Lahav Shani and the Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra’s memorable Mahler Sixth

Netherlands R. Strauss, Mahler: Chen Reiss (soprano), Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra / Lahav Shani (conductor). Broadcast live on medici.tv (directed by Dick Kuijs) from De Doelen Concert Hall, Rotterdam, 16.2.2024. (JPr)

R. Strauss – Wiegenlied, Op.41 No.1; Meinem Kinde, Op.37 No.3; Ich wollt ein Sträusslein binden, Op.68 No.2; Säus’le, liebe Myrte!, Op.68 No.3; Morgen!, Op.27 No.4; Das Rosenband, Op.36 No.1

Mahler – Symphony No.6 in A minor, ‘Tragic’

Although Richard Strauss is usually associated with music on a grand scale, especially in his operas and tone poems, his output of lieder reveals a more intimate lyricism which complements the more extrovert aspects of his musical style. His interest in song continued throughout his life although after his 1906 Op.56 there was a twelve-year gap before his next set of songs, the Brentano Lieder. Two of those we heard in this concert; whilst the 1894 Morgen! was composed the earliest. Strauss declared himself never to be particularly selective about his choice of words, and wrote ‘If l find no poem corresponding to the subject which exists in my subconscious mind, then the creative urge has to be rechannelled to the setting of some other poem which I think lends itself to music … I resort to artifice.’

The vast majority of his lieder are settings for soprano voice and were originally written with piano accompaniments, but many do have such an intense sense of orchestral colour that they were fully orchestrated later. The interpretation of Strauss’s songs – at least as I have heard them in concert – seems to have becomes somewhat self-indulgent. People appear to enjoy them this way and perhaps that is what Strauss actually intended. The content of his songs is often straightforward with many sopranos approaching them almost in slow motion seeking beautiful sounds at the expense of involving the listener in their emotional content.

Despite Chen Reiss’s lyricism, fine legato and secure top I was surprised how little change in expression there was in her open face and voice over the six songs; her focus on the beauty of the melodic line was paramount and – for me – each one sounded much the same and overall it was just a set of vocal exercises. The dreams and sleep of the child-related themes to Wiegenlied (Cradle song) and Meinem Kinde (To my child), gave way to the abandonment of Ich wollt ein Sträusslein binden (I meant to make you a posy) and sense of loss in Säus’le, liebe Myrte! (Rustle, dear myrtle!) where I was not sure I recognised the murmuring fountains or chirping crickets. And I thought there could have been more transcendence to the inherent optimism of Morgen! (Tomorrow!) and more longing to Der Rosenband (The rose garland).

In the orchestral accompaniment Lahav Shani elicited from the wonderful Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra he is chief conductor of, Shani was ever attentive to Reiss’s needs. The violins rocked gently during Wiegenlied and concertmaster Marieke Blankestijn was particularly virtuosic at the start of Meinem Kinde and as exquisite as you would wish when toping and tailing Morgen! There were outstanding individual contributions – as there were throughout the concert – from a number of the orchestral members.

As I written before and also lectured about, Mahler’s Sixth Symphony is laden with mystery and contradictions. We can begin with the title ‘Tragic’ which was on the programme for its first Vienna performance (4 January 1907) but was that the composer’s idea? In the first movement the ‘Alma theme’ rises to be joined by one ‘borrowed’ from Liszt’s E-flat Piano Concerto; was this on purpose, or because Mahler just had it in his head after conducting the same concerto in 1903? And what about Alma’s reminiscence that the second theme is her husband’s portrait in music of her, can we really believe her?

Alma’s notorious unreliability comes to the fore when she tells us the middle part of the Scherzo – the ‘Altväterisch’ Trio – represents the ‘unrhythmical games’ of their two daughters. The problem is that in the summer of 1903, when Mahler was writing that movement’s music, one daughter (Maria) was less than a year old and the other (Anna) had not yet been born. Additionally, we need to ask if the Finale should have two or three hammer blows, and indeed the original conception may actually have involved five. Alma believed that Mahler had tempted fate by composing the Sixth Symphony and his Kindertotenlieder and was himself responsible for what befell him later in 1907. This was his resignation from the Vienna Opera; Maria’s death; and the diagnosis of his heart disease. However, it was Mahler’s view that an artist might sense his own future.

Of course, the greatest controversy concerns the order of the inner movements. This has everything a conspiracy theorist would love including a cover-up by the International Gustav Mahler Society. Mahler’s first thoughts with his Sixth Symphony placed the Scherzo second followed by the Andante as was the standard classical practice at the time. His publisher printed the score Scherzo/Andante, but while rehearsing for its first performance (Essen, May 1906), Mahler began to play the Andante first then the Scherzo (A/S) and had slips inserted into unsold copies of the score to indicate the change. So, this is how the symphony was performed while Mahler was alive and how his friend Willem Mengelberg performed it with his Concertgebouw Orchestra in 1916. In 1919 however – before conducting the Sixth once again – it is possible that Mengelberg may have come across a pre-erratum-slip S/A copy of the score and so he telegraphed Alma for clarification, which was probably not the best idea. Her brief answer was, ‘First Scherzo, then Andante’ and that is how Mengelberg conducted it in 1919 and 1920.

The Critical Edition of the Sixth Symphony was produced by the International Gustav Mahler Society in Vienna in 1963 with the order S/A though I am not sure there is any evidence that Mahler changed his mind about wanting it to be A/S and in 2010 the International Gustav Mahler Society published its revised second thoughts along those lines. My own opinion – for what it is worth – is that the symphony has more impact, is more frightening – more ‘tragic’ maybe? — if the Alpine refuge of the Andante comes before the ‘Dance of Death’ (Totentanz) horrors of the Scherzo. Of course, both sides of the argument can get bogged down in technicalities and other musical minutiae.

The Rotterdam Philharmonic launched headlong into the first movement and kept up a sweeping forward momentum throughout the symphony’s 85-minute duration. At least as heard through loudspeakers, the orchestra produced a deep, rich sound with the pulsating violins driving it all onwards and the repeat of the exposition only increasing the tension. It was the ‘Alma Theme’ which allowed moments of fleeting lyricism and a reflection of deeper feelings. The Scherzo prolonged the onward march of the first movement in an almost unrelenting fashion though the shrieking climaxes made an impact and there was some beautiful phrasing to the gentle first trio. The bittersweet, elegiac Andante was sensitively phrased and there was a sense that we were being transported to a Strauss-like pastoral idyll. It moved at a flowing pace and there was warmth and plaintive serenity from the ensemble.

Best of all was the Finale, from its disturbingly funeral opening it again marched inexorably forward. We were now on an emotional musical rollercoaster with the more lyrical second subject and sudden moments of euphoria punctuated by the exclamations of unfolding ‘tragedy’. Those who know the symphony well realise what is coming; but what happens now must always be totally unexpected for those who do not. Yes, it is the hammer blows! Ronald Ent’s huge mallet was wielded to visceral effect, with dust flying in all directions in its close-up.

Bruno Walter described how Mahler’s Sixth is ‘bleakly pessimistic … the work ends in hopelessness and the dark night of the soul.’ The symphony’s culmination gives evidence of Mahler’s resignation to life’s futility, and I wrote down one word on hearing that shattering fff of the final bars – ‘horrific’.

This was a memorable Mahler Sixth – one of the best in my experience – and guided by the batonless and scoreless Lahav Shani the brass and woodwind sections excelled in their standout phrases, whilst the strings provided a solid backbone to the performance. It is important to acknowledge concertmaster Blankestijn once again, and the excellent contributions from Juliette Hurel’s flute, Karel Schoofs’s oboe, and Bruno Bonansea’s clarinet. There was also a remarkable horn player, as well as valiant timpanists and all the rest of the percussion deserve a mention too.

Jim Pritchard