SEEN AND HEARD INTERNATIONAL

Other Links

Editorial Board

Google Site Search

Internet MusicWeb

Mahler’s Second Symphony: Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Bernard Haitink(conductor), Miah Persson, soprano; Christianne Stotijn, mezzo soprano, Chicago Symphony Orchestra Chorus (Duain Wolfe, chorus director), Symphony Center, Chicago 21.11.2008 (JLZ) 

Mahler:   Symphony no. 2 in C minor “Aufterstehung” [“Resurrection”]


A symphony for the end of time, Mahler’s Second Symphony has become familiar work in recent years. As much as it is known to audiences, it takes a performance like this one  led by Bernard Haitink to bring out the details that are essential to full appreciation the work. A program symphony at its inception, Mahler eventually parted company with an explicit narrative  and let the work stand on its own merits, with the texts of the two vocal movements, the solo song “Urlicht” that comprises the fourth movement and the choral Finale that follows.

Those who know Mahler’s music, will recognize an instrumental transformation of the song “Des Antonius von Padua Fischpredigt”  (St. Anthony's Sermon to the fishes) in the Scherzo, and with it, quotations and resemblances to other music (Anklänge) which bring extra musical meanings to such a clear reading as this one. Despite the composer’s resistance to them, the programs that he had created for the work follow the score, and it is difficult to escape the narrative that starts with the death of the presumed hero of the work and the reminiscences of happier times in the second movement. With the fitful Scherzo that follows, those familiar with the music of the time will find an instrumental quotation of Mahler’s song about the human reaction to St. Anthony’s preaching: to ignore it and to continue without changing at all. Yet the Trio of Mahler’s Scherzo contains a direct quotation of the main them from the Scherzo of the Symphony in E by Hans Rott, the composer’s colleague who died before he established  his name in the culture of this day. Is the hero of the work Mahler, as some allege, or might the quotation of Rott’s music suggest that the work pays tribute to the fallen artistic hero who would never hear Mahler’s allusion to his essentially unknown work?

The clarity with which Haitink delivered the score was essential for hearing quotations like these and others. While Mahler’s music is his own, the allusions belong to a level of meaning that enhances what occurs on the surface. Thus, the intense tremolo at the opening of the first movement, the funeral march, calls to mind a similar gesture at the beginning of Richard Wagner’s opera Die Walküre. Likewise, a quotation of music that accompanies the battle between Siegmund and Hunding reinforces the sonic presence of music from that opera, and if Mahler did draw on it for a specific, programmatic meaning, it carries with it a musical quality that reinforces the symphony's overall effect. In this performance, Haitink made the details of the work support the structure of each movement. It was not a selective reading, but a thorough and attentive performance which demonstrated the conductor’s mastery of the score in the best sense.  Mahler’s comment that one does not compose, rather one is composed, can be applied to this performance, in which Haitink’s respect for the score allowed the work to emerge with all of the clarity the composer intended.

The relentless bass figures of the first movement gave momentum to the funeral march, which was never excessively drawn out or languid. Haitink maintained the required intensity, which is even more pronounced because of the lyricism that emerges within the interlude in the middle of the movement. As the march  had motion, so the structure was at once comprehensible and dramatic through to its final, resonant chords. In contrast to the overt dramatic display of the first movement, the second movement was compelling in its delicacy. The string timbres, a strength of the Chicago Symphony, were nicely balanced. Haitink included in the performance the portamento style that Mahler writes into the score. Yet it was in the intersection of other timbres that Haitink excelled, with the woodwinds clearly present, yet never overly loud; even more telling was the refined sound of the horns, which fit into this idyll of a movement. The subtle bends of tempo were extremely effective. Unfortunately an outburst of audience-member coughing at the conclusion of the movement broke the mood at which Haitink had worked so hard to establish.

With the Scherzo, Haitink created another audibly balanced structure, and despite the sometimes demonstrative markings, the ensemble remained under firm control. While faster than some conductors take the movement, the tempo fitted the perpetuum mobile style admirably. The sixteenth-note figures were clean and clear, with the vocal line rendered seamlessly as it moved through various sections of the orchestra. Those familiar with the song “Des Antonius von Padua Fischpredigt” could grasp Mahler’s intentions in using that work as the basis for the movement. Of particular note is the Trio, which Haitink distinguished with distinctly articulated rhythms, almost jolting the listeners out of the constant tread of the music that preceded it. This idea, which does call to mind the Scherzo of Rott’s Symphony in E, provided the appropriate contrast to the reprise of the main idea as the movement concluded.

After a suitable pause, Haitink allowed Christianne Stotijn to begin “Urlicht,” which she sang from memory and delivered with appropriate expressivness. This vocal movement works well with the plain and sometimes understated expression that Stotijn offered: her phrasing underscored the poetry, which anticipates the idea of resurrection that the chorus expresses in the movement that follows, and Stotijn’s fervent eye-contact with her audience was highly appropriate.

Haitink allowed the Finale to build in intensity, and without deviating from the details of Mahler’s score, made the movement work well. He did not extend certain elements, like the drum roll of the so-called “dead march” section, which some conductors allow to last overly long. The off-stage brass and percussion were in tempo and if pitch was sometimes a problem, this was the result of distance, not tuning. The sonic space between the music on-stage and off-stage added a wonderful dimension to the performance, which built up  to its inevitable conclusion. The chorus deserves credit for its precision too. Its sound was always rich and full, without betraying any strain in this demanding piece. In her solo passages Miah Persson brought a focused sound to the piece, and worked well in the duet with Stotijn. If both soloists sometimes disappeared into the chorus towards the ending, that was the result of the dense scoring and not of anything lacking from either singer. All in all, the combined forces brought the work to an effective and powerful conclusion.

In bringing popular elements into this work through the use of texts from Wunderhorn, along with the religious dimensions from Klopstock’s “Auferstehen”, Mahler achieved a synthesis which also suggests the various philosophical stances of his time on the mystery of existence and the survival of the human spark. Without taking a sectarian religious stance or avoiding religion by shifting the emphasis to philosophy, Mahler’s work remains a point of departure, which benefits from the various perspectives it embodies. The task becomes much easier when the musical score serves the work as well as it did in this virtually seamless and intensive reading.

If the Chicago Symphony allows this performance to be broadcast in the future on WFMT-FM (www.wfmt.com) as sometimes occurs, those who could not attend the concert  will have the opportunity to hear this masterful reading of the score. This was an exquisite performance of Mahler’s Second Symphony.

James L. Zychowicz


^{Back to Top                                                    Cumulative Index Page}