James Tobin wrote of the instrument used for the hammerblows in Mahler 6:

>(Mahler) might have liked this one, a box of about a cubic meter,
>though less high than wide, and with a nice acoustic hole like a broad
>window.

This instrument, generally referred to as the "plywood cube" originated as
far as I know with Gubaiduliana and Ustvoltskaya.  It's been taken up by
several modern composers - James MacMillan, who has a very subtle ear for
percussion sounds, made extensive use of it in all three parts of Triduum,
including the cello concerto - and I'm sure I've come across it elsewhere.

>In the performance, the first two blows were struck by a female
>percussionist of normal, even average, proportions, from shoulder height,
>with the largest mallet I have ever seen.

I've known one or two delicate-looking lady percussionists who could
deliver an almighty thwack when they really got worked up . . .

>The results were plenty loud.  But for the third blow, which Mahler
>himself omitted from some of his own performances, evidently a really
>smashing blow was wanted, presumably by Delfs,

Deryk Barker has made adequate comment on how far away this is from the
score.  It looks as if someone's made a marketing decision to "sell" this
performance on the hammerblows, and to hell with what Mahler actually
wanted.  I'll always favour "artistic freedom" and "interpretation" over
slavish adhesion to minute detail of a score and to established performing
practice, but this example goes way over the line.

>so the hammer was wielded by a large male percussionist who brought
>it down like a strongman trying to ring the bell at a fair--assuming you've
>tried or seen this.  What he succeeded in doing was making the whole box
>jump--but the sound was audibly less satisfying than before.

Not surprising.  Selecting the "right" stick / beater / mallet for any
percussion instrument is a tricky business.  You have to consider the
sound you want to get out, how it will penetrate through the rest of the
orchestra (what the audience hears will often be very different from the
way the player hears it), the range of volume and tone quality you want to
be able to control, and the risk of physical damage to the instrument
(probably not too important in this instance, as any woodwork shop could
throw a new cube together in half an hour for very little money).

>A case of trying too hard?

Probably.

>Or maybe just that the first percussionist has something to teach the
>second.

Possibly.  A great deal will depend on exactly where the impact point is.
Centrally on the cube or to one side? Did the hammer make an accurate
full-face contact or did it hit at an angle, so that it was only a point
or edge contact? And what was the cube itself resting on? The floor? Wooden
or something else? Was there a square of old carpet or something else in
between the two? Was there any damping material inside the cube or was it
empty? And many more such questions.

It seems to me that these percussionists might have been better off using
two, or even three, different sized cubes with correspondingly matched
hammers if they wanted a really impressive gradation in volume and impact
from one blow to another.  Of course, they could always be used going from
large to small in any future performance where the conductor bothered to
look at the score . . .

Ian Crisp
[log in to unmask]