From Mahler CD linernote : gAn Interview with
Chitose Okashiroh
You yourself
transcribed gTitanh based on Bruno Walterfs 4-hand version (while you used
extant scores for the former releases). How did you find Walterfs transcription
and what did you focus on in developing
it? -
Well, that Maestro Bruno Walter was among Mahlerfs most prominent proteges is
widely known. However, it is not common knowledge that Walter transcribed
Mahlerfs first and second symphonies for 4-hands piano; neither the purpose of
the transcriptions nor the time he took to complete them is any big mystery.
Both transcriptions were published by Universal Edition, and upon examining the
scores, one can easily guess that they were primarily done for the amusement of
amateur pianists, probably for home concerts or party occasions, not for
professional concerts; there are so many places where Walter intentionally and
clearly strived simply to make it easy to play. To bring out the vivid fullness
of this music at the keyboard, though, one must address many issues in the
original orchestral score. Just as one example, at the beginning of the first
movement, there is an ostinato of gA,h for 56 measures by strings before the
theme enters with the cellos. As you know, the sound of the piano decays rapidly
after you hit the note. The structure of the instrument, how it makes sound, is
based on the fact that the hammer strikes a string, unlike instruments of the
violin family, which can resonate with the bow stroke. So, I had to face this
huge problem at the very beginning of my transcription work. Bruno Walter solved
it by simply having two players hit gAh repeatedly for 56 measures so that it
sustains. However, you soon discover that it is almost impossible to create this
mysterious atmosphere (the important introduction to this symphony) by playing
gAh repeatedly. Bruno Walter was a great conductor, he knew how to operate his
army, the orchestra, to create what he wanted. His idea of Mahler in
transcription is not based upon the piano instrument, though, so I needed to
solve these problems by making it sounds gpianistic.h Then, the obvious question
arises: what does gpianistich mean? Why does Mahler have to be pianistic? The
key is not trying to keep all the notes as written in the score, but trying to
re-create Mahlerfs fundamental thought and render it on the piano by solving the
riddle of why these notes; what is behind them; what is the purpose of all of
his notations in the score; why he had to write this piece, etc. This, of
course, is exactly the same step we take when we play anything as a performer.
But to transcribe a familiar masterpiece and to perform it then, can be an
ultimate, radical and new kind of performance action. It is not the substitute
or mediocre imitation of the original. The purpose of the transcription has to
serve the same as the original, just in a different form. Being gpianistich is a
way to produce the best results to serve this purpose. The only difference is
the gmeans.h If the means are different, sometimes you can see things clearly
through a different angle.
Artur Schnabel was clear about his dislike of
Transcription, and his distinctly gphysicalh discomfort at hearing a
work played on an instrument for which it was not originally intended. How
would you go about addressing such a basic disclaimer? Even today, there still
presides some negative opinion for the genre of transcription, almost as a
taboo. What is your response to that?
- I think this comes from the idea of
transcription only as a form of imitation or the reproduction of an original.
Some say there is no need of a piano version when we can hear the original. Each
transcription has a different kind of purpose and difficulty. Piano
transcriptions were frequently composed by virtuoso pianists during the age of
Romanticism to effectively show off their skills on stage. Horowitzfs Carmen
Fantasy is a good example. Liszt transcribed Beethoven symphonies and Wagner
too. His aim was probably also to introduce many orchestral masterpieces to
audiences in the provinces who had no chance to hear live performances by
orchestra. Then, as a backlash to Romanticism, people like Schnabel, who saw
performance as a faithful reproduction of the written score, were extremely
against transcriptions. Right now, it looks like transcriptions are once again
being recognized, despite the fact this taboo opinion still exists. There are
Bruckner organ transcriptions, Chopin guitar transcriptions, etc. The
important thing, as Horowitz said, is to seek the vision behind the black and
white notes. It is here, I would say, where the ultimate meaning of
transcription lies.
From an interview for Fanfare magazine
July/Aug issue
Your Mahler has a very elastic
sense of pacing, complete with "luftpausen," such as Bruno Walter might have
used. What are your influences?
- I heard many CDs by many
conductors upon playing this transcription. Of course, I admire Bruno Walter,
Horenstein's interpretation inspired me, too. Originally, I was going to make
recording of Bruno Walter's 4 hands version as it is, and actually had a
rehearsal once with my partner. During the rehearsal however, I felt unsatisfied
with his 4 hands piano writing because Walter was a genius of conducting
his army, orchestra, but it was obvious that his acknowledge on piano instrument
was not so ample. So, I went back to Mahler's original score, marveled his
genius of orchestration. I wanted to portray Mahler's essence after whose
magical orchestration is removed. It contains the very provocative questions,
what the orchestration is, what the "being pianistic" means, and moreover, what
the relationship between music itself and its implement in a sense which makes
music aural as actual sound. The original Mahler's score writing is for an
archestra, not related to a piano instrument at all. If I define the meaning of
"being pianistic" as "being economical on the keyboard", this transcription
would not "be pianistic nor economical" at all. What I wanted to accomplish by
this CD is, to prove how I can make even nonpianistic material sound pianistic
by conquering its various unique technical difficulty, and how I can speak of
the kernel of Mahler's music and spirit not depending on his idiom,
orchestration. For example, there is one place where first violin and second
violin are doing totally the opposite at the same time, crescendo and
decrescendo in only one note. It is impossible to depict it as imitation by
piano, however, the expression and the purpose, why Mahler had to write so, is
very possible. To solve these questions is a key to play
transcription.