Order of movements in Mahler 6

[Bryn]

I haven't read all the posts here but I have dug out my two recordings: Cleveland/Szell (Sony: Scherzo Andante) and BBCPO/Mackerras (BBC MM March 2005, Vol 13 No 7: Andante Scherzo), so I can choose which one I want without reprogramming my CD player!

The BBC CD liner notes include this comment from Mackerras:

It's well known that Mahler changed the order of the Scherzo and slow movement during rehearsals for the premiere, and that he never reverted to the original again in performance. But apart from that it strikes me as so much more effective that way. The Scherzo is a kind of ghastly parody of the first movement, and for it to come immediately after the thing it parodies strikes me as silly – they're too similar. Going from the beautiful pastoral slow movement into the finale doesn't make much sense, but it works well when the Scherzo goes down into the depths, with the contrabassoon and timpani, before that incredible chord that starts the last movement. It seems so obvious.

(Apologies if this is going over old ground, covered previously.)

I resurrect this thread to raise a shocking issue I have previously been unaware of. One of the features of the Mackerras recording in the BBC MM disc is the absence of the first movement exposition repeat. I now read that the performance from which the CD was made did, in fact, include that repeat and that this was reflected in the broadcast of the concert from which it was taken. It is asserted that the BBC edited out the repeat to fit the recording on a single CD. The person making this assertion also states that he has a recording from the original broadcast of that concert which supports his contention. If so, this seems pretty outrageous behaviour by whoever sanctioned the edit. Can anyone here confirm or deny this claim?

[ahinton]

I resurrect this thread to raise a shocking issue I have previously been unaware of. One of the features of the Mackerras recording in the BBC MM disc is the absence of the first movement exposition repeat. I now read that the performance from which the CD was made did, in fact, include that repeat and that this was reflected in the broadcast of the concert from which it was taken. It is asserted that the BBC edited out the repeat to fit the recording on a single CD. The person making this assertion also states that he has a recording from the original broadcast of that concert which supports his contention. If so, this seems pretty outrageous behaviour by whoever sanctioned the edit. Can anyone here confirm or deny this claim?

Well, I certainly cannot but I do agree that this was indeed outrageous behaviour. Mackerras' view is interesting, yet to me the Scherzo is in no sense a parody of the first movement, ghastly or otherwise and the principal reason why I find it most convincing when placed second is that the first movement is in many places redolent of a monumental struggle yet finally reaches an overwhelmingly positive, if hard-won, conclusion, then the Scherzo immediately destroys all sense of that as it opens; also, when it eventually peters out, exhausted, the transition to the distant key of E flat major and the serenity of the Andante seems to me all the more effective. Lastly, the opening of the Finale seems to me to follow the close of the Andante far mor meaningfully that it would the close of the Scherzo. Just my two pennarth...

[Barbirollians]

I prefer it Andante first I have to say - notable that Barbirolli appears t have been required to go Scherzo-Andante in his studio recording whilst his almost contemporaneous live account is the other way round.

[EnemyoftheStoat]

... why I find it most convincing when placed second is that the first movement is in many places redolent of a monumental struggle yet finally reaches an overwhelmingly positive, if hard-won, conclusion, then the Scherzo immediately destroys all sense of that as it opens ... Lastly, the opening of the Finale seems to me to follow the close of the Andante far mor meaningfully that it would the close of the Scherzo. Just my two pennarth...

Completely agree with you, AH. The Andante coming straight after the hard-won major-key ending of the first movement feels like a pleasant little interlude - it's just a bit too easy - but after the mechanical clunkiness of the Scherzo in addition, I find it has much greater effect.

[richardfinegold]

Well, I certainly cannot but I do agree that this was indeed outrageous behaviour. Mackerras' view is interesting, yet to me the Scherzo is in no sense a parody of the first movement, ghastly or otherwise and the principal reason why I find it most convincing when placed second is that the first movement is in many places redolent of a monumental struggle yet finally reaches an overwhelmingly positive, if hard-won, conclusion, then the Scherzo immediately destroys all sense of that as it opens; also, when it eventually peters out, exhausted, the transition to the distant key of E flat major and the serenity of the Andante seems to me all the more effective. Lastly, the opening of the Finale seems to me to follow the close of the Andante far mor meaningfully that it would the close of the Scherzo. Just my two pennarth...

There are many thoughtful posts on this thread. This post is the most concise and persuasive for me for scherzo-andante

[cloughie]

I resurrect this thread to raise a shocking issue I have previously been unaware of. One of the features of the Mackerras recording in the BBC MM disc is the absence of the first movement exposition repeat. I now read that the performance from which the CD was made did, in fact, include that repeat and that this was reflected in the broadcast of the concert from which it was taken. It is asserted that the BBC edited out the repeat to fit the recording on a single CD. The person making this assertion also states that he has a recording from the original broadcast of that concert which supports his contention. If so, this seems pretty outrageous behaviour by whoever sanctioned the edit. Can anyone here confirm or deny this claim?

Strictly off topic but this procedure reminds me of the butchery of Konwitschny’s Beethoven, particularly Syms 7/8 to fit on to LP sides when they were transferred to the Fontana Stereo Special label. Also to fit 6/9 on 2LPs the side split came just before the storm! They were also marketed as ‘stereo playable mono’. I never knew if this mean using a light compatible stylus or with a heavier mono poker!

[Bryn]

Strictly off topic but this procedure reminds me of the butchery of Konwitschny’s Beethoven, particularly Syms 7/8 to fit on to LP sides when they were transferred to the Fontana Stereo Special label. Also to fit 6/9 on 2LPs the side split came just before the storm! They were also marketed as ‘stereo playable mono’. I never knew if this mean using a light compatible stylus or with a heavier mono poker!

I recall sharing the same annoyance at finding those edits on my Fontanas. So good to have everything restored more recently, in the CD re-issues.

[Bryn]

I prefer it Andante first I have to say - notable that Barbirolli appears t have been required to go Scherzo-Andante in his studio recording whilst his almost contemporaneous live account is the other way round.

Blame the EMI producer for falling in with Ratz.

[cloughie]

I recall sharing the same annoyance at finding those edits on my Fontanas. So good to have everything restored more recently, in the CD re-issues.