

more

transparent scoring.

This

section

is based

on

the

closing

theme of the

exposition,

which consists of

a

rising

scale. Its

rhythmic

pattern

(first

eight notes)

is identical with

that of theme

1.

The

imitative,

rhythmically

active

scalar theme is

at

first tossed between

pairs

of

woodwind

(bars 253-269),

and

later

passed

between violins and

combined

basses,

cellos

and

bassoons

(bars 270-281).

Itunfolds over a series of suspensions presented by the remaining strings, woodwind and

brass.

The

density

of Schumann's

scoring

here results from his liberal

use

of instruments

to

accompany

the melodic

lines.

In

rewriting

the

passage,

Mahler

removes

the horns

in

bars

254-258

whilst the

timpani

and trombones

are

deleted

in

their

entirety

in

bars

270-281.

He arrives

at

a

lighter

texture

by lessening

the

activity

in

the

accompaniment

which

can

otherwise sound overloaded

with

an

enlarged

orchestra and the

larger

vo

lume

of

tone

produced

by

the

horn and trombone sections. The result

supports

the

contrapuntally-active

lines.

45-

See,

for

example,

the

trumpet parts

of bars

5-6

where the chromatic

notes

of

Mahler's version

sound

definitely

late

nineteenth-century

in

style.

46.

Finson,

"Schumann and

the

Study

of Orchestral

Composition,"

p.

129.

47.

Finson,

p.

122.

48.

See

Finson,

pp. 122-127.


19/36

92

Veronica

Mary Franke

In

he

second

movement,

the

middle section

consists of

a

restatement

of

the

primary

lyricalmelody

in

the

dominant

key.

This

theme is

presented

by

the

cellos

(bars 41-55)

and

supported by woodwind, horns, and highly active strings, which lend

a sense

of fluidity

and increased

sonority

to

the

texture.

Mahler

probably

concluded that the melodic

line

did

not

articulate

distinctly

within the

density

of

Schumann's

scoring.

He

completely

eli

minates,

from the

accompanying

parts,

the

horn

passage

(which

in

Schumann's

day

would

have sounded

far less

bright),

so

that

the beautiful cello theme is

brought

into

greater

expressive

focus. Similar

reductions

of

brass instrumentation

occur

in

the

Scherzo,

where

Schumann

uses

the trombones and horns for

harmonic

filling.

Mahler

occasionally

cuts

out

these

added

instruments,

relieving

the

chordal

texture

with

rests

and

creating

greater

transparency.

His

deletions

are

more

appropriate

to

the

conventional modern

orchestra

than to

one

with

condensed

orchestral

forces

using

natural

horns.49

Another

way

in

which Mahler alters

the horn

and

trumpet parts

is

by

using

them

for

more

melodic,

expressive

purposes.

Take,

for

instance,

bars

54-60

of

the first

movement,

where

the

essential

component

is

a

dotted

motive. This

rhythmically-conceived

central

figure

unfolds

in

a

variety

of

metamorphoses

throughout

the

movement,

and

Mahler

fre

quently

adjusts

its

settings.

Schumann

expressed

concern over

the

scoring

of this motive

in

letters

to

several conductors.50 On

one

occasion,

Schumann

complained

in

a

note

to

the conductor Ferdinand David that the short dotted motive

played by

the horns in bars

54-5

and

58-9

"has

come

out

too

muted

everywhere

I have

heard the

symphony...

I

would rather

use

trombones."51

In

another

commentary

to

Wilhelm

Taubert,

Schumann

again

confirms that this

horn

passage

should be

"blown

as

strongly

as

possible;

here

in

Leipzig

I

always

hear it

well,

but

in

other

orchestras

quite faintly.

Even

more

important

is

the

same

place

after the

fff

following

the middle of

the

movement

where it

appears

[bars

317-18

and

321-22].

Should

it

come

out too

faintly,

then

double

itwith the alto and

tenor

trombones."52

Finson has shown that evolution of

the

latter

passage

(bars 317-322)

had

a long history. Schumann revised it repeatedly, scoring it for trombones inan autograph

version,

subsequently

assigning

it

to

horns

in

his

1841

print

and,

finally, restoring

both

brass instruments

in

the

1853

version,

as

is confirmed in

the above

note

to

Taubert.53

His

decision

to

use a

combination

of

two

contrasting

instrumental colours

was

therefore

deliberate and

well

thought

out,

leaving

no

doubt

about the

bold,

triumphal

gesture

he

had

inmind. From the various

correspondences

about the

scoring

of

this motive

and

its

cumulative

revision

we

may

deduce

that

"Schumann's

thinking

about

some

passages

unfolded

over a

long

period

of

time

as a

result

of

repeated

experimentation."54

49-

Schumann deletes

the trombones

in

bars

140-152,

216-228,

and

336-344

of the scherzo

and the horns

in bars

21-24,

29-31,

253-256,

and

261-263.

50.

See

Finson,

"Schumann and the

Study

of

Orchestral

Composition,"

pp.

123-126.

51.

Finson,

p.

123.

52.

Finson,

p. 125.

53.

See

Finson,

pp.

129-130.


20/36

Mahler's Reorchestration of Schumann's


93

Mahler's alterations

to

settings

of the dotted motive

seem

to

conform

to

Schumann's

original

intentions. With valve

horns

in

place,

Mahler

was

able

to

reinforce

the

motive.

In

the

first

instance

(bars 54-60),

the

dotted

rhythmic

motive,

tossed between

horns

and

woodwind and

accompanied by

strings,

is

strengthened

and

given

greater

definition

in

the

brass with Mahler's addition

of

the horns

in

F,

doubling

the horns

in

B-flat

In

addition,

the

brief

rhythmic figure

in

the bassoons

in

bars

58-59

is

cut

out

by

Mahler

so

that

it

does

not

interfere

with

imitative

entries

of

the

motive. The

horns

thus

play

a

significant

role in the

structural

intensification

of this

passage

in stretto. A similar

passage

in

stretto

using

the

same

motive derived from

the

primary

theme

occurs

in

bars

281-289 (Ex.

3a).

This section

displays

one

of

the

most extensive

reworkings by

Mahler. Schumann's non-melodic voices

accompany

with

sustained

chords

generally

held

for

at

least

a

full

bar.

Mahler retains the

strings

and

timpani,

but makes

the

accompanying

horns,

trumpets

and

woodwind

play

an

important

role

in

the imitative

dialogue,

as can

be observed in Ex.

3b.

He doubles

the

flute

melody

with

oboes and

clarinets

playing

in

a

higher

register,

and their motive is

pitted

against

horns,

trumpets

and

bassoons.

The various entries

become

more

distinct

in

Mahler's

rescoring, building

greater

tension and

enhancing

the structural

shape

of

the

passage,

especially

in

the

context

of the increased

complexity

of the

larger

romantic

orchestra.55

As noted

above,

the

same

dotted

motive

is

used

once

again

at

the

start

of

the

recapitulation

(bars 317-322),

where the

solo

horns

are

reinforced

by

Schumann

with

alto, tenor and bass trombones. On this occasion, Mahler removes the trombones, as

Schumann

had done

in

his

1841

print.

With valve

horns in

place,

Mahler

probably

found

that

the

reinforcement

of

the

solo

horns

by

trombones

was

not

necessary.

Mahler's

re-touching

of the

brass

parts

in

he

final

movement

of the

'Spring' Symphony

is

noteworthy.

Our

first

example,

taken from this

movement,

may

be

found

towards

the

end of the

exposition (bars

81-86,

Ex.

4a,

b).

At

this

point,

Schumann is

presenting

secondary

thematic material.

All

the orchestral forces

are

engaged.

Schumann's orchestral

writing

here reveals his aim

to extract

a

large,

rich

and distinctive

sound

from

a

small

orchestra which

is achieved

successfully by

allowing

the

strings

to

double the winds with

pitches reproduced

in

eighth

notes,

and

by

reinforcing

the bass

linewith

bassoons,

basses

and bass trombones. Mahler

obviously

felt

that the

scoring

was

Documents

Mahler's Reorchestration of Schumann's 'Spring' Symphony