Order of movements in Mahler 6

[Richard Barrett]

I'd be more interested in a conductor not sticking to the usual order of the outer movements.

Or all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Or all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order.

Do you think that's Wise, sir?

[Petrushka]

Conductors and orchestras can make either way convincing as far as I'm concerned.

We do, I think, have to accept that Mahler's 6th exists in two versions and I'm perfectly happy to listen to it either way. When listening to a recording I never switch the order round but am content to hear it in the form that the conductor decides. Either order has its own validity and this may account for Mahler's dithering on the issue. I find it hard to believe that Mahler wasn't aware of the problems he was going to cause posterity here and his indecision leaves the symphony open to be performed either way.

[HighlandDougie]

I would be interested in a conductor deciding on the order from one performance to the next, and not necessarily sticking to the same one.

Although not quite Richard's, "from one performance to the next", Claudio Abbado's 1970s Chicago recording is Scherzo then Andante, whereas the 2000s Berlin recording is Andante then Scherzo. The ancient recordings I have (Adler in Vienna in 1952; Mitropoulos in New York in 1955) are Andante/Scherzo but then Mitropoulos in Cologne in 1959 is Scherzo/Andante. As has been said, does it actually matter? I know that I prefer Scherzo then Andante but, if I go to a live performance and it's the other way around, I just accept that that is the way in which that particular conductor feels that the music should be played.

[richardfinegold]

Although not quite Richard's, "from one performance to the next", Claudio Abbado's 1970s Chicago recording is Scherzo then Andante, whereas the 2000s Berlin recording is Andante then Scherzo. The ancient recordings I have (Adler in Vienna in 1952; Mitropoulos in New York in 1955) are Andante/Scherzo but then Mitropoulos in Cologne in 1959 is Scherzo/Andante. As has been said, does it actually matter? I know that I prefer Scherzo then Andante but, if I go to a live performance and it's the other way around, I just accept that that is the way in which that particular conductor feels that the music should be played.

Abbado's Lucerne recording is also Andante/Scherzo.
Perhaps' I've just been conditioned by the fact that the first 200 or so times I listened to this piece it was the same recording (Karajan) which is Scherzo/Andante, but I just can't get used to to the reverse, and I have stopped worrying about whatever the Historical Arguments for the way that GM may have felt on a given day and stated a preference to his washerwoman who was then quoted or misquoted for posterity. I was listening to Abbado/Lucerne last week and stopped the Andante after a few minutes to reprogram the scherzo in and hear the Andante as III. If only I could do that at a Concert!

[Bryn]

Why indeed. I can't really say that I have a strong personal preference one way or the other, although Matthews' "arguments" did (as I suspected they would! given that all his own compositional decisions are wrong ) push me towards the opposite conclusion from his. I would be interested in a conductor deciding on the order from one performance to the next, and not necessarily sticking to the same one. That would surely be more "Mahlerian" than setting the matter in stone.

I'd go along with that, just so long as the performances were good enough to evoke applause between said movements.

[Beef Oven!]

I'd go along with that, just so long as the performances were good enough to evoke applause between said movements.

And get the hammer blows right.

[makropulos]

Another very interesting contribution to this debate can be found here:

https://www.posthorn.com/Mahler/Correct_Movement_Order_III.pdf

That is a link to a complete PDF download of "The Correct Movement Order in Mahler's Sixth Symphony", edited and published by Gilbert Kaplan in 2004. I worry about that word "Correct" in the title, but there are some worthwhile arguments in the essays. But perhaps the most valuable part of it is the extensive collection of documents reproduced at the end (pp. 47-65) and the timeline that follows.

For what it's worth, my own view is that David Matthews may well be on to something when he says that Mahler's change of mind may have been a mistake - but at the same time, that change of mind is well documented (see all those facsimiles in the Kaplan booklet) so it can't be ignored.

And while this is all genuinely fascinating, I'm happy with either order if the performance is convincing.

[jayne lee wilson]

Why indeed. I can't really say that I have a strong personal preference one way or the other, although Matthews' "arguments" did (as I suspected they would! given that all his own compositional decisions are wrong ) push me towards the opposite conclusion from his. I would be interested in a conductor deciding on the order from one performance to the next, and not necessarily sticking to the same one. That would surely be more "Mahlerian" than setting the matter in stone.

First, I suggest you and Beef READ CAREFULLY the last paragraph again....http://www.david-matthews.co.uk/writ...p?articleid=76
and you'll see that DM is clearly giving a personal view (just as you are in wanting the choice to alternate frequently), and views conductors as indeed independent in their own carefully-weighed decisions. Nothing is "set in stone", for heavens' sake; that is a forcing of Matthews' text to suit yourself. (I would suggest though, that if a conductor frequently changes the movement-order from one performance to the next, it may have a serious effect on the conviction and power of each performance).

As for your comments on David Matthews' own music - well, I could say I wish I hadn't wasted any money on yours. I didn't enjoy it all that much. But no. I was intrigued, and I'll remain openminded and try to listen to more of it one day. Though I may just be a little more reluctant to do so.

Not so much as or just plain .
And I've had enough of all this crude summary macho posturing and gratuitous offence. I'm outta here!.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

And get the hammer blows right.

[Richard Barrett]

you'll see that DM is clearly giving a personal view (just as you are in wanting the choice to alternate frequently)

He is clearly giving a personal view, and his personal view is explicitly that he thinks Mahler was "wrong", which along with the entire tenor of his article I (personally) find pompous and indeed somewhat laughable given that Matthews himself has clearly never engaged with the necessity for music to renew itself on the level that Mahler did. I'm sorry I brought David Matthews' own music rather gratuitously into it, but the thought of someone like that telling Mahler he's wrong sort of gets my goat.

As for there being "a serious effect on the conviction and power of each performance" when a conductor changes the order of the movements, I see absolutely no reason why this should be the case, and as for being accused of "macho posturing" all I am suggesting is taking Mahler's own indecision on the matter seriously.

[Beef Oven!]

First, I suggest you and Beef READ CAREFULLY the last paragraph again....http://www.david-matthews.co.uk/writ...p?articleid=76
and you'll see that DM is clearly giving a personal view (just as you are in wanting the choice to alternate frequently), and views conductors as indeed independent in their own carefully-weighed decisions. Nothing is "set in stone", for heavens' sake; that is a forcing of Matthews' text to suit yourself. (I would suggest though, that if a conductor frequently changes the movement-order from one performance to the next, it may have a serious effect on the conviction and power of each performance).

As for your comments on David Matthews' own music - well, I could say I wish I hadn't wasted any money on yours. I didn't enjoy it all that much. But no. I was intrigued, and I'll remain openminded and try to listen to more of it one day. Though I may just be a little more reluctant to do so.

Not so much as or just plain .
And I've had enough of all this crude summary macho posturing and gratuitous offence. I'm outta here!.

I haver read the whole thing again. He says he's convinced Mahler was wrong and claims to know how the symphony was conceived (whatever that means) and then says this, which I find contradictory............

"What worries me is that conductors will, I expect, now largely revert to the revised order of the middle movements of the Sixth without questioning whether it is musically superior. I hope that some of them at least will use their own independent judgement and perform the Symphony as it was conceived."

Are they to use their own independent judgement, or perform it as DM says it was 'conceived'?

The good news is that it is performed and recorded both ways, so no problems. The last two times I've been at a performance of M6, it was played both ways.

[waldo]

As far as I can see, Matthew's argument relies almost entirely on claims made by Alma Mahler (combined with musicological claims about tonal relationships etc). He depends on her twice in that critical third paragraph:

Alma is an unreliable biographer, but her account of Mahler's state of mind at the premiere......is convincing.

In another credible passage from Alma's memoirs, she records.......

It amazes me that a serious musicologist can still place any weight on anything said by Alma Mahler. We all now know she is chronically unreliable as a witness. He admits it himself. You can't sidestep this unreliability, as Mathews does, simply by saying, "We all know she is unreliable, but here I find her quite credible." That is not how "credibility" works! You lose credibility when you are found to lie and fabricate on a regular basis etc. That lack of credibility then applies to every claim that person makes. It cannot be recovered on an ad hoc basis. The formula "I know they are a terrible liar, but........" does not help you get out of that problem and find a firm foundation to build your theory on. It is all quicksand! When Matthew's says, "I know she is a liar, but......" he is essentially pretending to himself that she is, after all, trustworthy and can be treated as a reliable source when, in fact, he also knows she can't be trustworthy. It is a kind of intellectual confusion which stems from the fact that he wants to believe her in that particular place simply because it would support a pre-existing belief. It also makes it easier to sell to others: look, here's Alma - look at what she said. When, of course, he wouldn't dream of referring to Alma when it came to a claim he didn't actually want to believe in..........

I know the Daily Star is an unreliable newspaper and has been found to tell many lies, but here I found it quite convincing...........

[richardfinegold]

And get the hammer blows right.

And where the heck did you get that picture from?

[richardfinegold]

[QUOTE=waldo;541251]As far as I can see, Matthew's argument relies almost entirely on claims made by Alma Mahler (combined with musicological claims about tonal relationships etc). He depends on her twice in that critical third paragraph:

Alma is an unreliable biographer, but her account of Mahler's state of mind at the premiere......is convincing.

In another credible passage from Alma's memoirs, she records.......

It amazes me that a serious musicologist can still place any weight on anything said by Alma Mahler. We all now know she is chronically unreliable as a witness. He admits it himself. You can't sidestep this unreliability, as Mathews does, simply by saying, "We all know she is unreliable, but here I find her quite credible." That is not how "credibility" works! You lose credibility when you are found to lie and fabricate on a regular basis etc. That lack of credibility then applies to every claim that person makes. It cannot be recovered on an ad hoc basis. Quote

Funny...the ad hoc credibility thing doesn't seem to have hurt Hiliary Clinton very much..