It was long, it was big, it was brassy: Gustav Mahler’s gargantuan Third Symphony conducted by Christoph Eschenbach at the Kennedy Center last night. The “symphony is the world” gushed Mahler, “it must embrace everything”. And his Third does seek to embrace everything – flowers and animals, day and night, sorrow and joy and, finally, love. Perhaps it would be unfair to call it a mixum-gatherum, but it is truly eclectic as well as epic, a challenging work to bring together as a whole, its tendencies decidedly fissiparous.
The first movement with its four main themes – a kind of chaotic primeval void out of which order is forged (after up to 40 minutes of intense effort) – is never comfortable – never for long, at any rate; great music with a definite schizophrenic personality disorder. The kaleidoscopic was handled quite well; Eschenbach is a conductor well-suited to musical caesuras and ruptures: he clearly enjoys cutting through lines of instrumentation, turning fiercely on another section, and punching out thrusts of sounds. Visually, we suffer from a habitual string-bias as regards the orchestra: they are always in our line of sight. And this symphony is all about the brass – well not quite all, but certainly to a large extent. Credit to Craig Mulcahy in particular for his trombone solos. The folksy theme, with its fair-ground hurdy-gurdy jingles, was, especially when it returned, rather glutinously paced; in fact maybe the whole needed to be more mouvementé. What I did like was the contrast in extremes of volume. On one (perhaps two occasions), the volume was shattering, to the point of discomfort. Some might have found it too much, too raw. I rather approved. Mahler should be discomforting, at least sometimes. I also liked how silence was respected, how the music started again and again from nothingness – sound rising up from the primeval void, as it were; this was nicely echoed in the finale.
The second movement (“What the Flowers in the Meadow Tell Me”) which Mahler thought to be the “most carefree” music he had ever written, was a welcome relief from the largeness of sound, although the minuet could certainly have been more grazioso. The lyrical interjections of lush strings (no surprise that it was Mahler’s protégés who would go onto write those luxuriant scores for Hollywood films in the Golden Age; for us, they have that unmistakable resonance) were more assured in tone.