Gustav Mahler / Symphony No. 9 - Chicago Symphony Orchestra & Pierre Boulez - 1998, Deutsche Grammophon
Berkeley Electronic Press Selected Works. FrostWire Free Featured Torrent Downloads All features Acoustic Acoustic Alternative Americana Dance Dub Electro Electronic Folk Funk Hip-hop Hiphop Indie Instrumental Jazz Latin Pop Punk Rap Reggae Rnb Rock Soul Swing Techno Trip-hop Video. Remotely download torrents with uTorrent Classic from uTorrent Android or through any browser. Optimize your download speed by allocating more bandwidth to a specific torrent. View the number of seeds and peers to identify if a torrent is healthy.
Жанр: Classical
Год выпуска диска: 1998
Производитель диска: Deutsche Grammophon
Аудио кодек: FLAC
Тип рипа: image+.cue
Битрейт аудио: lossless
Продолжительность: 1h 19' 46'
Gustav Mahler / Symphony No. 9 - Chicago Symphony Orchestra & Pierre Boulez - 1998, Deutsche Grammophon
Tracklist:
01. I. Andante comodo 29:18
02. II. Im Tempo eines gemachlichen Landler. Etwas tappisch und sehr derb Poco piu mosso subito Landler, ganz langsam 16:12
03. III. Rondo. Burleske (Allegro assai. Sehr trotzig Presto) 12:44
04. IV. Adagio (Sehr langsam) 21:30
Total Time: 1h 19' 46'
Tracklist:
01. I. Andante comodo 29:18
02. II. Im Tempo eines gemachlichen Landler. Etwas tappisch und sehr derb Poco piu mosso subito Landler, ganz langsam 16:12
03. III. Rondo. Burleske (Allegro assai. Sehr trotzig Presto) 12:44
04. IV. Adagio (Sehr langsam) 21:30
Total Time: 1h 19' 46'
Mahler Full Work Torrent 2017
Exact Audio Copy V0.99 prebeta 4 from 23. January 2008
EAC extraction logfile from 1. March 2009, 19:12
Mahler / Symphony No.9 - Boulez
Used drive : HL-DT-STDVD-RAM GSA-H55N Adapter: 0 ID: 0
Read mode : Secure
Utilize accurate stream : Yes
Defeat audio cache : Yes
Make use of C2 pointers : No
Read offset correction : 102
Overread into Lead-In and Lead-Out : No
Fill up missing offset samples with silence : Yes
Delete leading and trailing silent blocks : No
Null samples used in CRC calculations : No
Used interface : Native Win32 interface for Win NT & 2000
Used output format : User Defined Encoder
Selected bitrate : 1024 kBit/s
Quality : High
Add ID3 tag : No
Command line compressor : C:Program Files (x86)FLACflac.exe
Additional command line options : -6 -V -T 'ARTIST=%a' -T 'TITLE=%t' -T 'ALBUM=%g' -T 'DATE=%y' -T 'TRACKNUMBER=%n' -T 'GENRE=%m' -T 'COMMENT=%e' %s -o %d
TOC of the extracted CD
Track | Start | Length | Start sector | End sector
---------------------------------------------------------
1 | 0:00.00 | 29:27.00 | 0 | 132524
2 | 29:27.00 | 16:10.00 | 132525 | 205274
3 | 45:37.00 | 12:44.00 | 205275 | 262574
4 | 58:21.00 | 21:25.00 | 262575 | 358949
Range status and errors
Selected range
Filename C:UsersKibitakiDesktopmahlerMahler - Symphony No. 9.wav
Peak level 99.9 %
Range quality 99.9 %
Test CRC F959DAE0
Copy CRC F959DAE0
Copy OK
No errors occurred
AccurateRip summary
Track 1 accurately ripped (confidence 6) [D2CD6EAE]
Track 2 accurately ripped (confidence 6) [E4BD85CA]
Track 3 accurately ripped (confidence 6) [AF3A236D]
Track 4 accurately ripped (confidence 4) [BDC8A52B]
All tracks accurately ripped
End of status report
EAC extraction logfile from 1. March 2009, 19:12
Mahler / Symphony No.9 - Boulez
Used drive : HL-DT-STDVD-RAM GSA-H55N Adapter: 0 ID: 0
Read mode : Secure
Utilize accurate stream : Yes
Defeat audio cache : Yes
Make use of C2 pointers : No
Read offset correction : 102
Overread into Lead-In and Lead-Out : No
Fill up missing offset samples with silence : Yes
Delete leading and trailing silent blocks : No
Null samples used in CRC calculations : No
Used interface : Native Win32 interface for Win NT & 2000
Used output format : User Defined Encoder
Selected bitrate : 1024 kBit/s
Quality : High
Add ID3 tag : No
Command line compressor : C:Program Files (x86)FLACflac.exe
Additional command line options : -6 -V -T 'ARTIST=%a' -T 'TITLE=%t' -T 'ALBUM=%g' -T 'DATE=%y' -T 'TRACKNUMBER=%n' -T 'GENRE=%m' -T 'COMMENT=%e' %s -o %d
TOC of the extracted CD
Track | Start | Length | Start sector | End sector
---------------------------------------------------------
1 | 0:00.00 | 29:27.00 | 0 | 132524
2 | 29:27.00 | 16:10.00 | 132525 | 205274
3 | 45:37.00 | 12:44.00 | 205275 | 262574
4 | 58:21.00 | 21:25.00 | 262575 | 358949
Range status and errors
Selected range
Filename C:UsersKibitakiDesktopmahlerMahler - Symphony No. 9.wav
Peak level 99.9 %
Range quality 99.9 %
Test CRC F959DAE0
Copy CRC F959DAE0
Copy OK
No errors occurred
AccurateRip summary
Track 1 accurately ripped (confidence 6) [D2CD6EAE]
Track 2 accurately ripped (confidence 6) [E4BD85CA]
Track 3 accurately ripped (confidence 6) [AF3A236D]
Track 4 accurately ripped (confidence 4) [BDC8A52B]
All tracks accurately ripped
End of status report
Pierre Boulez on Gustav Mahler (интервью - 28.4.2009, Vienna)
Pierre Boulez on Gustav Mahler
“I could understand Wozzeck better when I knew Mahler.”
Transcript of full interview:
Mr Boulez, do you remember the first time you heard the music of Mahler?
Boulez: I don’t think I remember. Yes, I suppose I remember. In France it was not performed at all when I was young. First during the war of course, but even after the war there was a very big gap between the Austrian musical culture and the French musical culture. Therefore I think the first time I heard Mahler, that was in France anyway – but I mean it was the 4th Symphony, and I remember the Schellen [sleigh-bells] at the beginning, because it was so unusual to hear this kind of noise, to begin a symphony especially, that it was surprising. And I mean that it was Kletzki, it was not a French conductor who conducted it, it was Paul Kletzki.
And then the other time I heard Mahler, that was Das Lied von der Erde, and it was performed in 1952. I don’t know if that was for the first time in France, but the first time I saw it organised. I don’t remember the performers I must say, but it was very impressive. But I was disappointed, I remember, by the long oboe solo of the last movement because it was much too repetitive for my taste at this moment. I mean I was in a very extreme moment of my research in music, so therefore all that was influenced by or was part of the tradition I heavily rejected at this time. Well, after that I think I began to know Mahler better, and when I was in Germany, when I was in Baden-Baden, I remember we discussed it with Hans Rosbaud. And Hans Rosbaud told me, “Listen to this Symphony”, and it was the 9th Symphony recorded by himself, and I was really very much impressed then, so I began to have an opinion on Mahler that I could not have before because of lack of knowledge.
Before you thought he was just an ancestor of the Second Viennese School?
Boulez: Well, before it was a name, simply that. And I mean, for instance Messaien – although he was a very good teacher – had absolutely no contact with Mahler. And so, for me, there were two twins: Mahler, Bruckner. You know, because they were considered generally in the books, “Mahler, Bruckner. Mahler, Bruckner.” Or “Bruckner, Mahler”. And both have very little in common, and there is a very big difference in their musical conception in that period, in all kinds of stylistic approaches and everything that you can dream of. And therefore, for the French education there was absolutely nothing [about Mahler]. You know, the German music stopped at Wagner, mainly, and a bit of Richard Strauss. Richard Strauss was the German musician who was the most known in France; not for the best as a matter of fact, because he was found excessive and not for French tastes, simply that. Because there was a kind of contempt for the German and Austrian music of this period, as being completely under the influence of expressionists, and that was not to French taste.
When did you start to conduct Mahler?
Boulez: Oh, much later I think. I don’t remember exactly, but I think it was not before ’65, ’66, when I began to work with the BBC. And then it was, you know, the beginning of the Mahler trend, let’s say. Because before, even in England, it was not performed very much. The success of Mahler began really, not with Bruno Walter – certainly Bruno Walter regularly played Mahler in America, but I mean also Mitropoulos regularly played Mahler – but the big success was Bernstein, certainly. And Bernstein made Mahler popular in the States. It was his kind of responsibility, let’s say, to make Mahler popular, but there were precedents and especially Mitropoulos was very courageous. But I was told for instance, by musicians I knew in the orchestra, that when Mahler’s 7th or 5th or 6th was performed in the ’50s, the hall was emptying itself obviously, because it was considered too long and boring, simply that.
So the perspective that we have of Mahler now, generally in the world, is not at all the perspective that I had myself. Even when I was in the States in 1952 for the first time Mahler was still, you know, terra incognita more or less.
You succeeded Leonard Bernstein as chief conductor of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra. Did you talk with him about Mahler?
Boulez: No, we did not have very close contact with Bernstein. I saw him, of course, from time to time, but I mean we did not discuss music, because our tastes were so far from each other that the discussion would not have gone anywhere. And I think there was a kind of agreement for not touching this type of subject.
Bernstein made Mahler popular, as you mentioned, but at the same time he conducted Mahler very emotionally. Did you feel this tradition when you took over?
Boulez: No, I did not try to fight, or to change anything. I did it my way, simply that. And of course I noticed that there were some features of his performance which are there still, and which I can very well understand. I suppose, the same thing, Mitropoulos was also very emotional, not only Bernstein. And maybe the less emotional was still Bruno Walter – I mean emotional in this sense, kind of like your Übertreibung – you know, exaggeration. And myself I think that the emotional side should be there, because it is in the music. But I mean, with Barenboim we were discussing that one cannot constantly refer to the biography to explain the music. The biography is one thing, and the biography is important to know, to see, the circumstances of the first performances, how he composed the pieces, and so on and so forth. But it does not explain the pieces at all. And you know, when he composed, he had a kind of mesh of motives, of themes, and he organised them very carefully, and it is not a kind of emotion which is thus improvising constantly; that’s an emotion which organised. And that is very important for me, that the organisation is part of the emotion.
But was it your goal to bring Mahler more down to earth for the American public?
Boulez: No. I had no goal, as a matter of fact. I was simply busy with trying to clarify this music for myself. Because, you know, in the French tradition the pieces – orchestral pieces at least – are always rather short. And even in the Viennese School, what one calls the Second Viennese School, pieces are really rather short. The Five Pieces by Schönberg for instance, Opus 16, are short pieces: very expressive, but the trajectory is very easy to manipulate. The Variations of Schönberg are really one variation after another one. They are very well put together, but you don’t have to think of the main line, you have to think of contrasts, from one short piece to another short piece. Also, I didn’t mention Webern, who has very short pieces, and the main preoccupation you have is from another planet let’s say. And for the longest piece, that’s Berg still, and with the pieces of Opus 6 even the third one is not really so gigantic.
But in Mahler you have maybe a movement which is 30 minutes long, or even more, and then you have to organise that. Certainly you cannot just go along and say, “Well I have this emotion at this moment. I am waiting for the second one”, and just play from time to time with holes in the middle. You have to have a trajectory, and to understand the trajectory, and to have the musicians understand what you call the trajectory of the piece. And so then, of course, at the beginning you think about it, and you say, well, I must think of that, because at that time that’s the main point in the piece, where the piece repeats itself or will repeat itself; then you have to pay attention to this and to that and to that, and obviously when you perform it more, then it becomes spontaneous. And in a funny way, the more understanding you are of the form itself, the more spontaneous you can become. Because otherwise, spontaneity is not just giving way to its emotion, but spontaneity is just to drive your soul, let’s say, through the movement, and never lose track of the trajectory you are taking.
I think one of the crucial points is the tempo. Mahler writes critically of a conductor that he heard, and he criticises the lack of flexibility of the tempo. I suppose this is one thing you would agree.
Boulez: Well, the number of times he writes ‘don’t drag’, or ‘don’t rush’, that’s always negative: nicht eilen; nicht schleppen. And he was afraid that you – precisely – that with the weight of the emotion, you just exaggerate what he wanted, and that’s exactly that. So, if you are excited you just push the tempo to the maximum, and then the tempo has absolutely no reason to be this quick. And, on the contrary, if you want to expand, if he writes a ritenuto, or a poco ritenuto or a molto ritenuto you do it, because then he wants that. But I mean, if there is simply nicht schleppen, then you cannot really say, well I feel this emotion at this moments, so I must go slower. Because then you have no continuity, and then, especially that’s very important when, for instance, you have not a crescendo, but a crescendo in tempo let’s say, and then you are going from 4/4 with four quarter notes, to 2/2, to two half notes; it should be absolutely without noticing. You have to go from a pulse to another pulse really, without anybody seeing the moment where you are doing that. And that is very important, especially in the 6th, where you have that in the last movement. You have it a couple of times, but you have that quite a lot at the end especially. Sometimes he wants to precipitate the tempo, and so instead of four beats you have two beats, instead of two beats you have one beat, and it’s very important to do that as smoothly as possible – not chopped, but continuous.
Mahler writes: ‘not sentimental’.
Boulez: He writes that also, yes.
Could we say that the Mahler success in the late ’60s is based on a misunderstanding, to overemotionalise his music?
Boulez: Well, I think you cannot condemn anybody for making that [emotion] more or less, because if that’s the way they feel the music, the music is transformed – or deformed, if you want – but that’s their way of expressing themselves through the music. I find that if you look for authenticity, that certainly if you go against the indications of Mahler and if you make something sentimental where he writes not sentimental, then, I mean, that’s a kind of treason certainly. But I mean, what is not treason. The further the music is from us, then the less authentic you can be: it’s very difficult to be authentic with Mozart because you never know what he would have done exactly. And this whole world of authenticity, for me, is just nonsense because the authenticity doesn’t exist, simply that.
Authenticity is transmitted through literature – so books – but never through a kind of living testimony. And even living testimony, so Bartók for instance recorded some of his music, and so the pianists who are now working full time on the pieces of Bartók, certainly play better than Bartók himself, because he did not practise his own pieces so much. So what you have is what he conceived for the pieces and period. But for the conductor that’s exactly the same, because he has to deal with orchestras who are not familiar with this style, his own style, and it may be he himself also has some difficulties to find a way of bringing the message he knows he wants. But maybe he knows when he performs that he has to change that, to modify that, and so on and so forth. So, I mean you may have a recording which was made when he was young or when he was old, or you have the case of Stravinsky, who was not a very good conductor, full stop. He had a strong personality, and his personality in front of the orchestra was really something very hard and very mighty. But I mean, the technique was not there certainly. If you compare, for instance, the recordings of Furtwängler of Beethoven, and the recordings now of Beethoven – even the best recordings, even the ones that don’t pretend to authenticity – you have a big difference. Furtwängler was influenced by a sort of Wagner/Beethoven, with the tempi much slower, the crescendo exaggerated, and so on and so forth. Well that’s their way of looking at the music, and scores are done to be performed in a kind of personal way, and therefore the only authenticity is the authenticity of a personality. Otherwise it does not exist.
You once said that Bernstein was a kind of tree that obscured the forest? He was so influential …
Boulez: Oh, he was powerful, yes, when he was living. But I mean there are other conductors.
Do we now have more perspectives on Mahler?
Boulez: Yes, we certainly have more perspectives. But at this time also, he [Bernstein] was not the only one. At this time you had Solti, for instance – and I say Solti because he was one of the main forces in the performing level at this time – but I mean there were other ones, like Mehta for instance as well. So I don’t think he was overpowering. He was certainly a very, very strong force, but he was not the only one. And there were already people rebelling against this kind of overromanticised type of performance. You know, there was not a kind of total agreement, certainly not.
What did the composer Boulez learn from Mahler’s scores?
Boulez: Well, quite a lot. I mean first the distance, the long distance let’s say: how to organise a long work, like I did recently for instance with Sur Incises, 45 minutes of music without stopping, and you have to organise your concept of time differently because you have to make the ideas renew themselves and at the same time be recognisable. And that’s not easy at all, and that I have learnt from Mahler, but I have learnt that from Wagner also, when I conducted Wagner. It was the same problem for the French especially. I mean the French very often had short breath, because the pieces were shorter; they were very refined but mainly they were short. And so this long distance, that was very important for me, to know it and to benefit from it. That’s the first thing.
The second thing was the use of the orchestra, certainly. That’s not a use of the orchestra which can be used the same way now, but I mean certainly the weight of the instrument is very well-calculated in Mahler, and also the proportion of the dynamic. The dynamic proportions are very important there, because when he has a fortissimo for some instruments and pianissimo for another instrument, he knows absolutely the weight of the instruments, of the register, of the colour. And you know, generally when you see some scores – even in the 20th century – you have a kind of general dynamic for all the orchestra, and that’s a very primitive use of dynamic. Mahler was really modern in that. And you can see that it’s the difference in the experience. When Berg, for instance, wrote the pieces of Op. 6, and the third piece especially, you have problems of balance and you have to change the dynamic, because with the dynamic he has written it will not sound, simply that. And you will not hear what is important, you will hear, on the contrary, things you do not want to hear as the main thing. So therefore you see the difference of experience, because Mahler was conducting since his youth, and Berg had an experience of listening, which is, not strange, but for instance the first piece berg wrote – the Altenberg Lieder for orchestra – are better orchestrated than the pieces of Op. 6 in a way. The texture was much more complex in the Op. 6, and then he did not know how to arrange that, but the texture was thinner in the Altenberg Lieder and then he had a good experience, maybe two or three things only, with the voice especially.
Would Mahler have revised his 9th Symphony? That’s the only Symphony he never heard. Would he have changed the orchestration?
Boulez: No I don’t think so, the 9th is very well put together. Maybe the sketches of the 10th, so not all the sketches but the Adagio. In the Adagio he would maybe have changed a couple of things. But I think he was so aware of the possibilities of the orchestra, and that’s also a kind of gift, if you see that. Stravinsky too, but of course the texture was less complicated. But Stravinsky knew the way of using the orchestra already at the beginning, with the first works. When you see Fireworks for instance – the work immediately before Feuervogel, Firebird – that’s perfectly written for the orchestra. And also The Firebird is absolutely perfectly written, that’s one of his best orchestrations, but the first he did for the big orchestra. Berlioz was also a genius for orchestra, and Schumann was not, and Liszt was not. They had other qualities, but this one they did not have. Wagner was, on the contrary, perfect, and so you can look at the score as close as you want, you’ll find that’s perfectly balanced and perfectly well-organised.
But Mahler was fighting for that. In the 5th Symphony he writes that he feels himself as an absolute beginner.
Boulez: Yes well, he said it, but I don’t believe it. [Laughs] No, that he had to think again because the music is very developed from the 4th, and even from the 3rd, that’s music that uses much more counterpoint, and then certainly he had some difficulties, but I mean he knew what he was doing. The difficulty came from the fact that the substance of the music was different, was much more complex. But he did not have to learn again how to use the instruments. That, certainly, I don’t believe. That was coquetry.
What were the first Mahler works you conducted?
Boulez: The first one I conducted was the 5th Symphony, because it was very little performed at this time – ‘65 or ‘66, I don’t remember – and then, you know with the BBC it was my way to try how I could do it. And I don’t remember the performance; I don’t think it was the peak of the performance I have ever done, because it was the first time, simply that. I knew, of course, the style I had heard some of the works, but I was a beginner and when you are beginning, as much as I was at ease with Stravinsky, or even with Webern, so much I was not at ease with Mahler, certainly. And that was a style which was very distant from my style. When I conducted Webern it was close to me. When I was conducting Mahler, especially this Funeral March, it reminded me of Chopin more than anything else. Of course, because this funeral march, I was playing it on the piano when I was a child, and the funeral march was a kind of a cliché for me. And I had quite a lot of difficulties with entering into this cliché.
But you continued to conduct Mahler. So there was something …
Boulez: Yes. Certainly I did not want to give up. I did not try to begin to explore everything: to explore Sibelius, to explore Bruckner, at the same time. No, I wasn’t entirely set on Mahler, and then, what you said is exactly what I thought myself. I considered, I had heard, especially from Adorno, that Mahler was the source of the Second Viennese School, so I began to think back, to think Schönberg, Webern and Berg, and to go back to Mahler. And I could understand Wozzeck better when I knew Mahler, especially the military march and so on and all the vulgarity: well-conceived, the kind of vulgarity which you find in Wozzeck with the characters of Hauptmann and Tambourmajor. I discovered this with Mahler retrospectively, and I said yes, I see from where it comes.
Talking about Schönberg and the influence of Mahler, even Schönberg had a lot of problems at the beginning.
Boulez: At the beginning, yes.
Can you understand that? Was it the same with you?
Boulez: Schönberg was an idealist, and did not want vulgarity to intrude. You know the kind of stylistic collage that Mahler is creating sometimes, and by instinct Schönberg was refusing that, because he wanted a kind of pure style. And Schönberg was always looking for purity of style. Always. And his system of twelve tones is not even purity, that’s asceticism, certainly. And therefore I can understand the first reaction of Mahler. But if you can compare, for instance, the music of Mahler, and even the “vulgar” music of Moses und Aron, the march of the corporation. I can understand that there is the influence of Mahler in this very small department of Schönberg.
How about the influence of Mahler on the so called avant-garde? Did he open the door to modern music?
Boulez: I don’t think so. There were two generations in between. The length, also the dimension of the work maybe was still an influence, but I am still not sure. A direct influence, certainly not.
And the last movement, the last page of the 9th Symphony?
Boulez: Yes, there are a some moments, some features, but a kind of very strong general influence: No. If you would say there is a very strong influence of Debussy on: I would say no too. The direct influence is over, that’s part of history. And you can have a partial influence, of that feature or that feature, and a very small thing can be used, but not a kind of general influence.
This question is highly speculative, but: in which direction would Mahler have proceeded?
Boulez: Well, if you look at the 10th Symphony especially, the Adagio, or even the 9th, certainly he would have pushed in the direction of expanding tonality. I don’t think he would have given up, as it were, the grammar of the tonality, so the classified chords and so on, but he would have pushed the relationship between the chords very far. And I am more or less sure of that because if you see the relationship, harmonic relationship, in the 10th Symphony, in the Adagio of the 10th Symphony and the 9th Symphony, you can see that he is pushing in this direction certainly.
Mahler was seeking clarity and distinctness in his sound. He writes about this many times. Is there any influence on your work?
Boulez: I don’t think so. Maybe he was looking for that, but you know there are two aspects of Mahler which are very different. You have the symphonic aspect, when the mass is very often important. If you see the first movement of the 6th Symphony, or the last movement, the massive aspect is really important; if you see the Wunderhorn on the contrary, with very little he does marvellous things, because he can make miniatures as well as a big painting. You can see that in the massive aspect there are some moments of refinement, as a contrast, but I mean, the massive aspect is stronger than the other one. And, on the contrary, the massive disappears totally from the Lieder he has done, so I mean Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, and also Kindertotenlieder, and so on and so forth, and his Wunderhornlieder. Then you have a very refined and very economical situation, and that’s another aspect of his. And one must see that – not separately, because he was in between the two – but I mean there is no direct communication between one set of works and the other set of works.
But the smaller works had more influence on the composers of your generation?
Boulez: I suppose, yes. Not more influence but the relationship is indirect through Webern, because I think the works of Mahler for small orchestra, and a very refined orchestra, that certainly was a strong influence on Webern.
In which way?
Boulez: Economy.
Is there some Mahler that means more to you than others?
Boulez: Well, sometimes when I have gone off the bombastic Mahler I am delighted by the refined Mahler I must say. Because sometimes, you know, the E flat major is grandioso, but sometimes that’s a grandioso which is in the past in a very strong way. The kind of push which I am very familiar with, and which is maybe closer to me, comes for instance at the end of The Rite of Spring, when you also have this massiveness but you also have this rhythm which is strong and wild. And in Mahler you don’t have that, although at the end of the 8th Symphony you have a motive that comes with fourths – B flat, A, F, E flat; so F, B flat; A, E flat – and this 4th you find at the end of Stravinsky’s Symphony of Psalms. And I wonder, because he has heard the 8th Symphony, he has heard it in Zürich, when he was in Switzerland during the First World War. And his reaction was very negative of course, I can imagine, but I mean he used practically the same motive at the end of the Symphony of Psalms, and that’s very strange as a coincidence I must say. But certainly the end of The Rite of Spring, or the end of Les Noces, are for me closer to me than the very big endings of Mahler, certainly.
Since Adorno the reputation of the 8th symphony is not very good. We have a kind of religious cantata and then we have a kind of theatre in the concert hall. Did you ever have problems with that?
Boulez: I have no problem with the first movement because I find that’s very tight, very contrapuntal, and very densely written. I have more problems with the second movement, I must say – not the beginning of course, the beginning is really a kind of tableaux which is an exposition there – but with the succession of scenes you also have a kind of compromise between the miniature style, as I said, and the big bow, so the big lengths of the movement. And that’s very difficult, having these miniatures separated, and so you have to organise them very carefully; that’s difficult, I find. And the thematic material is not very rich, much less rich for instance than in the 6th Symphony, and you have much repetitive material without a lot of variation, because sometimes when you have the variations it can be very rich. But this time, I don’t know why he wanted kind of simple material and for it to remain simple, and it’s difficult to make that alive, simply that. And then I have my own performing difficulties.
Since when have you been conducting the 8th?
Boulez: Oh, the first time I conducted it, that must have been in ’74 or ’73, ’72. A long time ago, when I was in New York. And I also conducted them when I was with the BBC, for the Proms, for the opening night of the Proms. So I did it in the ’70s, and I did not touch it before this retrospect, because you know that generally when you propose that, they say, “Oh my God, that’s so expensive”, and you have to have two choirs: one children’s choir, a boys’ choir, and then eight soloists, and a big orchestra, and eight brass supplementary to that in the corner. And that’s very expensive, and so you cannot do that every morning, certainly.
Barenboim told me yesterday, when he starts to conduct a new repertoire he starts it slower, and when he feels more comfortable, the tempi become faster. You are the contrary, he said.
Boulez: Yes.
You become slower. Is that true?
Boulez: I suppose there is something true in it, yes, because myself I want to go to push because I am afraid that I will be boring. And then I push the tempo, and then I calm down, on the contrary, when I master the thing. And the relationship between the various tempi is very important for me, especially when you have to find a kind of coherence between the tempi, like in the second movement of the 8th.
Or in Leos Janaceks From the House of the Dead. Without flexibility in the tempo you are lost there too. Not by chance Mahler’s scores are full of tempo-instructions.
Boulez: Yes. Yes. And the number of times you see nicht eilen and nicht schleppen, you know [laughs], I have not numbered them but there are quite a lot of these indications. That proves that he wanted a kind of flexibility, but not a kind of absurd flexibility.
You conducted a lot of Mahler in the States and in Europe for many, many years. Is there some improvement in the orchestras?
Boulez: Well, I think certainly the works are more known now than before. I mean, in ‘65 it was especially 5, 6 and 7 that were not really performed very often. In a funny way the 4th was performed, the 9th was performed, and 1 was performed: the work where you had no voice. And 5, 6, 7 were considered to be difficult works and not really very attractive for the audience. Now that’s the contrary: if you play 5, you know, the audience is full immediately. But at this time, certainly they were not often performed, and then the musicians have to, not fight, but grow more familiar with the idiom first and with the notes second; or maybe contrary, with the notes first and the idiom second.
Is there a difference between the States and Europe?
Boulez: I didn’t conduct the Mahler Symphonies in Paris: I conducted them always in London, or in New York, or Cleveland, or Chicago, and therefore I cannot judge in Europe, because I performed mainly – when I was learning them particularly – either in the US or in London.
Once you considered Debussy to be a kind of brother of yours; you understand the meaning of every note he wrote.
Boulez: Well, I know them, yes, because I grew up with them, simply that.
Which part in your family would Mahler play?
Boulez: Well, [laughs] great uncle, if you want to say something. But I mean, these definitions are always incorrect, and so immediately when you say something you can say exactly the contrary. No, certainly for me that was the precedent of the Second Viennese School, and it remains like that because I discovered Mahler like the father of the Second Viennese School, the man who promoted practically the style of the Second Viennese School, and this relation is, for me, stronger than any other relation, even than the relation with Wagner.
But if I understand you correctly, we shouldn’t overestimate the influence of his biography, his suffering from anti-Semitism for example, on his work?
Boulez: No, no, I don’t find this. That’s like if you look at Wagner only under the aspect of anti-Semitism: Gott sei Dank, he is not only an anti-Semite, he has written Tristan und Isolde and that has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is really the kind of black side of Wagner, and you cannot consider that as part of his music, certainly not. Only when he wanted to make fun with it, and if you see some caricature in his work then you can find some caricature, especially with Mime. The character of Mime is the anti-Semitism of Wagner transformed, but otherwise certainly not. And Mahler, certainly he has felt isolated, I am sure of that. But maybe it was better, because with the isolation he made that strong point of his life. And then this strong point in his life is the strong point of his music also.
So there is a relation between life and music?
Boulez: There is certainly a relationship, but not literal. And I mean, you have many people who have suffered anti-Semitism even more than Mahler, but who have never written the 9th Symphony, full stop. You cannot really confuse the moral and aesthetic point of view. You have people who are very moral who write very poor music; and you have people who are not moral at all, who have some sides that are absolutely not acceptable, but who write good music. You know, Debussy was anti-Dreyfusard, and Ravel was Dreyfusard, good. But, I mean, you cannot make any example in their music, simply that.
Mahler asked himself after meeting with Richard Strauss: “Am I made of different material?”
Boulez: Yes, I suppose so. But every composer is made of a different material. Do you think Webern was made of the same material as say, Schreker? Certainly not.
Mahler considered himself to be a “holiday-composer”, because he was caught in the office of the Vienna State Opera. Would he have composed differently if he would have been a “full-time-composer”?
Boulez: No, I don’t think so. Only, he was obliged to think in terms of three months’ or four months’ tranquillity, and to be quiet, to think only of composing. But you know, during the season, even if he was conducting in the opera, he was making the score and orchestrating, and writing the full score at this time. So he never really stopped completely, and I must say that, at this time, the season was much shorter than now. Now, during the summer everybody is as busy as during the season, but at the time of Mahler there were no summer festivals.
And probably he was influenced vice versa: as a conductor he knew how the orchestra sounds …
Boulez: Yes, perfectly well. I mean, he projected his experience into his compositions.
So you think this combination was rather perfect?
Boulez: This combination was good, only sometimes he would have had more time to compose and feel less pressed under time if he did not have so many evenings to conduct here, simply that. And also, to be at the head of an opera house is certainly not the easiest way of having a calm life.
Especially in Vienna.
Boulez: Maybe in Vienna, but I think in every place.
Do we understand Mahler better after the catastrophes of the 20th century? Did he anticipate them?
Boulez: No, because otherwise you would just estimate all Jewish composers as a representative of the catastrophe, and I say, morality has nothing to do with talent – unfortunately or fortunately, I don’t know – but that’s two things that are different. So, you have Eisler, to put in an example: Eisler suffered – but he was in exile – if he had stayed in Germany he would certainly have been killed. So that’s really a fact, yes? And we sympathise with this fact, and we are really totally invulgar, but would I say that Eisler is a better composer than Berg? Well, certainly not.
But when the soloist sings: “Oh Mensch! Gib Acht!” …
Boulez: Well, that’s written by Nietzsche, long before the holocaust.
So is this a general topic?
Boulez: That’s a general topic, yes, only it has been actualised, let’s say, by the Hitler situation. As I say with anti-Semitism, if one makes Wagner responsible for Auschwitz, no, that’s also an exaggeration in the other direction. He was anti-Semitic like many people: if you read the letters of Mussorgsky, anti-Semitism is there constantly; Stravinsky was also not very cautious. You know, in Russia you have a lot of anti-Semitism, and in France also during the Dreyfus affair – and, as I say, Debussy was against Dreyfus.
So we should separate this. No influence.
Boulez: No influence, certainly. You can really suffer from a situation, that’s for sure, and Mahler suffered. But don’t forget that also he became a Christian at the beginning of his career, just because if he wanted to be at the head of an opera house, Christianity was necessary at this time. They were all converting, Schönberg also, because in this society it was, you know, a kind of passport.
If Mahler would have lived another 30 years, would the influence of Schönberg have been different?
Boulez: I don’t think Mahler would have accepted the twelve-tone theory and system.
But how about Schönberg? If Schönberg would have felt the giant Mahler on his side, would he have composed differently?
Boulez: Schönberg was independent enough, I am quite sure. Maybe Berg would have been less influenced by Schönberg, that’s possible.
This would have been two worlds coexisting.
Boulez: Yes, yes.
Debussy attended the French première of Mahler’s 2nd Symphony – and he left.
Boulez: He left, yes. Well, that’s a kind of legend, one never knows if it is true or not. So apparently he went because he needed to smoke a cigarette, and he went out and never came back, because he found that outside it was better. But you know, it is a kind of legend. It was not sure at all.
But maybe he influenced the fact that Mahler, and Bruckner too, were never part of the French education.
Boulez: That’s true. But that attitude of Debussy was not his own attitude, it was the attitude of the whole musical class. There was no interest after Wagner and, as I say, Strauss. Strauss was invited regularly to conduct in France, even before the First World War. And as a matter of fact, Debussy wrote a long article on the way of conducting of Strauss, because they were practically the same age: 1862 for Debussy, 1864 for Strauss.
But would you say Mahler is totally accepted now in France?
Boulez: Oh yes, well that’s international. Bruckner is not.
Would Mahler have been possible without Bruckner?
Boulez: I think maybe, yes, but I’m not sure. Certainly the last Bruckner Symphonies were influential, 8 and 9.
In terms of the energy of masses?
Boulez: Yes. But you know, for instance, the scherzo of Mahler are much more complex than the scherzo of Bruckner, which are A-B-A-B-A, or A-B-A simply.
And even Shostakovich …
Boulez: Don’t speak to me about this man. [Laughs] I really cannot understand the success of it, because that’s so trite. That’s a kind of collection of clichés which is really embarrassing sometimes.
Why did Mahler as an opera director not compose an opera?
Boulez: Because he knew too much about the opera houses. That’s funny. Maybe because he had lack of time, that I can imagine. Because as much as he could concentrate on some limited work in the summer, for an opera that’s longer, and I don’t see him composing the Meistersinger in three months.
So we can say that his symphonies with choir and soloists are a kind of music-drama?
Boulez: Yes, that’s a kind of substitute, especially the 8th Symphony. But what is very funny is that the Faust scene is not the most dramatic music he has written. The finale of the 6th Symphony is much more dramatic than the second movement of the 8th.
He deleted the third hammer blow in the 6th.
Boulez: Yes, that I can understand, because it does not fit at all. That’s not the same context. With the first two Hammerschläge you have a main melody playing with the trumpet, both times the same melody playing. The third time it’s the introduction which comes back, and the hammer has nothing to do with this reprise, this repetition, from the very beginning. And so there is no hammer there.
It has nothing to do with reasons outside the music?
Boulez: No, I don’t believe anything else. Well maybe he wanted a third one, but finally he said that’s absolutely illogical to have a third one in this context, simply that. And what Alma, after that, had written about the drama; I don’t believe a word of it. She invented quite a lot of things.
So we should protect Mahler from these legends?
Boulez: From Alma, yes, but it’s too late now [laughs]. It’s true what Barenboim was telling you, that one speaks much too much about his psyche, about his difficulty with the psychoanalysis and so on and so forth.
When I hear the 1st or the 2nd Symphony of Mahler I can understand that the outbreaks, “Durchbruch” like Adorno said, shocked the audience. This was an unknown territory.
Boulez: No, I don’t think so. Strauss also had quite a lot of energy. It was in the period.
What was it that people were frightened of with Mahler?
Boulez: The length, simply that, the length and the complexity. They did not understand the continuity of things. And it was not astonishing that the first thing to be was the Adagietto of the 5th.
And the use of the material: funeral marches, soldier songs.
Boulez: Yes, but well, the material of Mahler is very limited. You have funeral march, you have military march, you have Ländler, and that’s it.
Birdsongs.
Boulez: Oh well, birdsongs, but that’s very periodic. That’s not Messiaen certainly. That’s especially in the 1st and in Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, but apart from that you don’t have many birds. No, the material that he used constantly was really three things – and then the other material is himself – but the material which one could see permanently in his work, from the very beginning.
And it’s new how he puts it together.
Boulez: Yes.
He goes so far in the 9th Symphony, I’m a little bit surprised that you don’t consider that he opened the door to a new aesthetic. Isn’t it a kind of montage.
Boulez: Yes, it’s a kind of complexity, but that’s not new. It begins especially with the 5th Symphony: in the 5th and 6th and 7th where he had no preoccupation with songs or with the voice, they are the ones where he concentrated on the material of the orchestra.
He starts, I think in the 5th, to write different tempi at the same time for different sections. So, the strings and bassoon have accelerandi, and the other instruments remain.
Boulez: I am aware of that but that’s very periodic. Also, in the 2nd and 3rd Symphonies you have some accelerandi like that for individuals, but I mean that’s nothing. You don’t have tempi for groups, no certainly not. You have different tempi in the winds, in the 2nd Symphony especially. But when you have the posthorn for example, the posthorn is really synchronised with the orchestra, there is no problem there.
For me this technique of montage and collage is very close to Varèse.
Boulez: Better, better made [laughs}. Varèse is much more primitive in this sense.
But he did in terms of technique the same.
Boulez: Yes exactly, but that’s primitive compared to the use of Mahler. That’s like when you say, apropos material, you have Ives in America which is also, not funeral marches, but marches, military marches, fanfares, and also tunes, let’s put it this way. But how he uses it is infantile compared to Mahler, or not compared to Mahler even! So it’s not only the material that counts, it’s also how you do it really, what you do with it.
What’s the greatest achievement of Mahler?
Boulez: Well, to use this basic material which is rather trivial, but to use it as material and transform it completely.
Interview: Wolfgang Schaufler, Universal Edition
Transcript: Flora Death, Universal Edition
28.4.2009, Vienna© Universal Edition
“I could understand Wozzeck better when I knew Mahler.”
Transcript of full interview:
Mr Boulez, do you remember the first time you heard the music of Mahler?
Boulez: I don’t think I remember. Yes, I suppose I remember. In France it was not performed at all when I was young. First during the war of course, but even after the war there was a very big gap between the Austrian musical culture and the French musical culture. Therefore I think the first time I heard Mahler, that was in France anyway – but I mean it was the 4th Symphony, and I remember the Schellen [sleigh-bells] at the beginning, because it was so unusual to hear this kind of noise, to begin a symphony especially, that it was surprising. And I mean that it was Kletzki, it was not a French conductor who conducted it, it was Paul Kletzki.
And then the other time I heard Mahler, that was Das Lied von der Erde, and it was performed in 1952. I don’t know if that was for the first time in France, but the first time I saw it organised. I don’t remember the performers I must say, but it was very impressive. But I was disappointed, I remember, by the long oboe solo of the last movement because it was much too repetitive for my taste at this moment. I mean I was in a very extreme moment of my research in music, so therefore all that was influenced by or was part of the tradition I heavily rejected at this time. Well, after that I think I began to know Mahler better, and when I was in Germany, when I was in Baden-Baden, I remember we discussed it with Hans Rosbaud. And Hans Rosbaud told me, “Listen to this Symphony”, and it was the 9th Symphony recorded by himself, and I was really very much impressed then, so I began to have an opinion on Mahler that I could not have before because of lack of knowledge.
Before you thought he was just an ancestor of the Second Viennese School?
Boulez: Well, before it was a name, simply that. And I mean, for instance Messaien – although he was a very good teacher – had absolutely no contact with Mahler. And so, for me, there were two twins: Mahler, Bruckner. You know, because they were considered generally in the books, “Mahler, Bruckner. Mahler, Bruckner.” Or “Bruckner, Mahler”. And both have very little in common, and there is a very big difference in their musical conception in that period, in all kinds of stylistic approaches and everything that you can dream of. And therefore, for the French education there was absolutely nothing [about Mahler]. You know, the German music stopped at Wagner, mainly, and a bit of Richard Strauss. Richard Strauss was the German musician who was the most known in France; not for the best as a matter of fact, because he was found excessive and not for French tastes, simply that. Because there was a kind of contempt for the German and Austrian music of this period, as being completely under the influence of expressionists, and that was not to French taste.
When did you start to conduct Mahler?
Boulez: Oh, much later I think. I don’t remember exactly, but I think it was not before ’65, ’66, when I began to work with the BBC. And then it was, you know, the beginning of the Mahler trend, let’s say. Because before, even in England, it was not performed very much. The success of Mahler began really, not with Bruno Walter – certainly Bruno Walter regularly played Mahler in America, but I mean also Mitropoulos regularly played Mahler – but the big success was Bernstein, certainly. And Bernstein made Mahler popular in the States. It was his kind of responsibility, let’s say, to make Mahler popular, but there were precedents and especially Mitropoulos was very courageous. But I was told for instance, by musicians I knew in the orchestra, that when Mahler’s 7th or 5th or 6th was performed in the ’50s, the hall was emptying itself obviously, because it was considered too long and boring, simply that.
So the perspective that we have of Mahler now, generally in the world, is not at all the perspective that I had myself. Even when I was in the States in 1952 for the first time Mahler was still, you know, terra incognita more or less.
You succeeded Leonard Bernstein as chief conductor of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra. Did you talk with him about Mahler?
Boulez: No, we did not have very close contact with Bernstein. I saw him, of course, from time to time, but I mean we did not discuss music, because our tastes were so far from each other that the discussion would not have gone anywhere. And I think there was a kind of agreement for not touching this type of subject.
Bernstein made Mahler popular, as you mentioned, but at the same time he conducted Mahler very emotionally. Did you feel this tradition when you took over?
Boulez: No, I did not try to fight, or to change anything. I did it my way, simply that. And of course I noticed that there were some features of his performance which are there still, and which I can very well understand. I suppose, the same thing, Mitropoulos was also very emotional, not only Bernstein. And maybe the less emotional was still Bruno Walter – I mean emotional in this sense, kind of like your Übertreibung – you know, exaggeration. And myself I think that the emotional side should be there, because it is in the music. But I mean, with Barenboim we were discussing that one cannot constantly refer to the biography to explain the music. The biography is one thing, and the biography is important to know, to see, the circumstances of the first performances, how he composed the pieces, and so on and so forth. But it does not explain the pieces at all. And you know, when he composed, he had a kind of mesh of motives, of themes, and he organised them very carefully, and it is not a kind of emotion which is thus improvising constantly; that’s an emotion which organised. And that is very important for me, that the organisation is part of the emotion.
But was it your goal to bring Mahler more down to earth for the American public?
Boulez: No. I had no goal, as a matter of fact. I was simply busy with trying to clarify this music for myself. Because, you know, in the French tradition the pieces – orchestral pieces at least – are always rather short. And even in the Viennese School, what one calls the Second Viennese School, pieces are really rather short. The Five Pieces by Schönberg for instance, Opus 16, are short pieces: very expressive, but the trajectory is very easy to manipulate. The Variations of Schönberg are really one variation after another one. They are very well put together, but you don’t have to think of the main line, you have to think of contrasts, from one short piece to another short piece. Also, I didn’t mention Webern, who has very short pieces, and the main preoccupation you have is from another planet let’s say. And for the longest piece, that’s Berg still, and with the pieces of Opus 6 even the third one is not really so gigantic.
But in Mahler you have maybe a movement which is 30 minutes long, or even more, and then you have to organise that. Certainly you cannot just go along and say, “Well I have this emotion at this moment. I am waiting for the second one”, and just play from time to time with holes in the middle. You have to have a trajectory, and to understand the trajectory, and to have the musicians understand what you call the trajectory of the piece. And so then, of course, at the beginning you think about it, and you say, well, I must think of that, because at that time that’s the main point in the piece, where the piece repeats itself or will repeat itself; then you have to pay attention to this and to that and to that, and obviously when you perform it more, then it becomes spontaneous. And in a funny way, the more understanding you are of the form itself, the more spontaneous you can become. Because otherwise, spontaneity is not just giving way to its emotion, but spontaneity is just to drive your soul, let’s say, through the movement, and never lose track of the trajectory you are taking.
I think one of the crucial points is the tempo. Mahler writes critically of a conductor that he heard, and he criticises the lack of flexibility of the tempo. I suppose this is one thing you would agree.
Boulez: Well, the number of times he writes ‘don’t drag’, or ‘don’t rush’, that’s always negative: nicht eilen; nicht schleppen. And he was afraid that you – precisely – that with the weight of the emotion, you just exaggerate what he wanted, and that’s exactly that. So, if you are excited you just push the tempo to the maximum, and then the tempo has absolutely no reason to be this quick. And, on the contrary, if you want to expand, if he writes a ritenuto, or a poco ritenuto or a molto ritenuto you do it, because then he wants that. But I mean, if there is simply nicht schleppen, then you cannot really say, well I feel this emotion at this moments, so I must go slower. Because then you have no continuity, and then, especially that’s very important when, for instance, you have not a crescendo, but a crescendo in tempo let’s say, and then you are going from 4/4 with four quarter notes, to 2/2, to two half notes; it should be absolutely without noticing. You have to go from a pulse to another pulse really, without anybody seeing the moment where you are doing that. And that is very important, especially in the 6th, where you have that in the last movement. You have it a couple of times, but you have that quite a lot at the end especially. Sometimes he wants to precipitate the tempo, and so instead of four beats you have two beats, instead of two beats you have one beat, and it’s very important to do that as smoothly as possible – not chopped, but continuous.
Mahler writes: ‘not sentimental’.
Boulez: He writes that also, yes.
Could we say that the Mahler success in the late ’60s is based on a misunderstanding, to overemotionalise his music?
Boulez: Well, I think you cannot condemn anybody for making that [emotion] more or less, because if that’s the way they feel the music, the music is transformed – or deformed, if you want – but that’s their way of expressing themselves through the music. I find that if you look for authenticity, that certainly if you go against the indications of Mahler and if you make something sentimental where he writes not sentimental, then, I mean, that’s a kind of treason certainly. But I mean, what is not treason. The further the music is from us, then the less authentic you can be: it’s very difficult to be authentic with Mozart because you never know what he would have done exactly. And this whole world of authenticity, for me, is just nonsense because the authenticity doesn’t exist, simply that.
Authenticity is transmitted through literature – so books – but never through a kind of living testimony. And even living testimony, so Bartók for instance recorded some of his music, and so the pianists who are now working full time on the pieces of Bartók, certainly play better than Bartók himself, because he did not practise his own pieces so much. So what you have is what he conceived for the pieces and period. But for the conductor that’s exactly the same, because he has to deal with orchestras who are not familiar with this style, his own style, and it may be he himself also has some difficulties to find a way of bringing the message he knows he wants. But maybe he knows when he performs that he has to change that, to modify that, and so on and so forth. So, I mean you may have a recording which was made when he was young or when he was old, or you have the case of Stravinsky, who was not a very good conductor, full stop. He had a strong personality, and his personality in front of the orchestra was really something very hard and very mighty. But I mean, the technique was not there certainly. If you compare, for instance, the recordings of Furtwängler of Beethoven, and the recordings now of Beethoven – even the best recordings, even the ones that don’t pretend to authenticity – you have a big difference. Furtwängler was influenced by a sort of Wagner/Beethoven, with the tempi much slower, the crescendo exaggerated, and so on and so forth. Well that’s their way of looking at the music, and scores are done to be performed in a kind of personal way, and therefore the only authenticity is the authenticity of a personality. Otherwise it does not exist.
You once said that Bernstein was a kind of tree that obscured the forest? He was so influential …
Boulez: Oh, he was powerful, yes, when he was living. But I mean there are other conductors.
Do we now have more perspectives on Mahler?
Boulez: Yes, we certainly have more perspectives. But at this time also, he [Bernstein] was not the only one. At this time you had Solti, for instance – and I say Solti because he was one of the main forces in the performing level at this time – but I mean there were other ones, like Mehta for instance as well. So I don’t think he was overpowering. He was certainly a very, very strong force, but he was not the only one. And there were already people rebelling against this kind of overromanticised type of performance. You know, there was not a kind of total agreement, certainly not.
What did the composer Boulez learn from Mahler’s scores?
Boulez: Well, quite a lot. I mean first the distance, the long distance let’s say: how to organise a long work, like I did recently for instance with Sur Incises, 45 minutes of music without stopping, and you have to organise your concept of time differently because you have to make the ideas renew themselves and at the same time be recognisable. And that’s not easy at all, and that I have learnt from Mahler, but I have learnt that from Wagner also, when I conducted Wagner. It was the same problem for the French especially. I mean the French very often had short breath, because the pieces were shorter; they were very refined but mainly they were short. And so this long distance, that was very important for me, to know it and to benefit from it. That’s the first thing.
The second thing was the use of the orchestra, certainly. That’s not a use of the orchestra which can be used the same way now, but I mean certainly the weight of the instrument is very well-calculated in Mahler, and also the proportion of the dynamic. The dynamic proportions are very important there, because when he has a fortissimo for some instruments and pianissimo for another instrument, he knows absolutely the weight of the instruments, of the register, of the colour. And you know, generally when you see some scores – even in the 20th century – you have a kind of general dynamic for all the orchestra, and that’s a very primitive use of dynamic. Mahler was really modern in that. And you can see that it’s the difference in the experience. When Berg, for instance, wrote the pieces of Op. 6, and the third piece especially, you have problems of balance and you have to change the dynamic, because with the dynamic he has written it will not sound, simply that. And you will not hear what is important, you will hear, on the contrary, things you do not want to hear as the main thing. So therefore you see the difference of experience, because Mahler was conducting since his youth, and Berg had an experience of listening, which is, not strange, but for instance the first piece berg wrote – the Altenberg Lieder for orchestra – are better orchestrated than the pieces of Op. 6 in a way. The texture was much more complex in the Op. 6, and then he did not know how to arrange that, but the texture was thinner in the Altenberg Lieder and then he had a good experience, maybe two or three things only, with the voice especially.
Would Mahler have revised his 9th Symphony? That’s the only Symphony he never heard. Would he have changed the orchestration?
Boulez: No I don’t think so, the 9th is very well put together. Maybe the sketches of the 10th, so not all the sketches but the Adagio. In the Adagio he would maybe have changed a couple of things. But I think he was so aware of the possibilities of the orchestra, and that’s also a kind of gift, if you see that. Stravinsky too, but of course the texture was less complicated. But Stravinsky knew the way of using the orchestra already at the beginning, with the first works. When you see Fireworks for instance – the work immediately before Feuervogel, Firebird – that’s perfectly written for the orchestra. And also The Firebird is absolutely perfectly written, that’s one of his best orchestrations, but the first he did for the big orchestra. Berlioz was also a genius for orchestra, and Schumann was not, and Liszt was not. They had other qualities, but this one they did not have. Wagner was, on the contrary, perfect, and so you can look at the score as close as you want, you’ll find that’s perfectly balanced and perfectly well-organised.
But Mahler was fighting for that. In the 5th Symphony he writes that he feels himself as an absolute beginner.
Boulez: Yes well, he said it, but I don’t believe it. [Laughs] No, that he had to think again because the music is very developed from the 4th, and even from the 3rd, that’s music that uses much more counterpoint, and then certainly he had some difficulties, but I mean he knew what he was doing. The difficulty came from the fact that the substance of the music was different, was much more complex. But he did not have to learn again how to use the instruments. That, certainly, I don’t believe. That was coquetry.
What were the first Mahler works you conducted?
Boulez: The first one I conducted was the 5th Symphony, because it was very little performed at this time – ‘65 or ‘66, I don’t remember – and then, you know with the BBC it was my way to try how I could do it. And I don’t remember the performance; I don’t think it was the peak of the performance I have ever done, because it was the first time, simply that. I knew, of course, the style I had heard some of the works, but I was a beginner and when you are beginning, as much as I was at ease with Stravinsky, or even with Webern, so much I was not at ease with Mahler, certainly. And that was a style which was very distant from my style. When I conducted Webern it was close to me. When I was conducting Mahler, especially this Funeral March, it reminded me of Chopin more than anything else. Of course, because this funeral march, I was playing it on the piano when I was a child, and the funeral march was a kind of a cliché for me. And I had quite a lot of difficulties with entering into this cliché.
But you continued to conduct Mahler. So there was something …
Boulez: Yes. Certainly I did not want to give up. I did not try to begin to explore everything: to explore Sibelius, to explore Bruckner, at the same time. No, I wasn’t entirely set on Mahler, and then, what you said is exactly what I thought myself. I considered, I had heard, especially from Adorno, that Mahler was the source of the Second Viennese School, so I began to think back, to think Schönberg, Webern and Berg, and to go back to Mahler. And I could understand Wozzeck better when I knew Mahler, especially the military march and so on and all the vulgarity: well-conceived, the kind of vulgarity which you find in Wozzeck with the characters of Hauptmann and Tambourmajor. I discovered this with Mahler retrospectively, and I said yes, I see from where it comes.
Talking about Schönberg and the influence of Mahler, even Schönberg had a lot of problems at the beginning.
Boulez: At the beginning, yes.
Can you understand that? Was it the same with you?
Boulez: Schönberg was an idealist, and did not want vulgarity to intrude. You know the kind of stylistic collage that Mahler is creating sometimes, and by instinct Schönberg was refusing that, because he wanted a kind of pure style. And Schönberg was always looking for purity of style. Always. And his system of twelve tones is not even purity, that’s asceticism, certainly. And therefore I can understand the first reaction of Mahler. But if you can compare, for instance, the music of Mahler, and even the “vulgar” music of Moses und Aron, the march of the corporation. I can understand that there is the influence of Mahler in this very small department of Schönberg.
How about the influence of Mahler on the so called avant-garde? Did he open the door to modern music?
Boulez: I don’t think so. There were two generations in between. The length, also the dimension of the work maybe was still an influence, but I am still not sure. A direct influence, certainly not.
And the last movement, the last page of the 9th Symphony?
Boulez: Yes, there are a some moments, some features, but a kind of very strong general influence: No. If you would say there is a very strong influence of Debussy on: I would say no too. The direct influence is over, that’s part of history. And you can have a partial influence, of that feature or that feature, and a very small thing can be used, but not a kind of general influence.
This question is highly speculative, but: in which direction would Mahler have proceeded?
Boulez: Well, if you look at the 10th Symphony especially, the Adagio, or even the 9th, certainly he would have pushed in the direction of expanding tonality. I don’t think he would have given up, as it were, the grammar of the tonality, so the classified chords and so on, but he would have pushed the relationship between the chords very far. And I am more or less sure of that because if you see the relationship, harmonic relationship, in the 10th Symphony, in the Adagio of the 10th Symphony and the 9th Symphony, you can see that he is pushing in this direction certainly.
Mahler was seeking clarity and distinctness in his sound. He writes about this many times. Is there any influence on your work?
Boulez: I don’t think so. Maybe he was looking for that, but you know there are two aspects of Mahler which are very different. You have the symphonic aspect, when the mass is very often important. If you see the first movement of the 6th Symphony, or the last movement, the massive aspect is really important; if you see the Wunderhorn on the contrary, with very little he does marvellous things, because he can make miniatures as well as a big painting. You can see that in the massive aspect there are some moments of refinement, as a contrast, but I mean, the massive aspect is stronger than the other one. And, on the contrary, the massive disappears totally from the Lieder he has done, so I mean Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, and also Kindertotenlieder, and so on and so forth, and his Wunderhornlieder. Then you have a very refined and very economical situation, and that’s another aspect of his. And one must see that – not separately, because he was in between the two – but I mean there is no direct communication between one set of works and the other set of works.
But the smaller works had more influence on the composers of your generation?
Boulez: I suppose, yes. Not more influence but the relationship is indirect through Webern, because I think the works of Mahler for small orchestra, and a very refined orchestra, that certainly was a strong influence on Webern.
In which way?
Boulez: Economy.
Is there some Mahler that means more to you than others?
Boulez: Well, sometimes when I have gone off the bombastic Mahler I am delighted by the refined Mahler I must say. Because sometimes, you know, the E flat major is grandioso, but sometimes that’s a grandioso which is in the past in a very strong way. The kind of push which I am very familiar with, and which is maybe closer to me, comes for instance at the end of The Rite of Spring, when you also have this massiveness but you also have this rhythm which is strong and wild. And in Mahler you don’t have that, although at the end of the 8th Symphony you have a motive that comes with fourths – B flat, A, F, E flat; so F, B flat; A, E flat – and this 4th you find at the end of Stravinsky’s Symphony of Psalms. And I wonder, because he has heard the 8th Symphony, he has heard it in Zürich, when he was in Switzerland during the First World War. And his reaction was very negative of course, I can imagine, but I mean he used practically the same motive at the end of the Symphony of Psalms, and that’s very strange as a coincidence I must say. But certainly the end of The Rite of Spring, or the end of Les Noces, are for me closer to me than the very big endings of Mahler, certainly.
Since Adorno the reputation of the 8th symphony is not very good. We have a kind of religious cantata and then we have a kind of theatre in the concert hall. Did you ever have problems with that?
Boulez: I have no problem with the first movement because I find that’s very tight, very contrapuntal, and very densely written. I have more problems with the second movement, I must say – not the beginning of course, the beginning is really a kind of tableaux which is an exposition there – but with the succession of scenes you also have a kind of compromise between the miniature style, as I said, and the big bow, so the big lengths of the movement. And that’s very difficult, having these miniatures separated, and so you have to organise them very carefully; that’s difficult, I find. And the thematic material is not very rich, much less rich for instance than in the 6th Symphony, and you have much repetitive material without a lot of variation, because sometimes when you have the variations it can be very rich. But this time, I don’t know why he wanted kind of simple material and for it to remain simple, and it’s difficult to make that alive, simply that. And then I have my own performing difficulties.
Since when have you been conducting the 8th?
Boulez: Oh, the first time I conducted it, that must have been in ’74 or ’73, ’72. A long time ago, when I was in New York. And I also conducted them when I was with the BBC, for the Proms, for the opening night of the Proms. So I did it in the ’70s, and I did not touch it before this retrospect, because you know that generally when you propose that, they say, “Oh my God, that’s so expensive”, and you have to have two choirs: one children’s choir, a boys’ choir, and then eight soloists, and a big orchestra, and eight brass supplementary to that in the corner. And that’s very expensive, and so you cannot do that every morning, certainly.
Barenboim told me yesterday, when he starts to conduct a new repertoire he starts it slower, and when he feels more comfortable, the tempi become faster. You are the contrary, he said.
Boulez: Yes.
You become slower. Is that true?
Boulez: I suppose there is something true in it, yes, because myself I want to go to push because I am afraid that I will be boring. And then I push the tempo, and then I calm down, on the contrary, when I master the thing. And the relationship between the various tempi is very important for me, especially when you have to find a kind of coherence between the tempi, like in the second movement of the 8th.
Or in Leos Janaceks From the House of the Dead. Without flexibility in the tempo you are lost there too. Not by chance Mahler’s scores are full of tempo-instructions.
Boulez: Yes. Yes. And the number of times you see nicht eilen and nicht schleppen, you know [laughs], I have not numbered them but there are quite a lot of these indications. That proves that he wanted a kind of flexibility, but not a kind of absurd flexibility.
You conducted a lot of Mahler in the States and in Europe for many, many years. Is there some improvement in the orchestras?
Boulez: Well, I think certainly the works are more known now than before. I mean, in ‘65 it was especially 5, 6 and 7 that were not really performed very often. In a funny way the 4th was performed, the 9th was performed, and 1 was performed: the work where you had no voice. And 5, 6, 7 were considered to be difficult works and not really very attractive for the audience. Now that’s the contrary: if you play 5, you know, the audience is full immediately. But at this time, certainly they were not often performed, and then the musicians have to, not fight, but grow more familiar with the idiom first and with the notes second; or maybe contrary, with the notes first and the idiom second.
Is there a difference between the States and Europe?
Boulez: I didn’t conduct the Mahler Symphonies in Paris: I conducted them always in London, or in New York, or Cleveland, or Chicago, and therefore I cannot judge in Europe, because I performed mainly – when I was learning them particularly – either in the US or in London.
Once you considered Debussy to be a kind of brother of yours; you understand the meaning of every note he wrote.
Boulez: Well, I know them, yes, because I grew up with them, simply that.
Which part in your family would Mahler play?
Boulez: Well, [laughs] great uncle, if you want to say something. But I mean, these definitions are always incorrect, and so immediately when you say something you can say exactly the contrary. No, certainly for me that was the precedent of the Second Viennese School, and it remains like that because I discovered Mahler like the father of the Second Viennese School, the man who promoted practically the style of the Second Viennese School, and this relation is, for me, stronger than any other relation, even than the relation with Wagner.
But if I understand you correctly, we shouldn’t overestimate the influence of his biography, his suffering from anti-Semitism for example, on his work?
Boulez: No, no, I don’t find this. That’s like if you look at Wagner only under the aspect of anti-Semitism: Gott sei Dank, he is not only an anti-Semite, he has written Tristan und Isolde and that has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is really the kind of black side of Wagner, and you cannot consider that as part of his music, certainly not. Only when he wanted to make fun with it, and if you see some caricature in his work then you can find some caricature, especially with Mime. The character of Mime is the anti-Semitism of Wagner transformed, but otherwise certainly not. And Mahler, certainly he has felt isolated, I am sure of that. But maybe it was better, because with the isolation he made that strong point of his life. And then this strong point in his life is the strong point of his music also.
So there is a relation between life and music?
Boulez: There is certainly a relationship, but not literal. And I mean, you have many people who have suffered anti-Semitism even more than Mahler, but who have never written the 9th Symphony, full stop. You cannot really confuse the moral and aesthetic point of view. You have people who are very moral who write very poor music; and you have people who are not moral at all, who have some sides that are absolutely not acceptable, but who write good music. You know, Debussy was anti-Dreyfusard, and Ravel was Dreyfusard, good. But, I mean, you cannot make any example in their music, simply that.
Mahler asked himself after meeting with Richard Strauss: “Am I made of different material?”
Boulez: Yes, I suppose so. But every composer is made of a different material. Do you think Webern was made of the same material as say, Schreker? Certainly not.
Mahler considered himself to be a “holiday-composer”, because he was caught in the office of the Vienna State Opera. Would he have composed differently if he would have been a “full-time-composer”?
Boulez: No, I don’t think so. Only, he was obliged to think in terms of three months’ or four months’ tranquillity, and to be quiet, to think only of composing. But you know, during the season, even if he was conducting in the opera, he was making the score and orchestrating, and writing the full score at this time. So he never really stopped completely, and I must say that, at this time, the season was much shorter than now. Now, during the summer everybody is as busy as during the season, but at the time of Mahler there were no summer festivals.
And probably he was influenced vice versa: as a conductor he knew how the orchestra sounds …
Boulez: Yes, perfectly well. I mean, he projected his experience into his compositions.
So you think this combination was rather perfect?
Boulez: This combination was good, only sometimes he would have had more time to compose and feel less pressed under time if he did not have so many evenings to conduct here, simply that. And also, to be at the head of an opera house is certainly not the easiest way of having a calm life.
Especially in Vienna.
Boulez: Maybe in Vienna, but I think in every place.
Do we understand Mahler better after the catastrophes of the 20th century? Did he anticipate them?
Boulez: No, because otherwise you would just estimate all Jewish composers as a representative of the catastrophe, and I say, morality has nothing to do with talent – unfortunately or fortunately, I don’t know – but that’s two things that are different. So, you have Eisler, to put in an example: Eisler suffered – but he was in exile – if he had stayed in Germany he would certainly have been killed. So that’s really a fact, yes? And we sympathise with this fact, and we are really totally invulgar, but would I say that Eisler is a better composer than Berg? Well, certainly not.
But when the soloist sings: “Oh Mensch! Gib Acht!” …
Boulez: Well, that’s written by Nietzsche, long before the holocaust.
So is this a general topic?
Boulez: That’s a general topic, yes, only it has been actualised, let’s say, by the Hitler situation. As I say with anti-Semitism, if one makes Wagner responsible for Auschwitz, no, that’s also an exaggeration in the other direction. He was anti-Semitic like many people: if you read the letters of Mussorgsky, anti-Semitism is there constantly; Stravinsky was also not very cautious. You know, in Russia you have a lot of anti-Semitism, and in France also during the Dreyfus affair – and, as I say, Debussy was against Dreyfus.
So we should separate this. No influence.
Boulez: No influence, certainly. You can really suffer from a situation, that’s for sure, and Mahler suffered. But don’t forget that also he became a Christian at the beginning of his career, just because if he wanted to be at the head of an opera house, Christianity was necessary at this time. They were all converting, Schönberg also, because in this society it was, you know, a kind of passport.
If Mahler would have lived another 30 years, would the influence of Schönberg have been different?
Boulez: I don’t think Mahler would have accepted the twelve-tone theory and system.
But how about Schönberg? If Schönberg would have felt the giant Mahler on his side, would he have composed differently?
Boulez: Schönberg was independent enough, I am quite sure. Maybe Berg would have been less influenced by Schönberg, that’s possible.
This would have been two worlds coexisting.
Boulez: Yes, yes.
Debussy attended the French première of Mahler’s 2nd Symphony – and he left.
Boulez: He left, yes. Well, that’s a kind of legend, one never knows if it is true or not. So apparently he went because he needed to smoke a cigarette, and he went out and never came back, because he found that outside it was better. But you know, it is a kind of legend. It was not sure at all.
But maybe he influenced the fact that Mahler, and Bruckner too, were never part of the French education.
Boulez: That’s true. But that attitude of Debussy was not his own attitude, it was the attitude of the whole musical class. There was no interest after Wagner and, as I say, Strauss. Strauss was invited regularly to conduct in France, even before the First World War. And as a matter of fact, Debussy wrote a long article on the way of conducting of Strauss, because they were practically the same age: 1862 for Debussy, 1864 for Strauss.
But would you say Mahler is totally accepted now in France?
Boulez: Oh yes, well that’s international. Bruckner is not.
Would Mahler have been possible without Bruckner?
Boulez: I think maybe, yes, but I’m not sure. Certainly the last Bruckner Symphonies were influential, 8 and 9.
In terms of the energy of masses?
Boulez: Yes. But you know, for instance, the scherzo of Mahler are much more complex than the scherzo of Bruckner, which are A-B-A-B-A, or A-B-A simply.
And even Shostakovich …
Boulez: Don’t speak to me about this man. [Laughs] I really cannot understand the success of it, because that’s so trite. That’s a kind of collection of clichés which is really embarrassing sometimes.
Why did Mahler as an opera director not compose an opera?
Boulez: Because he knew too much about the opera houses. That’s funny. Maybe because he had lack of time, that I can imagine. Because as much as he could concentrate on some limited work in the summer, for an opera that’s longer, and I don’t see him composing the Meistersinger in three months.
So we can say that his symphonies with choir and soloists are a kind of music-drama?
Boulez: Yes, that’s a kind of substitute, especially the 8th Symphony. But what is very funny is that the Faust scene is not the most dramatic music he has written. The finale of the 6th Symphony is much more dramatic than the second movement of the 8th.
He deleted the third hammer blow in the 6th.
Boulez: Yes, that I can understand, because it does not fit at all. That’s not the same context. With the first two Hammerschläge you have a main melody playing with the trumpet, both times the same melody playing. The third time it’s the introduction which comes back, and the hammer has nothing to do with this reprise, this repetition, from the very beginning. And so there is no hammer there.
It has nothing to do with reasons outside the music?
Boulez: No, I don’t believe anything else. Well maybe he wanted a third one, but finally he said that’s absolutely illogical to have a third one in this context, simply that. And what Alma, after that, had written about the drama; I don’t believe a word of it. She invented quite a lot of things.
So we should protect Mahler from these legends?
Boulez: From Alma, yes, but it’s too late now [laughs]. It’s true what Barenboim was telling you, that one speaks much too much about his psyche, about his difficulty with the psychoanalysis and so on and so forth.
When I hear the 1st or the 2nd Symphony of Mahler I can understand that the outbreaks, “Durchbruch” like Adorno said, shocked the audience. This was an unknown territory.
Boulez: No, I don’t think so. Strauss also had quite a lot of energy. It was in the period.
What was it that people were frightened of with Mahler?
Boulez: The length, simply that, the length and the complexity. They did not understand the continuity of things. And it was not astonishing that the first thing to be was the Adagietto of the 5th.
And the use of the material: funeral marches, soldier songs.
Boulez: Yes, but well, the material of Mahler is very limited. You have funeral march, you have military march, you have Ländler, and that’s it.
Birdsongs.
Boulez: Oh well, birdsongs, but that’s very periodic. That’s not Messiaen certainly. That’s especially in the 1st and in Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, but apart from that you don’t have many birds. No, the material that he used constantly was really three things – and then the other material is himself – but the material which one could see permanently in his work, from the very beginning.
And it’s new how he puts it together.
Boulez: Yes.
He goes so far in the 9th Symphony, I’m a little bit surprised that you don’t consider that he opened the door to a new aesthetic. Isn’t it a kind of montage.
Boulez: Yes, it’s a kind of complexity, but that’s not new. It begins especially with the 5th Symphony: in the 5th and 6th and 7th where he had no preoccupation with songs or with the voice, they are the ones where he concentrated on the material of the orchestra.
He starts, I think in the 5th, to write different tempi at the same time for different sections. So, the strings and bassoon have accelerandi, and the other instruments remain.
Boulez: I am aware of that but that’s very periodic. Also, in the 2nd and 3rd Symphonies you have some accelerandi like that for individuals, but I mean that’s nothing. You don’t have tempi for groups, no certainly not. You have different tempi in the winds, in the 2nd Symphony especially. But when you have the posthorn for example, the posthorn is really synchronised with the orchestra, there is no problem there.
For me this technique of montage and collage is very close to Varèse.
Boulez: Better, better made [laughs}. Varèse is much more primitive in this sense.
But he did in terms of technique the same.
Boulez: Yes exactly, but that’s primitive compared to the use of Mahler. That’s like when you say, apropos material, you have Ives in America which is also, not funeral marches, but marches, military marches, fanfares, and also tunes, let’s put it this way. But how he uses it is infantile compared to Mahler, or not compared to Mahler even! So it’s not only the material that counts, it’s also how you do it really, what you do with it.
What’s the greatest achievement of Mahler?
Boulez: Well, to use this basic material which is rather trivial, but to use it as material and transform it completely.
Interview: Wolfgang Schaufler, Universal Edition
Transcript: Flora Death, Universal Edition
28.4.2009, Vienna© Universal Edition
AnthemScore
Mahler Symphony #2
↓ ↓ ↓ Open any link
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
››› AnthemScore
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
››› AnthemScore
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
››› AnthemScore
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
stable version (3.2.1) turbobit czech ZippyShare download 3.2.1 compaq acer get google drive portuguese free new to macOS DL - babyidea.fi 2.2.0 (x64) - AkaDownload - full. free download ... Music Transcription Software 2.2.0 (x64) 0 3 Jan 2017 Download Freestyle Vol 1 - 29 + Freestyle 2007 Vol. 1+2. kat.ph ... jx HLiv hKp v son FYYM – Telegraph Download 2.3.1 (x64) Portable » AudioZ Music Transcription Software 2.2.0 (x64 ... free full. download 2.2.0 (x64) form MediaFire link RapidShare, ifile.it, Uploaded.to, Zippyshare, FileSonic, turbobit, ul.to, ORON, DepositFiles ... ; 3.2.1.,'french hewlett - packard usenet ; thepiratebay. ... #64 #bit ZippyShare uTorrent. The Best Audio Editing Software of 2017 | Top Ten Reviews is a program designed to automatically create sheet ... ifile.it, Uploaded.to, Zippyshare, FileSonic, turbobit, ul.to, ORON, DepositFiles, hotfile ... new ExtraTorrent (3.2.1) OneDrive ZippyShare crack stable version ios on pc uTorrent panasonic zipshare Mahler Full Score 2 Pdf - RapidShareMix - Search for ... Full Versions Serial Crack Keygen Warez Torrent Rapidshare Seventh Sanctum full extension mobile 3.2.1 torrent index 10.12.6 10.12.2 free app rar ... version.. ZippyShare ,CursorSense,german '10.12.5. countblogaseag859 - hub.docker '2 million minutes' : 2444 files were found for free ...
is a program designed to automatically create sheet music from audio (MP3, WAV, etc.) as accurately as possible. It uses a convolutional neural ... for MacBook 10.12 DL CursorSense demonoid | Star Trek ... EliteBytes MaxVeloSSD 3.1.5.0 to windows download from ... full on iMac 10.9 Mavericks DL Lunaverus Click on URL below
Mahler Full Work Torrent Free
app AnthemScore (3.2.1) without ad download from proxy 32 bit legion
full version AnthemScore 3.2.1 get help find nulled Transmission sharefile
download microsoft AnthemScore 3.2.1 download from vpn android
official AnthemScore (3.2.1) microsoft philippine hidden network
stable version monova AnthemScore uTorrent ios philippine
work version Box AnthemScore 3.2.1 mac bittorrent
ZX kO – Telegraph
AnthemScore on Mac OS X 10.11 El Capitan get from hidden ...
download 'Mega 'AnthemScore.. spanish dutch 'fujitsu uTorrent
last Mega #AnthemScore; 3.2.1 x32-hp philippine
AnthemScore 3.2.1 free to windows download Cloud Click link to download: ᐳ ...
AnthemScore 2.2.0 (x64) - Free Download in TorrentsMafia
free full. download Music Transcription Software AnthemScore 2.2.0 (x64) form MediaFire link RapidShare, ifile.it, Uploaded.to, Zippyshare, FileSonic, turbobit ...
http:diysamodelkiindex.phpforumthread5024to-macos-last-version-anthemscore-download-zippyshare S WinCln .NET download to MacOS Mavericks 10.9 Libusb ...
download AnthemScore 3.2.1 for OS X 10.9 Mavericks link ...
get; ideapad.. AnthemScore, 3.2.1 - forum ,'.verified.ideapad
AnthemScore 3.2.1 download on MacOS 10.9 software open ...
to MacOS 10.13 DL AnthemScore forum - babyidea.fi