Pablo Massa <[log in to unmask]> replies to me:

>Very impressive.  However, "nicht zu schell", Mats.  None of these sources
>provides solid arguments for your thesis.  Eyewitness' testimonies and
>opinions are just circumstantial evidence.  Mahler's own opinions about
>conducting doesn't tells us necessarily what treatment did he expect for
>his own works.  Early recordings (even by Mengelberg or Walter) doesn't
>shows exactly the style of Mahler's conducting.  (you mention also a
>Strawinsky score..  wasn't Strawinsky who held always that the only
>authority on musical interpretation is what is written at the score?).

Nothing of what I presented is evidence for that Mahler wanted his musick
to be played in *that* certain way, but I think together many indications
is a rather good argument.

I know very well that when Mengelberg conducts, it isn't Mahler who
conducts, but they belonged to the same tradition.  And again, it is
earwithnesess who describe Mahelrs conducting, but there are, as I pointed
out, many descriptions of Mahler avaliable, and ....  of course we can't
know everything for sure.  Somebody claimed that "if Homerus has lived
we can't know, but that he was blind is beyond all doubt".  And that is
telling; i.e.  we can't be sure on anything in history actually, but
somewhere we really have to believe in what people tell us.  But if Mr.
Massa wants to deny all knowledge about everything that happend longer back
than one second ago, I really hope he will be satisfied with his life.  Oh!
Tempi passati....

>It can be supposed with certain ground of logic that, being Mahler himself
>a conductor, his marks of dynamic and tempo would be very precise and they
>would reflect exactly his intentions: after all, they were adressed to his
>colleagues.

I understand how you argue here, but to me the logics of the argument says
exactly the opposite.  Let me explain: If Mahler had lived today, he had
written very detailed scores, marking all tempochanges, because today the
approach to the notes is that we play what is actually written.  That is
our style to play, to say so.  But in Mahlers time there was another
approach to the notes.  In his time the musicians - players and conductors
- took a more liberal hand with tempos, vibrato, dynamics etc, and
therefore Mahler could know that his musick was to be played in a certain
way, with these fluctuatiuons, and therefore he didn't need to write them
all out.  This "liberal" approach to the notes, begun to change towards a
more "letter-true" approach, beginning with Weingartner and Toscanini,
and in the early 1940ies this "letter-true" tradition, which just has
strengthened until this day, was rooted.  You can see this on the composers
who lived over this attitude change: Sibelius wrote his scores like
Mahler, with not every tempochange (if we now have tempo as example)
notated, and Sibelius was satisfied with the way his music was conducted
and performed inj the 1910s.  However, when the "letter-true" appraoch was
on its way to take root, Sibelius published his "Additional Notes to my
Symphonies", with detailed instructions of tempo and dynamics, published
in a Finnish journal during the World War II.  Also Elgar wrote more and
more detailed scores, and in his last years he complained on the changing
attitude in musicians, who "don't play my [early] musick right".  The same
as for Sibelius goes also for Strawinsky, who also begun writing very
detailed scores first in the late 30ies.

Another change, beside lesser tempo fluctuation, is that tempos are
slower today than they were before 1940.  And in 1870 they were even
quicker according to certain eyewithnesses.  But the temposlowingup and
nivellization of tempo over the 20th century we have actually evidence for,
as they are recorded.  I could provide several example here if anybody is
interested, but I shouldn't need to, as I'm sure everybody on this list
have old and new recordings of the same works, and can just clock the
tempos and see for themself.

Mats Norrman
[log in to unmask]