BaL 7.01.23 - Mahler: Symphony no. 6 in A minor

[Serial_Apologist]

The connections made between those inner movements are of course important, just as are the transitions from first to second and from third to fourth movements, which is precisely why Mahler's initial intentions convince some listeners including me (and Webern, who twice conducted it in the 1930s with Scherzo first) but obviously not all of them. I still think that it is important to recognise, though, that there is no clear case to be made for Mahler's first change of mind to have been in the symphony's best interests and that no second one back to his original intentions could be considered credible; as a composer is entitled to change his/her mind once, he/she is as entitled to do so on a subsequent occasion. Mahler completed the symphony in 1905 and conducted it just three times, twice in 1906 and once early in 1907; his decision to reverse the middle movements' order was made during rehearsals for the première, but he never conducted the work after 1907.

The order in which the movements were composed should surely have some bearing on the order in which they should preferably be played, no? If one assumes Mahler decided on the order of sequence as being the same as that in which they were composed, this would be evidenced in the music. That however would also depend on no qualitative changes being made after the main thrust of the symphony had been established. I am not claiming that the music should follow an easily explicable course - Mahler threw all his fluctuations of mood, certainty and doubt into the rapids and meanders of his work outs; but there are also throwbacks or reminiscences, sometimes subtle, nuanced and disguised, which would make no sense unless he was gifted with foresight; and the sense one has is of a composer working at white heat in getting notes onto the page, the sheer essence of which he would not want to tamper, apart from subsidiarily, ie. bringing out some detail in changes in instrumentation - we know Mahler would change scoring to suit room acoustics too. But thematic workings? I have my doubts about that. Admittedly my view is qualified by the way in which I tend to listen to music - Mahler especially - and this makes the idea of the composer changing his mind over the order in which it should be performed mystifying to the likes of me!

[jayne lee wilson]

It can be less straightforward, SA - Mahler began work on the Nachtmusiken (ii) and (iv) for No.7 first, planning the work around them....

[RichardB]

The order in which the movements were composed should surely have some bearing on the order in which they should preferably be played, no?

In a word, no. The order in which music is conceived to be played might have no relation at all to the order in which it was composed. The "white heat" you're talking about is more myth than reality, whether we're talking about Mahler or anything else - alongside the inspiration of the moment there's all the long and hard thinking about how materials relate to one another, how they fit into a form, how they're to be orchestrated, and so on. This is a much slower process than one in which "fluctuations of mood" have any direct effect on what you eventually hear.

Getting into the question of the ordering of movements in Mahler's Sixth Symphony, though, should really involve becoming informed as to why there's an argument in the first place! - which isn't the case with any of Mahler's other symphonies, where the playing order is not in question, whatever the composing order might have been.

[Serial_Apologist]

It can be less straightforward, SA - Mahler began work on the Nachtmusiken (ii) and (iv) for No.7 first, planning the work around them....

Which could explain why there are some who feel the Seventh to be the least satisfactory of the symphonies - others feeling it foreshadows modernist fragmentation and is therefore more prophetic than the others. Admittedly I am writing off the top of my head, conscious of how Mahler's rich multifacetedness can change perceptions and experiences of his music over time, reflecting (or not) one's own.

[Serial_Apologist]

In a word, no. The order in which music is conceived to be played might have no relation at all to the order in which it was composed. The "white heat" you're talking about is more myth than reality, whether we're talking about Mahler or anything else - alongside the inspiration of the moment there's all the long and hard thinking about how materials relate to one another, how they fit into a form, how they're to be orchestrated, and so on. This is a much slower process than one in which "fluctuations of mood" have any direct effect on what you eventually hear.

Getting into the question of the ordering of movements in Mahler's Sixth Symphony, though, should really involve becoming informed as to why there's an argument in the first place! - which isn't the case with any of Mahler's other symphonies, where the playing order is not in question, whatever the composing order might have been.

Indeed! I've never felt Mahler set about ordering his music to make its experience as palatable as possible for listeners!

[HighlandDougie]

I've just been listening to Petrenko with the Berliners, recorded in January 2020. He's certainly concerned to give them a more edgy sound than their previous two chief conductors, which I appreciate a great deal. He places the Andante second. Listening to it, I thought actually it's not the ordering that's most important, so much as the way that connections are made between the inner movements, in particular by playing the Andante a bit faster than is often done, and not playing the Scherzo too aggressively. Having said that, the transition from Scherzo to Finale was enough in itself to convince me that in fact Mahler was right to decide on the order used by Petrenko.

On another point of contention, I don't claim to be an expert or an authority on Mahler's music, just someone with a deep emotional/intellectual involvement in it, and so my strong belief that adding back the third hammer-blow that Mahler removed, for reasons I think I can appreciate, and perhaps even understand, is not a good idea, and most conductors seem to be of the same mind, with the prominent exception of Bernstein (but "he would, wouldn't he?"). Anyway, I commend Petrenko's recording to forum members.

I posted very enthusiastically about the Petrenko/BPO 6th several months ago when it first appeared. I remain a strong enthusiast - I can think of no better Mahler playing on record with a level of commitment from the BPO players which underpins VP's questing approach to the music. As Richard says, the transition from Scherzo to Finale is sufficiently convincing musically for me to put to rest the order of the middle two movements - Andante then Scherzo. I've no doubt that it won't be KP's last word on interpreting this symphony but, for the present, it is my Mahler 6 of choice. I haven't checked recently but it was available as a High-Res downland from 7 Digital for less than a fiver. Very well recorded, too. No doubt, it won't feature on BaL.

[jayne lee wilson]

Quite few notable newcomers should BaL wish to be uptodate......:

Currentzis, Netopil, P-Jarvi, A-Fischer, Two Gielens (1971/2013), Vanska….
The later Gielen runs to over 94', with 27'45 for (i) and 34'40 for the finale....! Wonder if the Barrett has heard it...

[RichardB]

I posted very enthusiastically about the Petrenko/BPO 6th several months ago when it first appeared. I remain a strong enthusiast - I can think of no better Mahler playing on record with a level of commitment from the BPO players which underpins VP's questing approach to the music. As Richard says, the transition from Scherzo to Finale is sufficiently convincing musically for me to put to rest the order of the middle two movements - Andante then Scherzo. I've no doubt that it won't be KP's last word on interpreting this symphony but, for the present, it is my Mahler 6 of choice. I haven't checked recently but it was available as a High-Res downland from 7 Digital for less than a fiver. Very well recorded, too. No doubt, it won't feature on BaL.

Sorry HD, I missed your earlier post on this recording - if I'd seen it I probably wouldn't have waited until today to listen to it myself!

[RichardB]

Which could explain why there are some who feel the Seventh to be the least satisfactory of the symphonies

Again, I really don't think so. Many composers both before and after Mahler have written their compositions in different orders from that in which they're to be played. The last movement of Mahler's 4th Symphony was written before the rest (and was at one point intended to be included in the 3rd), and Strauss wrote the "Tanz der sieben Schleier" after the rest of Salome had been composed; Stockhausen "completed" Gruppen before inserting at various points musical passages outside its original scheme, some of which end up being the work's most memorable moments; the five movements of Boulez's Pli selon pli were written in the order 2-3-4-5-1; I could go on with this all night.

[Serial_Apologist]

Again, I really don't think so. Many composers both before and after Mahler have written their compositions in different orders from that in which they're to be played. The last movement of Mahler's 4th Symphony was written before the rest (and was at one point intended to be included in the 3rd), and Strauss wrote the "Tanz der sieben Schleier" after the rest of Salome had been composed; Stockhausen "completed" Gruppen before inserting at various points musical passages outside its original scheme, some of which end up being the work's most memorable moments; the five movements of Boulez's Pli selon pli were written in the order 2-3-4-5-1; I could go on with this all night.

Ah, right! I have an amusing anecdote to relate in an indirect way. Years ago I acquired a jazz recording of a band of my personal acquaintance. The leader - the pianist - asked my opinion of it. I told him I thought it improved as it went on, and that it was just as well they had played the tracks in the order they were on the recording. I was somewhat taken aback when he replied that the first track had in fact been the last one recorded! Fortunately we remained on good terms!

[Darloboy]

Feb 2013 remarkably on page 5 of this forum .

As Alpie's 2013 entry makes clear, Julian Johnson's first choice back then was Abbado's live Lucerne DVD from 2006. CD recommendation was Budapest Festival O/Fischer.

In December 95, Stephen Walsh chose BPO/Karajan from 1978.

[BBMmk2]

Well, I think this is my favourite Mahler symphony. I have a few versions,but I think my favourite has to be Abbado/Berliner Philharmoniker.

[richardfinegold]

I posted very enthusiastically about the Petrenko/BPO 6th several months ago when it first appeared. I remain a strong enthusiast - I can think of no better Mahler playing on record with a level of commitment from the BPO players which underpins VP's questing approach to the music. As Richard says, the transition from Scherzo to Finale is sufficiently convincing musically for me to put to rest the order of the middle two movements - Andante then Scherzo. I've no doubt that it won't be KP's last word on interpreting this symphony but, for the present, it is my Mahler 6 of choice. I haven't checked recently but it was available as a High-Res downland from 7 Digital for less than a fiver. Very well recorded, too. No doubt, it won't feature on BaL.

I downloaded the Petrenko after reading this post. It is great playing, and it is good to have another Berlin PO to compare with 50 year old Karajan. My mileage is varying however about the scherzo-finale transition, as I don’t find it more convincing here than on another few recent recordings. I will now play it by reversing the inner movements

[Ein Heldenleben]

A propos of nothing in particular I am trying to think of another symphony whose first movement starts in the minor and ends in the major with the second subject. Whether you then go Scherzo or Andante in my view revolves around your ( or Mahler’s ) interpretation of the symphony. The scherzo echoes the symphony opening then it’s Ländler time. It also echoes it tonally. The Adagio is a radical contrast (tonally as well) before a cowbell interlude echoing the first movement. I think it’s Mahler’s finest slow movement. The junction from it really works well into the final movement.
The symphony is one of the very very few that I have constructed a prose interpretation of. I will spare you that but it really has a strong “story” to it - I just can’t puzzle it out. For me Bernstein really tells the story. He just sees the end point of every paragraph for want of a better word. For me - for my interpretation - the scherzo works better second.

[silvestrione]

I downloaded the Petrenko after reading this post. It is great playing, and it is good to have another Berlin PO to compare with 50 year old Karajan. My mileage is varying however about the scherzo-finale transition, as I don’t find it more convincing here than on another few recent recordings. I will now play it by reversing the inner movements

I would suggest the first Rattle/BPO version, from 1987. If you'll excuse the shorthand, I think it is coruscating. (I have not tried the Petrenko yet)