I have a personal theory about Gustav Mahler’s symphonies. I cannot say I am correct, but I cannot say I am wrong. I have sought evidence to prove that my theory is wrong, but it appears none exists. Similarly, I have sought evidence that I am right. Nothing supports me. I am like a musical sleuth basing my judgement on what Mahler created, how he worked, how he considered the structures within his symphonies and how he used symbolism to explain the most personal aspects of his life and innermost emotions. I read Mahler’s musical ‘words’ (his notes and phrases within his musical scores) and they ‘tell me’ probable truths. I am like a barrister trying a case with only circumstantial evidence. But…

 

In my own defence, I would cite the explanations we give of other composers’ works. For instance, J.S. Bach. There is the grand chiastic design in Bach’s St John Passion, and such designs, albeit simpler, litter his cantatas, all of which use structural devices to heighten and acclaim the Christian message. And there is so much more in Bach's music. But we have no evidence other than the notes themselves that this was Bach’s intention. When we refer to the incredible and very private symbolism in Alban Berg’s music, we do so based on the notes themselves and the context, all fantastically revealed by Douglas Jarman. But Jarman explains all this, Berg didn’t tell us anything. And there are so many other similar uses of musical symbolism: Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich, etc.

 

I have read the works of the most lauded and famous of Mahler scholars, but find nothing that mentions this. And I believe it is arguably one of the most extraordinary things that exists in the history of the symphony. In terms of an artist’s symphonic output, it is unique and miraculous.

 

Let us remember that Mahler wrote his huge Eighth Symphony at great speed in the summer of 1906. In 1907, he composed nothing. But it was in 1907 that he endured wilful acts of antisemitism in Vienna and vendettas that would lead him to step down from his mighty leadership of the Wiener Hofoper (the Vienna State Opera). Tragically, his beloved daughter, Anna Maria (Putzi), died from diphtheria at his lakeside home in Maiernigg, by the Wörthesee, on the 12th July. How could he compose immediately after that?  Two days later, on the 14th July, Dr Carl Viktor Blumenthal diagnosed his valvular heart disease. Mahler would have been in a state of innermost shock. Well, we know he was. Bruno Walter recorded Mahler’s words: "With one stroke, I have lost everything I have gained in terms of who I thought I was, and have to learn my first steps again like a newborn." 

 

If we were Mahler, having completed the 8th Symphony and suffered such tragic personal blows, what might we do and think in terms of composition? If his symphonies, written for love not money (Mahler never received a commission for a symphony), are his ‘messages’ to the world for posterity, do we think that Mahler would have ignored them and moved on, or would he have reflected on them?  

 

And… if Mahler was a man that revised his symphonies in the greatest detail and famously conducted them, would he not know their keys and movement of keys, their structural designs, intentions, messages, etc. inside out?  

 

The more I have delved into this theory, the more I believe it makes sense. But please don’t presume I am right. I don’t know, and the jury is out. 

 

So what is the mystery? What do I think?

 

I want us to imagine Mahler, having faced those three 'hammer blows', looking back over his then eight symphonies. He would have seen an almost entire symmetrical structure.

​

What might Mahler consider doing? Would he ignore this extraordinary fact, or would he go with it?

 

Well, if Das Lied von der Erde was his next symphony (because it was the next piece he composed (in 1908), it would destroy any symmetry as the keys and design would have no correspondence whatsoever with the 1st Symphony.

 

But in 1909 Mahler wrote a further four-movement symphony in D major – the same key and same number of movements as the final version of the 1st Symphony.

​

The 1st Symphony begins with the note A natural, held in octaves – from a solitary deep A natural on double-basses to high and higher octave A naturals throughout the strings - all together. This is the sound of spring, of birth, of life and of future. The symphony ends in a blazing, optimistic and triumphant D major.

 

The 9th Symphony begins with the exact same note, A natural. But it is now a fragile and irregular 'heartbeat' deep down. The symphony ends in D flat major, a semitone lower, and fades away with a sense of peace, acceptance and sad contentment. If we were to suggest the distance of time from youth to old age, from agility to frailty, from life to death, is this not a remarkable way of symbolising it?

 

But there are so many other considerations. Here are the obvious ones:

 

The 1st Symphony’s first movement tells of a young wanderer striding forth. The 9th Symphony’s first movement recalls tolling bells and the spectre of something akin to death, even if it isn’t. This music isn’t about ‘an end’, but it isn’t music about 'a beginning' or ‘the future’ either. Furthermore, there are uncanny similarities in key motifs. Was this intentional, or was it all just living and breathing in his subconscious?

 

The 1st Symphony’s second movement is a rustic ländler, and so is the 9th’s. But one is youthful and the other arguably more closely inhabits the wisdom of age – and irony.

 

The 1st Symphony’s third (slow) movement tells us about a huntsman’s funeral - it is about the never-ending cycle of death and life (in that order) using the melody of Frere Jaqcues (Bruder Jakob) as a purposely 'naïve' foundation. The third movement of the 9th Symphony is a sophisticated, defiant and ironic 'burleske' of often grotesque parody, but one with a central passage of serene beauty! The order of the 1st's 'rondo' is balanced with the 9th's purposeful pandemonium - and we look into the face of death very differently.

 

The 1st Symphony’s final and fourth movement is full of contrasting ideas and ends in a blaze that represents Mahler’s ‘hero’ in the ascent. The 9th Symphony’s final movement, one of the most solemn and magnificent he ever wrote, has a climax filled with tortured and impassioned counterpoint. And, as I mentioned, it ends with tender fragility.

​

There is clear symmetry and juxtaposition between Mahler's first and ninth symphonies.

 

Mahler’s 2nd Symphony, in the solemn key of C minor, and ending in the relative major (the heroic key of E flat) is about 'resurrection'. It is a work that calls for soloists and choir. And so does the 8th Symphony, on a similar scale. The 8th is about 'redemption' and is in the key of E flat major, and remains so. So these two symphonies are inextricably linked in spiritual and tonal aspects as well as containing complimentary structural elements.

 

The 3rd symphony is about man and nature, the environment and mankind's relationship with it. The 7th symphony moves from dark to light, but is ultimately about man alone, searching through the human world.

 

The 4th symphony is arguably about a child’s view of Heaven - and ends with a song all about that. The 6th is about tragedy, with its famous three hammer blows. And the keys of symphonies 3 and 7 make symmetrical sense, as do the keys of the 4th and the 6th. In the centre sits the 5th Symphony, and at the heart of that lies music inspired by the person that changed Mahler’s life, his wife, Alma! Even when we look at the ‘final keys’ of Mahler’s symphonies (because they often differ from their starting points), the symmetry makes sense. 

 

Is this coincidence? Or did Mahler realise the potential for such a remarkable, and absolutely unique, design of ALL his symphonies? Well, perhaps the 10th Symphony gives the final clue?

 

Mahler completed the 9th, and he was to live that bit longer. The 10th Symphony’s keys align miraculously, as does its structure, with the 5th Symphony. And both are about Alma. The 5th contains that famous love song, the ‘Adagietto’, the first piece Mahler wrote after he had met and then married Alma Schindler. The 10th is all about Mahler’s angst at Alma’s infidelity – in his own word’s written in the score “To live for you, to die for you”. 

 

So how does it fit in?

​

Both the 5th and 10th Symphonies are in five movements. The emotional heart of the 5th is the Adagietto, a love song in F major. The heart of the 10th is titled ‘Purgatorio’, a short sarcastic movement in Bb minor. The Purgatorio therefore becomes a form of ‘resolution’ from the Adagietto’s F major, but in a minor key. In terms of musical symbolism, this says a lot! And the key of the 10th Symphony is F sharp major, so the 5th Symphony ‘resolves’ like a perfect cadence, from its C sharp minor to F sharp major in the 10th. And the 10th Symphony ends in F sharp major, so there is no ambiguity. And that first movement of the 5th Symphony is a funeral march. The last movement of the 10th is absolutely the last thing Mahler wrote - and he never fully completed it either. Whereas the 5th Symphony ends in optimistic grandeur, the 10th absolutely doesn't. Thus the 5th becomes a form of emotional core and turning point in Mahler's symphonies and the 10th acts as an interlinked Coda.

 

Whether this theory is right or wrong, Mahler created a structure of all his symphonies that is utterly extraordinary in which both 'journey' and 'symmetry' are united. A miracle in design. It is as if Mahler’s inspiration has come from afar, and if we are Christians, it is as if he has been touched by God. There exists in all the history of symphonies no similar example. Nothing remotely similar!

 

And how and why is it that no one seems to have spotted this before? I had presumed that such a theory must have been espoused by someone else, but it seems not so. Perhaps it is because I see everything through a composer’s eyes, not a musicologist’s.  

 

As I say, this is a theory, and it might be right or wrong, but it doesn’t alter the absolute symphonic miracle that exists. What a legacy Gustav Mahler left us!

​

© Paul Max Edlin 2025