Order of movements in Mahler 6

[ahinton]

Thank you - my post crossed with yours last night and I didn't see David Matthews' comments until this morning. (Had it not been so late, and my post quite long enough as it was, I might also have pointed out how the Finale - with its predominant use of minor keys areas - mirrors and balances the Andante's predominantly major key areas: the "Scherzo followed by Finale" version is rather over-populated by minor keys, which dissipates the hope suggested by the arrival of A major just before the end of the Finale. With this dissipation, the devastating shock of the A minor hammer fall becomes a little more "ordinary", a little less unexpected, less of a catastrophe. Perhaps this is what lies behind Mahler's motives for suggesting/deciding on the reversal of the inner movements? (Mahler the composer's Music moving with grim, implaccable logic into the darkest regions of the psyche that Mahler the listener/performer couldn't face?)


I don't know of any offhand - it's as if the Musical logic of the Scherzo - Andante progression was so obvious to them that it didn't occur to them to even consider any other way of presenting or considering the work. (This is usually the point where Roehre points out a letter from Webern written in 1944 cursing his stupidity at always performing the work in this way and planning to mount a performance the alternate way as soon as the War was over. I'll tempt Fate by saying that I bet there's no such letter. So far, I hear only A major.)

Do you know how many times Webern conducted the work (presumably always S-A)? Did Schönberg ever conduct it? I'm not aware that he did.

In his essay Notes on the Symphonies of Mahler (Around Music, Unicorn Press, London, 1932, pp.178-193), Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji writes of the Sixth (pp.188-189) as though taking it for granted that the order of its middle movements is S-A, although I've not encounteed a review by him of an actual performance, broadcast or recording of it. I don't know when this essay was actually written but it was at a time when Mahler was rarely performed in England.

[Roehre]

...... (This is usually the point where Roehre points out a letter from Webern written in 1944 cursing his stupidity at always performing the work in this way and planning to mount a performance the alternate way as soon as the War was over. I'll tempt Fate by saying that I bet there's no such letter.).....

I haven't found one....... yet

[Nick Armstrong]

Continuing to love this thread! Thanks all.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If you do that, you jettison any decisions the conductor may have made, not just about the movement order, but regarding relative tempi and dynamics.

The uncharitable response to this might be to suggest that if the conductor had the idea of playing the Andante before the Scherzo, then it'd be an act of charity to jettison such a decision. Less facetiously, the conditions of the recording studio (where the Scherzo might be recorded days or weeks before or after any of the other Movements) often means that such inter-Movement niceties are as much the work of the listener as the performers. In such cases, the CD programmer can be used with a clear conscience.

I first learnt the Mahler Sixth from Bernstein's CBS LPs in 1978, borrowing the set from my local library. Being unable to afford the set itself, I recorded the performance on a c90 cassette tape (holding the microphone to the speaker for the duration). In order to fit the work on two sides without breaks, I put the Andante after the 1st Movement, and this was the "performance" I heard for a couple of years.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But ferney, surely Mahler must have known what he was doing (to echo David Matthews) when he changed the order following rehearsals for the first performance. No-one surely would have been more aware of the implications on the tonal structure of the work than he. The evidence remains thin that he changed his mind again: it mainly comes down to the recollection of Alma Mahler, which has been shown to be unreliable in other historical matters. Those who conducted the work in the years after Mahler's death, including Mengelberg and Oskar Fried, performed it with the revised order (at least until Mengelberg received Alma's telegram in 1919). Mengelberg reportedly discussed the symphony in some detail with Mahler in 1909 yet clearly no reversion to the original order was suggested then.

The only explanation that I can imagine is that Mahler the listener, the practical conductor, was so daunted by the nihilism of the work that he overruled the Tonal plan that Mahler the composer had realized, preferring the weaker Tonal manoeuvrings of the "changed mind" version precisely because they made the work more palatable, better "house trained", than the raw wound of the composer's darkest craft.

As richardfinegold and others have said, nowadays it is perfectly possible to place the order of movements in any digital recording the way you want them, so as far as recordings go the matter is somewhat academic. Incidentally, it's interesting to look at the lists in the wiki page on the symphony of which conductors have performed which order (though by no means complete). Note that Barbirolli performed the work in Andante-Scherzo order but had the order reversed by the record company to comply with Ratz's Critical Edition!

Which is disgraceful of EMI: if they sell a product with an Artist's name on it, they should feel obbliged to sell that Artist's work, not what they think the Artist should have done. (Besides; why stop there? Why not edit an Exposition Repeat as well? That's also in the Ratz edition!)

[aeolium]

http://www.posthorn.com/Mahler/Corre..._Order_III.pdf gives about as much information in one place on this subject that I have yet encountered, even though it goes against what I feel makes the best sense. That said, its thoroughly researched evidence and timeline makes no reference to Webern conducting the work S-A or indeed to anything that Schönberg or Berg said or wrote on the subject.

I accept that there appears to be no evidence to support any claim that Mahler changed his mind not once but twice on this but I still maintain that even he could have made a mistake and that I think that, on this occasion, he actually did.

Thanks for that link, ahinton. It does seem to provide a very convincing case that Mahler did not change his mind about the order of the movements near the end of his life (not least Bruno Walter's reported comments that Mahler never in his presence referred to an order other than the A-S one as well as the fact that Mahler did not notify his publisher or those conductors closest to him of any such intention) . So it seems that those arguing for the S-A order are essentially arguing on the basis of a musical case against the known, and published, wishes of the composer. I can hardly think of any other work by a major composer where this would be thought acceptable (I am not thinking of cases where the composer revised a work after it had first been published and performed, e.g. with Schumann's 4th symphony, or Beethoven's Leonore/Fidelio).

[Roehre]

... surely Mahler must have known what he was doing ... when he changed the order following rehearsals for the first performance. ....!

I accept that there appears to be no evidence to support any claim that Mahler changed his mind not once but twice on this but I still maintain that even he could have made a mistake and that I think that, on this occasion, he actually did.

Mahler's doubts are IMO connected with an unbalance in the work of which he was aware. It lacks either a second scherzo or a second slow mvt. There exists a continuity sketch for some 70 bars (IIRC) of such a scherzo mvt, in c-minor, therefore nicely fitting before the Finale.
Why aren't the sketches for the sixth symphony, mainly those in the Moldenhauer Archives in the Bavarian State Library (Moldenhauer-Archiven in der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek), esp.Mus.ms 22741, drawn into the discussion (see for an elaboration Edward Reilly's description in the Rosaleen Moldenhauer memorial, New York, 2000, pp.301-312)?
That makes it for ever impossible to decide which order is the "correct" one, though Scherzo-andante would be the more likely.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

So it seems that those arguing for the S-A order are essentially arguing on the basis of a musical case against the known, and published, wishes of the composer.

Are you suggesting that this "Musical case" is "invalid", aeolie?

[aeolium]

Are you suggesting that this "Musical case" is "invalid", aeolie?

No, but I'm saying that the edition which the composer finally sanctioned should take precedence over a version which has essentially been revised on musicological grounds by others, principally Ratz, on the basis of their own preferences. Otherwise the unavoidable conclusion is that the revisers think they know better than the composer, which in the case of Mahler is some claim!

[ahinton]

No, but I'm saying that the edition which the composer finally sanctioned should take precedence over a version which has essentially been revised on musicological grounds by others, principally Ratz, on the basis of their own preferences. Otherwise the unavoidable conclusion is that the revisers think they know better than the composer, which in the case of Mahler is some claim!

On the face of it, yes, but just think for a moment about the sheer ignominy that Mahler risked bringing down upon his head when inconveniencing the publishers with notification of his courageous decision after the event; what on earth might you suppose would have happened had he then advised his publishers after they'd made the necessary alterations to accommodate his change of mind that he'd decided after all to revert to his original thoughts?!

Earlier, I cited cases where the composer's first thoughts might have been better than the second or subsequent ones that he/she had made of his/her own volition or on someone else's recommendation; sometimes that happens and at other times it doesn't. I speak as a composer, nevertheless, when I say again that composers are not infallible and the very fact of that change of heart on Mahler's part illustrates well that Mahler himself was no exception to this. It's not so much that revisers might think that they know better than the composer, as was so often the case with Bruckner (or at least in his case those people who thought that they knew better and were able to persuade the composer of the need for revision); it's more a question of how listeners listen to the music and the sense that they can make of it. Fhg has put a very good case for the music itself providing its own answers to such questions and others including David Matthews and I agree with these, yet none is seeking to bolster his argument by claiming that there is evidence as yet unearthed to the effect that Mahler changed his mind back again!

[Roehre]

On the face of it, yes, but just think for a moment about the sheer ignominy that Mahler risked bringing down upon his head when inconveniencing the publishers with notification of his courageous decision after the event; what on earth might you suppose would have happened had he then advised his publishers after they'd made the necessary alterations to accommodate his change of mind that he'd decided after all to revert to his original thoughts?!...

that wouldn't have been the first time something like that happened: Mahler changed his mind regarding the 5th symphony (not the order of the movements, but even rather more costly: the orchestration) a couple of times. Result: the publishers (plural in this case) only agreed to re-print an again amended version of the work if the composer would bear the costs - which Mahler was about to do. But the final preparation of that newly orchestrated 5th symphony never materialised following Mahler's untimely death. Leaves us with a question: how would Mahler's Fifth have sounded in this -never realised, but already agreed- version? So much for the definite "last thoughts" of Mahler re his works.

[ahinton]

that wouldn't have been the first time something like that happened: Mahler changed his mind regarding the 5th symphony (not the order of the movements, but even rather more costly: the orchestration) a couple of times. Result: the publishers (plural in this case) only agreed to re-print an again amended version of the work if the composer would bear the costs - which Mahler was about to do. But the final preparation of that newly orchestrated 5th symphony never materialised following Mahler's untimely death. Leaves us with a question: how would Mahler's Fifth have sounded in this -never realised, but already agreed- version? So far for the definite "last thoughts" of Mahler re his works.

I presume you to mean 'so much for the definite "last thougts" of Mahler re his works'; indeed so!

[aeolium]

On the face of it, yes, but just think for a moment about the sheer ignominy that Mahler risked bringing down upon his head when inconveniencing the publishers with notification of his courageous decision after the event; what on earth might you suppose would have happened had he then advised his publishers after they'd made the necessary alterations to accommodate his change of mind that he'd decided after all to revert to his original thoughts?!

Yes, although that doesn't account for his apparent failure to inform his closest confidants such as Mengelberg and Walter. And does not the original change of mind, exposing himself to ridicule and obloquy in the Viennese press, suggest that Mahler might have had strong musical grounds for his revisions - a possibility that has been generally discounted in this discussion? Instead, the suggestion is that Mahler "weakened" the work as a kind of cop-out to the audience, though again this is merely speculation, as is the suggestion that he had "third thoughts" at the end of his life. There certainly hasn't been any shortage of conductors - including very notable ones - who have supported the A-S order on musical grounds, even before the recent revision to the Critical Edition restoring this as the recommended sequence.

Earlier, I cited cases where the composer's first thoughts might have been better than the second or subsequent ones that he/she had made of his/her own volition or on someone else's recommendation; sometimes that happens and at other times it doesn't. I speak as a composer, nevertheless, when I say again that composers are not infallible and the very fact of that change of heart on Mahler's part illustrates well that Mahler himself was no exception to this. It's not so much that revisers might think that they know better than the composer, as was so often the case with Bruckner (or at least in his case those people who thought that they knew better and were able to persuade the composer of the need for revision); it's more a question of how listeners listen to the music and the sense that they can make of it. Fhg has put a very good case for the music itself providing its own answers to such questions and others including David Matthews and I agree with these, yet none is seeking to bolster his argument by claiming that there is evidence as yet unearthed to the effect that Mahler changed his mind back again!

Yes, I agree with this. But would you, as a composer, be happy to see a work of yours performed in its "draft" form and failing to include important revisions that you had incorporated at the last moment? You might reflect that as it turned out that draft version was indeed better and you were right to be overruled, but I doubt it! Isn't the core of the argument not about the respective merits of S-A vs A-S on musical grounds - that is a "nice to have" discussion - but which one was sanctioned for publication and performance by Mahler?

[Roehre]

I presume you to mean 'so much for the definite "last thougts" of Mahler re his works'; indeed so!

Yes, ofcourse; duly amended

[ahinton]

Yes, although that doesn't account for his apparent failure to inform his closest confidants such as Mengelberg and Walter. And does not the original change of mind, exposing himself to ridicule and obloquy in the Viennese press, suggest that Mahler might have had strong musical grounds for his revisions - a possibility that has been generally discounted in this discussion?

Of course Mahler meant it at the time when he resolve to make this change, otherwise he';d not have done so - and clearly he did it on musical grounds - but the possibility that he made a mistake is what's not discounted here.

Instead, the suggestion is that Mahler "weakened" the work as a kind of cop-out to the audience, though again this is merely speculation, as is the suggestion that he had "third thoughts" at the end of his life.

I doubt that he did the first of these two things; his decision, after all, was made following rehearsal, not afte he'd had opportunities to observe audience reactions. The "third thoughts" issue is indeed purely speculative in the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary, as I indicated.

There certainly hasn't been any shortage of conductors - including very notable ones - who have supported the A-S order on musical grounds, even before the recent revision to the Critical Edition restoring this as the recommended sequence.

Ture, of course - but I wonder why Webern wasn't one of them and who else might also have kept to Mahler's first thoughts in the two or three decades or so following that change of heart on Mahler's part.

But would you, as a composer, be happy to see a work of yours performed in its "draft" form and failing to include important revisions that you had incorporated at the last moment? You might reflect that as it turned out that draft version was indeed better and you were right to be overruled, but I doubt it!

Without an example of this to hand to recount it's hard to answer that question honestly and with certainty, but the most obvious answer is "yes" - but then this would not have allowed for intervening years and more perforances during which I might have come to the conclusion that those revisions did the work no favours, a fact that might not have been immediately apparent to me at the time of the première. That said, I'm probably the wrong person to ask, really, since I have rarely revised anything, largely on the grounds that if something is sufficiently badly in need of revision, it would probably be better to write a new piece instead.

Isn't the core of the argument not about the respective merits of S-A vs A-S on musical grounds - that is a "nice to have" discussion - but which one was sanctioned for publication and performance by Mahler?

In the short term, yes but, in the longer term, I'm much less certain. As I've pointed out before, the case of Mahler VI was one in which he alone decided to make this fundamental change, whereas plenty of others were at least in part as a consequence of well-meaning coercion by others (Rachmaninov, Bruckner et al) and these presumably need to be treated differently in the way that we consider them in retrospect. One seemingly intractable problem with addressing the Mahler case is that we simply lack evidence, not only as to why he stuck to his decision (and still less that he allegedly changed it again) but also on what particular grounds he made that decision in the first place.