Time to get this thread moving again...
Does anyone remember several hundred posts ago we were discussing the Mahler 7th, and what it takes to make it a real success. I think several of us came to the conclusion that the supposedly weak finale was made dull, insipid, and weak when taken too slowly, and so, it was the faster recordings that made that movement take life. Well get this...
I've been reading that entire 4-volume monumental (and monumentally heavy and expensive) biography of Mahler by Henry Louis de la Grange. This week I finally got into volume 4, which deals with the premier of the 7th fairly early on. It turns out that there was a fanatic Mahler fan named William Ritter who attended rehearsals, performances, and kept scrupulous notes about it all. Even wrote down the timings Mahler used in each movement. Now the first 4 movements had timings very near to what we expect and hear today. But the finale? If Ritter is accurate, Mahler blazed through the finale in 11 minutes! That's 5 minutes faster than already speedy Kondrashin, twice as fast as many others. Seems impossible, and Ritter had to be wrong. But the other timings seem ok, so why should he be wrong here? I think Ritter is right. In my head, I've "played" that finale many times following the score, really pushing the tempos, it you know, it can be incredibly exhilirating! I hope some conductor reads this bio, comes to the same conclusion and gives it a shot! Could be a mess, as there are many, many notes in the movement.