If It Ain't Unanimous, It Ain't Tragic
John GibbonsThere are two tragic symphonies in the standard repertory. They are both 6th symphonies, and they are by Tchaikovsky and Mahler. After class recently, I was apprised of some (prima facie eccentric, albeit by reasonably prominent commentators) interpretations that suggest that the Dvorak 9th and the Sibelius 7th symphonies conceal (and conceal is the thing, you can deduce nothing from the notes themselves, heard innocently) “tragic” programs.
Well, I think the word “tragic” is overused. And even if the programs are “proven” by documentary evidence doesn’t mean that what a composer thinks he has created is what a composer has created in actuality. Even great composers… maybe especially great composers prove this theory. Hence my new theory: to be tragic, you have to be unmistakeably tragic. So that every intelligent listener knows he’s heard a tragic symphony.
That brings us to Mozart 40, Schubert 4 (subtitled “tragic”, I know), Haydn 44 (“Mourning” symphony) and 49 (La Passione, written before 44) and maybe some others. Are these tragic? For my money, no. And the reason why is that they are contained by Classical symphonic formula, which is essentially optimistic, affirmative. You have to break something to be tragic. Hence Tchaik 6th and Mahler 6th, which break your heart, but also break convention, they break tradition, they defy expectations.
In the modern era, there are quite a few “tragic” symphonies…oh, let’s see. Hmm. Shostakovich 4, 8, and 14, Vaughan Williams 6 (but not 4, that reasserts convention!) Honeggar 5, etc. These symphonies are self aware, as are the Tchaik and Mahler exemplars. There are quite a few works that are mostly tragic, but don’t end tragically, pieces by Beethoven and Nielsen, for example. Some people consider the Sibelius 4 tragic, possibly seduced by its bleakness and his personal circumstances (throat cancer) at the time. By the ground rules my theory lays down, this is inadmissable…bleak is not a synonym for tragic, and the purely personal is ultimately ephemeral. I don’t find the Sib 4 tragic. Dark, of course. Sad? frequently. Melancholy? not really. That’s a rather self indulgent type of feeling not associated with Sibelius. What is tragic? Something definitive. Ambiguity itself isn’t tragic. Tragic is a definitive, culminatory thing. Show me any intelligent and sober listener who doesn’t find Mahler 6 tragic, and I’ll throw my theory out the window.
A purely personal note: Recently in class, for sentimental and irrelevant historical reasons, I termed the epilogue in Vaughan Williams 5 tragic. Well, this is a gaffe that I corrected in class the next week. By the way, just try giving 2 and 1/2 hour lectures 3 times a week and not produce some howlers. It probably can be done, but only by boring teachers. Well, that’s my defense, your honor. But it goes to prove my thesis: there is an inappropriate amelioration of the concept of the tragic in symphony.
By the way, in class, I regret not sticking to my guns in my, I think, tenable criticism of the Mahler 5th. In the Leinsdorf book I’ve written about, the maestro puts it well: “Mahler, then, was not even attempting to continue the traditions of symphonic writing, whereas Bruckner certainly was. Mahler became an icon for the Second Viennese School. His angst-filled works were the direct inspiration for Schoenberg’s Erwartung and for the greatest masterpiece of twentieth century music-theatre, Alban Berg’s Wozzeck. Mahler’s Sixth has the power to leave the most optimistic listener weak and depressed, while the Fifth is weakened by the composer’s attempt to introduce false and unconvincing optimism into four otherwise quite neurotic movements.” I had said the piece was a collection of tone poems, which I continue to think it is, but I forgot the big Chorale recap in the finale. I’m probably losing my memory, but I think there’s a reason I forgot the biggest “hoehe punkte” in the symphony; I remain unconvinced by it. But that’s just opinion. The Mahler 5th is greater than me, and probably greater than Erich Leinsdorf. I guess we should just be grateful to the master, and try to learn more.
Reader Comments (15)
Mahler is, by far, one of my favorite composers of all time. From what I've read in this article, I can see that you are quite the Mahler pundit yourself! I've recently written a post on Mahler on my own blog-- maybe you'd like to check it out. Visit www.classicalear.com
As for your argument, I happen to agree with much of what you said regarding his "Tragic" sixth. If I recall correctly, Mahler himself never really liked any of the titles given to his symphonies. Personally, i think the most blatant pseudonym is his seventh, named Song of the Night. It might just be me, but I can hardly detect any sense of nighttime in that symphony. In fact, I saw the seventh performed live, and I wrote a review of the concert, which can also be found on my blog, www.classicalear.com. Please let me know what you think.
I'll be happy to look at your blog, Justin, and thanks for your comment! Mahler is one of my favorites as well, although I am quite capable of severely criticizing his gargantuan and not always coherent structures. Right you are about Mahler's after the fact antipathy to his own programs. As for the Seventh, I do think there is a strong case for the sobriquet, "Song of the Night"...the central episode of the first movement is a marvelous nocturne in B-major with cello solo, and the penultimate movement is a serenade, with mandolin solo. Now, the word "sera" is the Italian word for "evening"! If you are in the business of singing a serenade to your beloved, Justin, I suggest doing it in the evening. It might make the night a little more interesting!
I am unclear as to the meaning of "amelioration" in the italicized sentence above. Do you mean "appropriation"? The total context of the post is that the word "tragic" is overused and also misused, which I believe is indisputable. Deryck Cooke's book on Mahler deals with this issue quite cogently in his explanation of why Mahler's 6th is "the first genuine "tragic symphony" to be written." In the same paragraph he states "Tchaikovsky's Pathetique certainly ends in utter darkness; but its mood of breast-beating despair is far removed from the objective universality of tragedy." Cooke would seem to have a different definition of tragedy than does John. Another different view is provided by David Hurwitz in his recent book on Sibelius which is recommended by this website. Hurwitz claims there are only two true tragic symphonies: the Mahler 6th and the SIBELIUS 4TH. At least everyone can seemingly agree on the Mahler 6th, which incidentally will be performed by the CSO tomorrow night at Ravinia and also in October under Haitink.
I take issue with the inclusion of the Shostakovich 8th as a tragic symphony. Most of the final movement is in C Major, albeit not a triumphant one. Shostakovich in Context (2000, edited by Rosamund Bartlett) contains an article by David Haas titled "Shostakovich's Eighth : C Minor Symphony Against the Grain". (The "grain" to which he refers is that of Beethoven's 5th). Haas' conclusion (summarized) : "the hero... has not clearly triumphed, merely survived. And a long tradition of tragedy-to-triumph C minor symphonies has closed with neither triumph nor tragedy..." I find the overall narrative "feel" and structure of the Shostakovich 8th to closely match the Shostakovich 13th, and neither is "tragic" to my ears.
I use the word "ameliorate" to mean to make easier, or to make more tolerable, to sanititize or defuse. Well, there you have it! There is even dispute about the Tchaik 6th! It seems tragic to me alright, but it ain't unanimous! And LOTS of critics find Sib 4 other than tragic. I take under advisement your view of Shost 8. I've always heard the final movement as a sort of relapse into madness or forgetfullness. Does a "Tragic" symphony have to end tragically? Probably so, but at the rate this discussion is going, only the Mahler 6th will be left standing!
Oh, another thing. I use the word tragic in a pretty colloquial way, not according to the usages established by the Greek tragedists or the legitimate theatre. Perhaps my friend John C. would like to way in on "the objective universality" of tragedy, to which the great Deryck Cooke refers.
Oh, another thing. I use the word tragic in a pretty colloquial way, not according to the usages established by the Greek tragedists or the legitimate theatre. Perhaps my friend John C. would like to way in on "the objective universality" of tragedy, to which the great Deryck Cooke refers.
Does a "Tragic" symphony have to end tragically? Yes!
oh, I agree, absolutely.Sometimes, as you well know, I'm seduced by artsy-fartsy metaphorical thinking. If words mean anything, a tragic symphony has to end tragically, of course. that's the whole point.
Last night I heard the Mahler #6 "tragic" in a fine performance at Ravinia conducted by James Conlon. He spoke for ~5 minutes prior to the first downbeat discussing in quick succession (a) the Alma Mahler theme, (b) the repetitive 5 beat tympani notes, (c) the use of all three hammer blows in the finale, (d) why it's called "tragic" versus his preceeding and succeeding symphonies, and (e) finally the 100 years of continually reordering the two middle movements. He originally listed the Scherzo before the Andante and then changed his mind after just reading a 70 page treatise (by ??) that convinced him to follow the opening Allegro with the Andante. My Dover score has the Scherzo first - my Kalmus first horn part has the Andante first! This was the first live performance of the symphony I've heard with the Andante first; it is a beautiful separation of two very strong movements. I also liked Conlon's freedom in interpreting the tempo changes in the Scherzo. Whether the ending is tragic or not is a personal feeling - I do not feel the tragedy as strong as many people but I certainly understand why that moniker has stuck to it.
Well, I like the andante to be third. The harrowing scherzo followed by the harrowing finale is too much for my brittle bones. Apply to David for info on the ordering of the middle movements, he's all over that topic. You don't think it's unquestionably tragic? That's your right. This topic has proved to be a can full of worms. As you well know, in general: Classical symphonies have slow movements second, Romantic symphonies have slow movements third. As always, there are exceptions!
I also attended the Mahler 6 and second a number of Richard's comments. The 71 page booklet was published by the Kaplan Foundation in 2004 (they sent me a free copy) and contains three articles by Gilbert Kaplan, Jerry Bruck, and Reinhold Kubik plus illustrations of concert programs and a timeline of selected performances of the 6th. It is quite polemical in tone - its title is "The Correct Movement Order in Mahler's Sixth Symphony". The authors believe the Andante MUST precede the Scherzo. An alternative position is presented in the Summer 2001 issue of 19th Century Music by Warren Darcy in his article on the Andante movement which presents evidence on both sides of the controversy and finally points out that "If we can deal with the fact that almost all the Bruckner symphonies have multiple versions, we can surely live with two versions of this one Mahler symphony".
Darcy cites Adorno's position in his 1960 book on Mahler , which posits that the Scherzo (A Minor) should precede the Andante (E Flat Major) based on the fact that the Finale begins in C Minor, which is the relative minor of E Flat Major, and ends in A minor which is another third down from C Minor.
As a listener without perfect pitch, I simply find that placing the beautiful Andante as a haven of peace before the cosmic struggles of the Finale makes more sense than following the A Major triumph of the "Alma" theme at the end of the first movement with more major key material. In relation to John's original topic , the performance demonstrated that Mahler's version of tragedy defines the term in a musical sense, and that none of the other candidates approach Mahler's intensity.
(The symphony that comes closest, not previously mentioned above, is Schnittke's Concerto Grosso4/Symphony 5.)
Never thought I'd hear John admit to having brittle bones. I reject the key signature basis for order of the movements in the 6th as Mahler often doesn't follow a "classic" or key logical format. I do appreciate David's incite into Conlon's reference. Perhaps sitting on the lawn and enjoying the music in a Mahlerian nature setting gave me a different perspective than in the cold concert hall? Is the bottom line that a great symphony CAN have supporters with more than one interpretation?
Great comment about Mahler and keys, Richard! I generally agree. But why begin the finale in E-flat, if it doesn't follow the andante?
OK - John - you got me with your last comment. But I still love it in either order when prepared/presented by a conductor/orchestra who love the music.
Christmas gift <h1>coach bags outlet</h1>
The most fashionable cheap <h1>coach outlet online</h1>
Christmas Specials <h1>authentic nfl jerseys</h1>
Beautiful and unique <h1>coach outlet online</h1>
2011 most unique design <h1>wholesale designer bags</h1>
Buy want to buy products <h1>coach outlet store online</h1>
Professional design <h1>coach handbags on sale</h1>
Single product sales <h1>coach bags on sale</h1>
Cheap and good-looking <h1>coach outlet store</h1>
With top design <h1>authentic jerseys suppliers</h1>
Male friend love <h1>nfl jerseys from china</h1> Very glad that you buy