Talk:Symphony No. 1 (Mahler)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Symphony No. 1 (Mahler) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Classical music / Compositions|
An anon changed the scoring details from four trumpets and three trombones to five trumpets and four trombones "including a bass trombone". I have changed this back. Looking at my score (a 1943 Boosey and Hawkes edition), I can only find parts for three trombones, and no mention of a bass trombone. I imagine it is common in performance for a bass trombone to double the tuba part, but that's an interpretive decision by the conductor, and there's no mention of this I can see in the score.
The question of trumpets is a bit trickier - there are only four distinct trumpet parts as far as I can see, but at the start of the last movement there is a note next to the trumpet part which says: "1. Trompete im ff doppelt besetzt", which I think probably means that the first trumpet part can be doubled in fortissimo passages, though my German isn't good enough to be sure. If somebody can confirm that this is the meaning, then maybe it's useful to mention that the score sanctions doubling the first trumpet part, but in any event it seems to me misleading to say the piece is written for five trumpets, as this suggests five distinct parts. --Camembert 16:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Can't comment on the trumpet situation, but I have a printed 4th trombone part in my possession (will be performing it in a couple weeks). Unlike the other three parts which are multi-page, the 4th bone part is a single page, in bass clef, doubling the last page or so of a lower horn part starting shortly after rehearsal #55, with the range pretty much appropriate for a tenor trombone, and corresponding precisely to the lower of the two "horn reinforcement" parts in the Dover score edition I have. IIRC the 3rd trombone part could be played by large bore Bb/F symphonic tenor or a modern double-valve bass trombone; the group I'm performing with is using a bass. I'd think you'd want/need a contrabass trombone to double a tuba part. --Sommerfeld 21:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea that the first performance in Los Angeles was conducted by Dudamel is absurd. I think this must mean with Blumine or something. Either way it's trivia. It was first performed by the LAPO in 1928!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Am I in error, but didn't Frank Brieff and the New Haven Symphony Orchestra perform the 1906 revision with the Blumine mov't in '68, and record it under the Odyssey label, prior to the Ormandy RCA recording in the '70's? Paul Engelking 11 March 2007 188.8.131.52 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ack, confirmed by the complete discography: http://gustavmahler.net.free.fr/symph1.html --FordPrefect42 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Relationship to Beethoven's Symphony no. 4
Today while rehearsing with one of the orchestras I play in, the conductor mentioned that Mahler was inspired by the opening to Beethoven 4 and that it was his starting point for his first symphony. Now that it has been pointed out to me, it seems terribly obvious and certainly appears to have some truth to it, but "my professor said..." is not exactly a verifiable source. I think it would be great for this article if someone could help me dig up a real source for this and include it in the article somehow. Sara needs a nap (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I seem to remember reading an article in some sort of 'Mahler Studies' volume in which someone (de la Grange?) includes the Beethoven opening among a whole collection of resemblances and relations: if my memory is correct, and someone can remember what the book is, you would have your source. Even so, however, it would still be inadmissible to say that the relationship made the Beethoven work 'Mahler's starting point for his symphony': such a way of speaking goes beyond the facts. Pfistermeister (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
No. of timpani
That is a problem: although the original scores called for 5 drums in total.But nowadays not even an orchestra will follow this "instruction" because that will be bring inconivent to the timpanist.So the problem is that should we just honestly follow the "instruction" which is currently appearing on the article but ignore the normal practise of performers,ie using 8 drums in total? Addaick (talk)
- That's a tricky question. I'd assume the common performance practice should be noted on the article, but what Mahler indicated in the score should be the paramount and the main thing in the instrumentation section. Justin Tokke (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Mahler) - The discussion is quite heated, but the point is well made. MIDIs are not representative enough for Wiki. Jubilee♫clipman 14:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree regarding the use of MIDI files on Wikipedia - see my comments to this topic on the above mentioned discussion Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Mahler). The two audio recordings which I have provided on this page (currently the 1st, 2nd and 3rd movement) are based on MIDI files (my own renditions), although these are not standard MIDI files but very specific to my synthesizer/sampler setup. Reinholdbehringer (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
See the recent discussion in the Resurrection Symphony article; I am deleting the parallel section in this article for the same reasons stated there. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 21:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
"Mahler gave the piece the title Titan after the novel by Jean Paul"
this seems to be the consensus, but Floros ("Gustav Mahler: The Symphonies", as translated) maintains that while the symphony does have strong programmatic elements- he maintains it is likely about Faust- he takes Mahler's statements, especially his later statements, on the subject of this symphony and Jean-Paul to strongly suggest that the word was chosen with its usual meaning of titanic, huge, colossal, not because it was the title of Jean-Paul's novel. Schissel | Sound the Note! 23:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)