It takes any orchestra plenty of confidence and daring to embark on a single-work programme. There isn’t much chance for redemption should something go amiss. Then again, the length of Mahler’s third symphony and its demands on physical and emotional stamina don’t leave the Philharmonia Orchestra and conductor Lorin Maazel much choice. As it turns out, they acquitted themselves with flying colours.
The work, in six movements, lasts a monumental 100 minutes. Ambitious in scope, profound in depth of emotion and awe-inspiring in intensity, the work has potential to trip up the most confident orchestra from the very first bar.
Mahler originally gave each of the movements a narrative description, but since they were later scrapped, one wonders whether they are reliable guideposts to appreciation of the music. The first movement, for example, bears the description “Pan Awakes, Summer Marches In.”
The resolute declaration by the horns that opens the movement is symbolic of an awakening, but the rest of movement, meandering through a varied rhythmic, harmonic, orchestral and melodic terrain, delivers much more. At the helm of the orchestral voyager, Maazel combined gentle coaxing with pointed direction to help it navigate glibly through the terrain, with a refreshing clarity of vision. Never for a moment was the contrast among the disparate elements of the movement lost. Subtle and timid violin solos were pitted sharply against the humdrum beat of the march, the impish melodic interludes and the bulging crudeness of the brass. If the full fury of the orchestra, unleashed in an explosive conclusion to the movement, indeed signalled summer’s awakening, then it would be a rude one.
According to Norman Lebrecht in his book Why Mahler, the opening theme is from the finale in Brahms’ First Symphony, which Mahler apparently transposed into a minor key. However, Lebrecht points out, the theme is “originally a folk tune…used as a nationalist student anthem.”
Lebrecht claims that with this theme, Mahler “opens the symphony with an implied protest against racial discrimination”. “This pastoral symphony begins with…a foretaste of Nazi violence in an irony so heavy that nobody recognizes its intent,” he concludes. Failure to capture this irony, Lebrecht argues, gives away many a competent conductor. I suspect that Maazel’s emphasis on this irony would have disappointed Lebrecht, but the movement was none the worse for it.
The second movement, dubbed “What the meadow flowers tell me,” was a drastic change of mood and pace. Maazel’s interpretation made it a credible musical representation of a Wordsworth poem or John Constable painting. Its idyllic outpouring is nothing short of the quintessential Vaughan Williams and Frederick Delius. The humming of the birds, the fresh scent of the grass, and the murmuring creek all come to life. We held our breath, lest we break the soap-bubble delicacy and lightness of the sound.