Mahler Symphony No. 1 1889 Budapest Version?

[tuatara442442]

Just now I discovered that there seems to be only one recording that claimed to be the 1889 version of Mahler's 1st, others being Hamburg version ones. It is this LP with Ivan Fischer conducting Hungarian State Orchestra:

https://www.discogs.com/master/1446450-Mahler-Kl%C3%A1ra-Tak%C3%A1cs-Hungarian-State-Orchestra-Iv%C3%A1n-Fischer-Symphony-1-Budapest-Version-Lieder-Ein

Had anyone listened to this and read the booklet (the text on the photo of the booklet on discog is totally unreadable)? Is this really the version with only a pair of woodwinds? Is this a reconstructed version to some extent?

Curiously there's also this reconstruction of the 1888 pre-premiere version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mvu9Zn6_6A

But it is clear that this is speculative, though.

[semloh]

The booklet and covers for this recording can be found at:
https://archive.org/details/lp_symphony-1-budapest-version-lieder-eines_gustav-mahler-klra-takcs-hungarian-state-o

A little magnification makes it quite readable. 

In his handy survey of this symphony on MusicWeb International (94pp, rev. 2022), Lee Denham states that the Budapest version
"... has never been recorded, although it has been performed in concert and you can hear it on YouTube", but he clearly overlooked the above!

[tuatara442442]

Thank you, semloh. I forgot to check up archive.org entirely!
But after checking out this impressive booklet with 5 LANGUAGES, I'm still confused. The booklet doesn't explicitly explained the musical difference between the versions, and at one point mentions a triple woodwind instrumentation of the symphony, not a pair of those.
In the Denham survey, he mentions only parts of three movements of the 1889 version survived. So this is definitely a reconstruction.
And Considering Denham's mentioning of Wyn Morris's 1970 recording is a mixed-up version, and this recording comes after Morris's and before the second mixed-up version recording by Wakasugi he listed, I suspect that there remained some musicological confusion at that time and the 1889 version claim is doubtful.
Maybe the live performance video is closest to the 1889 version. It visibly has pairs of woodwinds and 4 horns, though I can see complaints about underpowered strings in the comment section.

[Alan Howe]

This is clearly the Hungaroton recording involved (in its LP format):
https://www.amazon.com/MAHLER-FAHRENDEN-HUNGARIAN-ORCHESTRA-Mezzo-soprano/dp/B00ANW2FPI

...and this, presumably, is the CD reissue:
https://www.bibleinmylanguage.com/gustav-mahler-symphony-no-1-with-blumine-hungarian-state-orchestra-conducted-by-ivan-fischer-hungaroton-hrc-077-white-label/

...and, in fact, it's available as a download from Presto. here:
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8123613--mahler-symphony-no-1-with-blumine

If there is still some confusion, may I suggest that this survey might help, at least as far as the versions are concerned?>>>
https://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2022/Feb/Mahler-sy1-survey-LD.pdf

[tuatara442442]

...and, in fact, it's available as a download from Presto. here:
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8123613--mahler-symphony-no-1-with-blumine

I checked out the streaming service. As the re-release suggested, they created a mixed-up version and wrongly claimed it the original.
I've read Denham's survey. Without the timpani at the beginning of landler, this is clearly not a real historical version one.

[Alan Howe]

So: never recorded?

[tuatara442442]

Never commercially recorded. The closest thing is that reconstructed "1888" version on youtube

[CelesteCadenza]

Here's a performance from Boston (New England Conservatory) on 26 September 2011 with attribution of sources used for this version:

Hugh Wolff, NEC's Stanford and Norma Jean Calderwood Director of Orchestras, conducts the NEC Philharmonia in a performance of Mahler's Symphony No. 1 in a reconstructed edition, based on two of the earliest manuscript sources for the symphony. The majority of the music is a transcription of a newly discovered manuscript at the Mahler-Rosé Collection at the University of Western Ontario containing three movements of the originally five-movement symphony. This music is believed to be the earliest version of the First Symphony, premiered in Budapest in November 1889.

The two movements missing from the Ontario manuscript -- the Blumine and the Funeral March -- are performed from their own earliest manuscript source from the Osborne collection at Yale, reflecting the second, 1893 Hamburg performance of the symphony.

This performance of the First includes not only the Blumine movement that Mahler initially took over from another work and ultimately discarded, but also significant segments of music, notably in the Finale, that never made it into any subsequent versions. Originally called Symphonic Poem in Two Parts, the work features a smaller, less Mahlerian orchestra than in its later incarnations, and gives insight into the compositional process that transformed this piece into the Mahler First Symphony that we know today. This work, in Mahler's words "the most spontaneous and daringly composed of all", was subsequently heavily revised, yet due to the public's rejection, remained as he observed his "child of sorrow".

NEC's concert marked the American premiere of this earliest version of the Symphony, and the first time it has been heard in this form since its 1889 premiere. This performing edition was prepared from microfilms of the manuscripts by Kristo Kondakci '09 Prep, '13 B.M., an NEC composition major studying with Michael Gandolfi and John Mallia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJnc5lYx6E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjh2pucllRQ

[tuatara442442]

Strange. The two original version performances on
YouTube both gave the opening solo of the funeral march to double bass presumably according to the Hamburg version score. But at least two of the three recordings Denham deemed "true Hamburg version" performances utilized cellos

The photocopy on imslp shows both lines filled up with the melody, but on the cello line, following the solo indication, something I can't see clearly is added

[Alan Howe]

I give up. It's all too confusing for me. In any case, shouldn't we prioritise what Mahler finally settled on?

[Mark Thomas]

Tell that to the Bruckner industry!

[Alan Howe]

Don't get me started! It was bad enough when we had to decide whether we wanted the timps & cymbal at the climax of the slow movement of Bruckner 7!

I'm sure this debate about the different versions of Mahler 1 is of interest and that it would be good to have a recording of the composer's original intentions but, aside from the question of the inclusion of the Blumine movement, I just can't summon up much enthusiasm for the subject. My loss, no doubt.

[tuatara442442]

The photocopy on imslp shows both lines filled up with the melody, but on the cello line, following the solo indication, something I can't see clearly is added

I get it. Denham's inaccurate. It is really cello solo doubling the double bass solo.

it would be good to have a recording of the composer's original intentions

In fact recently I'm compiling a list of major unconventional versions of works in the conventional repertoire that were recorded, without getting into waters that is too muddy like Bruckner.