Order of movements in Mahler 6

[vinteuil]

Curiouser and curiouser, cried Alice.

... Casella for 7, Zemlinsky for 6. I amended my text pretty darn quick - but you were quicker

[Richard Barrett]

A cursory search of this forum reveals at least 14 earlier occurrences of the phrase, and not only from fg. [Posted in jigged up poker-face mode.]

Yes well don't forget I was absent from the forum for some time, during which all manner of jiggery-pokery, dilly-dallying and mumbo-jumbo might have been going on willy-nilly for all I know.

[Barbirollians]

I wondered whether jiggery-pokery had made an appearance as it was cited in the news as being in one of the quotes of the conservative late US Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia about Obamacare .

[jayne lee wilson]

Something I touched on earlier but which we haven't discussed much (and why it would be best to hear what a Mahlerian conductor thinks) - in live performance, the conductor's choice of movement-order will affect the way she plays each movement and the impact of the whole. So with andante-third, she may well seek the maximum conflict and intensity from (i) and (ii), the better to draw out the serene melodic balm that begins the andante, and to underline the fullest expression of those earlier glimpses of something more instinctive, peaceful, remote (cowbells, mountaintops, childrens' games); but also emphasising the haunted, "if only" feeling of this movement. Then with the finale, the band's had a bit of a breather, so: give it all we've got! Leave the audience shattered!

With andante second, this mood of ambivalent emotional relief never feels so "earned"; the conventional classical shape is in place; so you might play the andante (or even the energico) more lightly, holding back your big orchestral guns, the tragic intensity for later. A symphony in two parts, almost. But what about the scherzo, coming third? To play it as darkly and tragically as possible risks undermining the finale's impact (emotionally exhausting the audience (and the orchestra!) too soon...); to attempt a lighter, possibly quicker feel may seem to betray the character of the scherzo itself....
So, how would you play it?

For me, that appears the biggest problem with scherzo-third, and usually why (however the scherzo is done) I never feel so involved this way, my own original scherzo-andante familiarity very much with-standing, of course!

***

I don't think any conductor has yet issued their recording with a note saying: "well, we've played all the movements as well as we can - but we'll leave it to the listener to choose the movement-order each time".
Some of them may have wanted to, of course.....

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I wondered whether jiggery-pokery had made an appearance as it was cited in the news as being in one of the quotes of the conservative late US Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia about Obamacare .

Ah! Could well have seared itself on my memory - as noted, I was taken aback by my own use of it! (What a horrifying source, though.)

[ahinton]

Something I touched on earlier but which we haven't discussed much (and why it would be best to hear what a Mahlerian conductor thinks) - in live performance, the conductor's choice of movement-order will affect the way she plays each movement and the impact of the whole. So with andante-third, she may well seek the maximum conflict and intensity from (i) and (ii), the better to draw out the serene melodic balm that begins the andante, and to underline the fullest expression of those earlier glimpses of something more instinctive, peaceful, remote (cowbells, mountaintops, childrens' games); but also emphasising the haunted, "if only" feeling of this movement. Then with the finale, the band's had a bit of a breather, so: give it all we've got! Leave the audience shattered!

With andante second, this mood of ambivalent emotional relief never feels so "earned"; the conventional classical shape is in place; so you might play the andante (or even the energico) more lightly, holding back your big orchestral guns, the tragic intensity for later. A symphony in two parts, almost. But what about the scherzo, coming third? To play it as darkly and tragically as possible risks undermining the finale's impact (emotionally exhausting the audience (and the orchestra!) too soon...); to attempt a lighter, possibly quicker feel may seem to betray the character of the scherzo itself....
So, how would you play it?

For me, that appears the biggest problem with scherzo-third, and usually why (however the scherzo is done) I never feel so involved this way, my own original scherzo-andante familiarity very much with-standing, of course!

***

I don't think any conductor has yet issued their recording with a note saying: "well, we've played all the movements as well as we can - but we'll leave it to the listener to choose the movement-order each time".
Some of them may have wanted to, of course.....

Agreed on all counts.

[Richard Barrett]

So with andante-third, she may well seek the maximum conflict and intensity from (i) and (ii), the better to draw out the serene melodic balm that begins the andante, and to underline the fullest expression of those earlier glimpses of something more instinctive, peaceful, remote (cowbells, mountaintops, childrens' games); but also emphasising the haunted, "if only" feeling of this movement. Then with the finale, the band's had a bit of a breather, so: give it all we've got! Leave the audience shattered!

With andante second, this mood of ambivalent emotional relief never feels so "earned"; the conventional classical shape is in place; so you might play the andante (or even the energico) more lightly, holding back your big orchestral guns, the tragic intensity for later. A symphony in two parts, almost. But what about the scherzo, coming third? To play it as darkly and tragically as possible risks undermining the finale's impact (emotionally exhausting the audience (and the orchestra!) too soon...); to attempt a lighter, possibly quicker feel may seem to betray the character of the scherzo itself....
So, how would you play it?

I would very much like to know whether you or anyone else would actually be able to state categorically from hearing a recording whether you're hearing the order as performed, or (in the case of studio jiggery-pokery) the order as intended by the conductor, or a reordering made by a third party which wouldn't represent the conductor's wishes. I think it would be possible to construct a post-rationalisation on pseudo-narrative and/or tonal grounds of any recording played in either order. And indeed this work is by no means the only case where a composer isn't completely sure about what the order of things should be (it isn't even the only case in Mahler's work, given the several proposed orderings of the movements that eventually went to make up the Third and Fourth symphonies), although in most cases he/she resolves the question one way or the other before anyone else gets a chance to find out about it and start arguing about whether he/she was "wrong"!

[jayne lee wilson]

No, I almost certainly couldn't tell which order the movements had been recorded in, performed in, or edited into etc.... but it doesn't seem a terribly interesting mystery, really. And once the album is out there, any listener can do with it what she likes, irrespective of the presented order. So?

But that's why I emphasised the practical & interpretative (and, finally, emotional - where do you draw the line....?) problems of live performance. The choice has to be made there, and profoundly affects the shape, sound and impact of the work, in part and as a complete experience. I've never seen much discussion from those who prefer, lightly or compulsively, scherzo-third, about the actual live experience of it (as performer or listener), as opposed to descriptive or theoretical argument.

[Richard Barrett]

I am interested, I suppose, is in wondering whether a conductor doing (or thinking of) the movements in a certain order affects the way that each movement is played, in a perceptible way, which seems likely and, if so, whether the nature of the result could in principle be traced back to the order, ort whether something would seem "wrong" if that order were reversed.

The choice has to be made there, and profoundly affects the shape, sound and impact of the work, in part and as a complete experience.

So what you get, taking a wider view of this work, is two possible shapes, sounds and impacts instead of one, both of which were Mahler's choice at different times and both of which could be a musically enlightening experience.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I've never seen much discussion from those who prefer, lightly or compulsively, scherzo-third, about the actual live experience of it (as performer or listener), as opposed to descriptive or theoretical argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by "as opposed to" here, jayne. Discussions of "theoretical argument" are discussions of the sounds that result in performance: Music Theory is what is heard, the sounds given "names", a vocabulary to describe and discuss the physical experience of a work in performance. A major followed immediately by A minor is what I've heard when I've attended the work in concert (I've never been at a concert where the Andante has been played second) - both thematically at the beginning of the transition for example, and Tonally between First Movement and Scherzo. The theoretical words describe the "actual live experience" - just as Art Theory provides the vocabulary to discuss and describe seeing a painting or sculpture in a gallery.

I'm not sure how you want people to respond.

[Nick Armstrong]

Yes well don't forget I was absent from the forum for some time, during which all manner of jiggery-pokery, dilly-dallying and mumbo-jumbo might have been going on willy-nilly for all I know.

I think all you missed was a certain amount of flim-flam and not a little argie-bargie

[jayne lee wilson]

fhg - I'm thinking of "descriptive" or "theoretical" comments on the symphony which don't relate directly to - getting through the damn thing, over 80 or 90 heart-thumping minutes, of the experience of the emotional narrative, of what happens to you, as a performer or listener, with a particular ordering of events... of how your body responds to all of this as it happens.

For you that involves acute perception of tonal relations, for me it wouldn't, or not on the level of simultaneous reflection. So all I have is the bigger picture, and later or simultaneous, intuitive reflection on how I respond as the sound erupts around me.... I've not read much about this broader physical experience of scherzo-third beyond those tonal, relational arguments, or the obvious classical-form parallels.

That won't satisfy you, I know.... don't know what else to offer.

***

RB - "So what you get, taking a wider view of this work, is two possible shapes, sounds and impacts instead of one, both of which were Mahler's choice at different times and both of which could be a musically enlightening experience."

Absolutely, yes....what I've always felt, whatever my (or anyone else's!) preference...

[Lento]

I still like an oasis of relative calm before the unleashing of that massive finale. However, I accept that Mahler probably didn't eventually want it that way.

[Petrushka]

Something I touched on earlier but which we haven't discussed much (and why it would be best to hear what a Mahlerian conductor thinks) - in live performance, the conductor's choice of movement-order will affect the way she plays each movement and the impact of the whole. So with andante-third, she may well seek the maximum conflict and intensity from (i) and (ii), the better to draw out the serene melodic balm that begins the andante, and to underline the fullest expression of those earlier glimpses of something more instinctive, peaceful, remote (cowbells, mountaintops, childrens' games); but also emphasising the haunted, "if only" feeling of this movement. Then with the finale, the band's had a bit of a breather, so: give it all we've got! Leave the audience shattered!

With andante second, this mood of ambivalent emotional relief never feels so "earned"; the conventional classical shape is in place; so you might play the andante (or even the energico) more lightly, holding back your big orchestral guns, the tragic intensity for later. A symphony in two parts, almost. But what about the scherzo, coming third? To play it as darkly and tragically as possible risks undermining the finale's impact (emotionally exhausting the audience (and the orchestra!) too soon...); to attempt a lighter, possibly quicker feel may seem to betray the character of the scherzo itself....
So, how would you play it?

For me, that appears the biggest problem with scherzo-third, and usually why (however the scherzo is done) I never feel so involved this way, my own original scherzo-andante familiarity very much with-standing, of course!

***

I don't think any conductor has yet issued their recording with a note saying: "well, we've played all the movements as well as we can - but we'll leave it to the listener to choose the movement-order each time".
Some of them may have wanted to, of course.....

Jayne, I think you have here put the very thought process that must have gone through Mahler's head as he dithered,

Incidentally, regarding your final point: In the talk that comes with his recording of the Sixth, Benjamin Zander does indeed invite the listener to change the order of the middle movements as preferred. Moreover, his recording comes with two whole performances of the finale, one with two hammer blows and the other with three. You can thus have your Mahler 6 cake AND eat it.

[Beef Oven!]

I still like an oasis of relative calm before the unleashing of that massive finale. However, I accept that Mahler probably didn't eventually want it that way.

How true is that?