MUSIC REVIEW : Rattle Finds Pathos and Passion in Mahler 9th

Gustav Mahler was dying when he wrote his Ninth Symphony in 1909, and he knew it. The massive, convoluted valedictory depicts a halting journey toward renunciation, toward self-realization and, perhaps, transfiguration.

It is a painful journey, and there are many pitfalls--emotional as well as technical--along the way. In 85 minutes, Mahler tests the impact of heroic pathos while exploring all manner of introspective digression. The symphony is folksy one moment, grotesque the next, thunderously dramatic yet exquisitely lyrical. It represents one of the last great gasps of a romanticism in decline if not decay.

In the adagio, Mahler wove his fragmented melodic strands into a texture of ever-increasing transparency. It is significant, no doubt, that he marked the long-avoided final cadence pianissississimo . Just in case anyone missed the expressive point, he added a fateful dynamic instruction: “ersterbend.”

The composer literally wanted all sound to die away. Slowly.

Bruno Walter observed that the passage resembled “the melting of a cloud into the ethereal blue.” He conducted the premiere in Vienna in 1912, 13 months after Mahler’s death.

*

The Los Angeles Philharmonic has served the Mahler Ninth in various honorable ways. The orchestra has played it urgently for Sir John Barbirolli, elegantly for Pierre Boulez, with passionate breadth for Kurt Sanderling and with mellow resignation for Carlo Maria Giulini.

Thursday night at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, it was Simon Rattle’s turn.

The 39-year-old Briton--far too infrequent a guest on the Music Center podium--did many wonderful things. But nothing was as wonderful as the poignant resolution.

Rattle defied anyone to breathe as he allowed the melody to unwind at last. The concerted tone gradually evaporating, he filed the instrumental voice to a whisper. Then he made it softer. No one could be quite sure when the symphony actually had ended.

The audience responded with the most telling of tributes: stunned silence. No one dared move, much less applaud. It took a long time for the noisy ovation to arrive.

Rattle certainly deserved his noisy ovation. He projected Mahler’s sprawling agonies and delirious ecstasies with pervasive clarity and with enough restraint to avoid any traps of vulgarity. He sustained tension not just from climax to climax but from movement to movement, perfectly defining the long architectural arch in the process. He savored supple detail and subtle charm, yet always respected the pervasive need for momentum.

For all its intimate appeal, this remained music-making on a gigantic scale. It was music-making that could accommodate brutal force and noble grandeur without slighting finesse and intimacy.

Rattle made the rustic Landler of the second movement a compelling contradiction to the sublime melancholy of the opening andante. Consequently, he made the bitter defiance of the third-movement rondo a perfect prelude to the sensitive reconciliation of the finale.

The Philharmonic players responded sympathetically at worst, brilliantly at best. They always rise to the loftiest challenges.