Order of movements in Mahler 6

[amateur51]

I remain a faithful member of that society having heard last week, for the first time live, a performance with the Andante second. It didn't work for me, logically or emotionally - the development from first movement to a more whimsical version of a similar 'strutting' march and thence to the idyll of the Andante and then the plunge into the final movement just works so much better, to my mind.

It was that photo of Horenstein pointing at you that makes you think that, Caliban

[Nick Armstrong]

It was that photo of Horenstein pointing at you that makes you think that, Caliban

I found this thread when looking for a 'Horrors' thread to post the photo on, that's true....

[LaurieWatt]

I have consulted with David and Colin Matthews, each of whom states that there is no such new research about this - and they should know! Perhaps it is time for someone to ask Mr Seckerson from what source he derived his "information" that appears to imply otherwise...

This might help this discussion! http://www.classicalsource.com/db_co...mment728014502

Read Bob Matthew-Walker's article and then the very interesting comments.

[amateur51]

This might help this discussion! http://www.classicalsource.com/db_co...mment728014502

Read Bob Matthew-Walker's article and then the very interesting comments.

RM-W is a formidable debater once he has the bit between his teeth. As he is arguing the case that I prefer, I'll let him get on with it

[Roehre]

RM-W is a formidable debater once he has the bit between his teeth. As he is arguing the case that I prefer, I'll let him get on with it

Nice to see the comment by Mr Eric Shanes re the "superfluous" scherzo within this structure of 6, compared with my own feelings about this movement (see my posting #7)

[RM-W has got to check the names he is mentioning though: Mengelberg's nephew meant here is normally called Rudolf, not Curt....)

[slarty]

I don't think it was Simon Rattle who was first to want the Andante second. Barbirolli wanted it this way too, but his record company (EMI) unilaterally changed the order because the then printed score had the Scherzo second. I do not know if the latest version of the Barbirolli gives what the conductor actually wanted, or indeed if the latest 'authentic' score has reversed the order.

I remember when JB performed it live at the proms, he placed the andante second, his Berlin performance(issued on Testament) also places the andante 2nd. HMV re-ordered the movements of his commercial recording against his wishes, but in the last re-issue of the HMV sixth (doubled with Heldenleben) it was placed second, finally after 25 years honouring the conductor's wishes.
I learned the symphony this way, but like Caliban, I can accept it both ways.

[ahinton]

I have a lot of time for RM-W but, whilst I do not say that he is "wrong" here, I'm not sure that what's presenged is necessarily the entire story.

Much as the evidence for Mahler’s decision to make that change is almost overwhelming, what the article and replies don’t even think to countenance, let alone address, is the possibility – horresco referens! – that Mahler’s decision might just actually have been wrong. I’ve actually forced myself against my will to listen with let’s-pretend unbiased attitude to the glorious Sixth with the Andante placed second – even, in some cases, by re-ordering a recorded performance played with Scherzo second (not an especially sensible idea, perhaps) – but I simply cannot get it to make narrative sense, let alone emotional sense.

The first movement’s epic struggle through much darkness and bitterness, only occasionally relieved by music that's sometimes tender, sometimes ardent, centred around "Alma’s theme", finally emerges in a triumphal A major – and then the Scherzo begins, destroying at a stroke all that aspiration and taking us right back to the tragedy of A minor, now peppered with a sense of terror. When it fizzles out into almost nothing, exhausted and the serene Andante begins, the sense of sheer relief is immense – and of course the movement ends that way, too. The sidesteps down from its closing E flat tonality to a questing and questioning C and then – horror of horrors – back down to A again begins us yet again to the sense of the opening of the whole symphony – and then, of course, after almost half an hour of some of Mahler’s most dense and intense expression, we approach a peroration in the A major familiar from the end of the first movement, but just as it arrives at the mountain top, it is brutally cast down, even more abruptly than in the transition from first to second movement, the music collapses back into A minor, the world comes to an end and there are only four trombones left to bemoan its irretrievable loss. Place those middle movements the other way around and much of this is quite simply lost. OK, that’s only my take on it and some, especially many distinguished Mahler scholars, would likely dismiss it as fanciful, but I cannot help the way that it comes across to me.

[Nick Armstrong]

like Caliban, I can accept it both ways.

.... after last week, I'm pretty clear I prefer the scherzo second...

... for the reasons eloquently expressed just now by ahinton:

... with the Andante placed second... I simply cannot get it to make narrative sense, let alone emotional sense.

The first movement’s epic struggle through much darkness and bitterness, only occasionally relieved by music that's sometimes tender, sometimes ardent, centred around "Alma’s theme", finally emerges in a triumphal A major – and then the Scherzo begins, destroying at a stroke all that aspiration and taking us right back to the tragedy of A minor, now peppered with a sense of terror. When it fizzles out into almost nothing, exhausted and the serene Andante begins, the sense of sheer relief is immense – and of course the movement ends that way, too. The sidesteps down from its closing E flat tonality to a questing and questioning C and then – horror of horrors – back down to A again begins us yet again to the sense of the opening of the whole symphony – and then, of course, after almost half an hour of some of Mahler’s most dense and intense expression, we approach a peroration in the A major familiar from the end of the first movement, but just as it arrives at the mountain top, it is brutally cast down, even more abruptly than in the transition from first to second movement, the music collapses back into A minor, the world comes to an end and there are only four trombones left to bemoan its irretrievable loss.

Place those middle movements the other way around and much of this is quite simply lost. OK, that’s only my take on it and some, especially many distinguished Mahler scholars, would likely dismiss it as fanciful, but I cannot help the way that it comes across to me.

And me. You put it much better than I could.

[Nick Armstrong]

This might help this discussion! http://www.classicalsource.com/db_co...mment728014502

Read Bob Matthew-Walker's article and then the very interesting comments.

Very interesting, Laurie.... wish I had time to read it properly, work will keep getting in the way dammit ! Will look again this evening!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The first movement ... finally emerges in a triumphal A major – and then the Scherzo begins, destroying at a stroke all that aspiration and taking us right back to the tragedy of A minor

Quite - and the transformation of the C# in the last full bar of the 1st movt sinking to C in the first bars of the Scherzo is another manifestation of the "Fate" motif from the First movement (two bars before fig 7 - the major sinking to minor brass chord over the thumping drums: parodied at the very end of the Seventh Symphony). Put the Andante second and this connection is lost.

and then, of course, after almost half an hour of some of Mahler’s most dense and intense expression, we approach a peroration in the A major familiar from the end of the first movement, but just as it arrives at the mountain top, it is brutally cast down, even more abruptly than in the transition from first to second movement, the music collapses back into A minor, the world comes to an end and there are only four trombones left to bemoan its irretrievable loss.

Quite so; and the "Fate" motif appears for the very last time, this time without the suggestion of solace of the A major triad: just the callous A minor triad.

Place those middle movements the other way around and much of this is quite simply lost. OK, that’s only my take on it and some, especially many distinguished Mahler scholars, would likely dismiss it as fanciful, but I cannot help the way that it comes across to me.

I was particularly amused by the reference in the RM-W article to Erwin Ratz: he was not a scholar, nor an historian, but ... quick intake of breath ... an analyst!!!!!

The horror! The horror!

[Barbirollians]

I am of the Andante before Scherzo school. I think the march with a limp that starts the Scherzo makes so much more impact after the Andante . The Chailly Prom from last year being a good example.

[Nick Armstrong]

It's good resurrecting old threads sometimes! Some great contributions after a 26 month interlude (plus some much-missed names in the earlier part )

the transformation of the C# in the last full bar of the 1st movt sinking to C in the first bars of the Scherzo is another manifestation of the "Fate" motif

Wow thanks ferns. I shall stick it on when I get home and listen out for that

[ahinton]

I am of the Andante before Scherzo school. I think the march with a limp that starts the Scherzo makes so much more impact after the Andante . The Chailly Prom from last year being a good example.

Well, obviously I don't agree with you but, for me, the transition from Andante to Scherzo is the least of the problems with this way of presenting the symphony; even going into the Andante from the first movement doesn't not work - it's just way inferior (to my mind) than having the brief but hard won defiantly positive (against all odds) close of that first movement dashed to pieces at a stroke by the opening of the Scherzo. Where I have the greatest issue with this, though, is Scherzo into Finale, where the running out of steam of the former seems to me to weaken the impact of the opening gestures of the latter to almost the point of undermining them altogether.

[Nick Armstrong]

Where I have the greatest issue with this, though, is Scherzo into Finale

That's what struck me most forcibly as the weak link in last week's performance

[ahinton]

That's what struck me most forcibly as the weak link in last week's performance

I don't believe that theres any way that conductor could play this to make it work convincingly - or, for that matter, even to make it work at all; whenever I've heard it this way, and the initial slow-fuse inexorability of the finale proper tentatively begins to usher in its astonishing emotional journey in the aftermath of what would otherwise be a stunning introduction, I start to feel (about that introduction) "so what was all that about, then?"...