Order of movements in Mahler 6

[aeolium]

And, I think that there is a chasm here between Music Analysts (who use the evidence of the Music) and "Scholars" (who read letters and diaries) which will always mean that a satisfactory agreement is unlikely: they/we shall always believe that they/we are in the right and the other side are fundamentally muddled.

[sorry for returning here but only on this wider issue that you raise, ferney]

To me there might also be a gap, possibly a wide one, between theorists - or perhaps a better term would be, pattern-makers - and sceptics or empiricists. For the theorist, the beauty and logic of the theory or pattern is so compelling that the presence of inconvenient facts that seem to disturb the pattern are brushed aside: the pattern-maker believes so strongly in the pattern that the facts are bent to conform to it. It ought to be, therefore it is. We have surely come across examples of this in science, literary theory, biography and history. The empiricist or sceptic on the other hand will say that the disturbing facts have to be taken into account and if necessary the theory revised. How far this applies to music I don't know, but I am sure that in science and history the pattern-maker does need the sceptic.

[ahinton]

ahinton, I'd like to make to remarks here:
First, there were doubts whether this should be a four or a five movement symphony. A second scherzo (c-minor) was originally planned between the Andante and the finale. IMO Mahler's thoughts about the order of the middle mvts could be related to this original concept of the work.

Well, whilst that cannot be ruled out entirely with any certainty, it must remain no more than mere surmise, on at least two grounds. Firstly, there seems to be no more ecidence for the reason/s behind Mahler's first change of mind that led to the symphony being cast in four movements instead of five than there is for his second in changing the middle movement order. Secondly, as it seems likely that he abandoned the five-movement plan at a relatively early stage of planning this symphony yet continued thereafter to work on it up to completion in S-A order and changed his mind about the middle movement order only at first rehearsals, it seems implausible that the original but long since abandoned five-movement plan had any material bearing on the order of movements in the four-movement one from the point at which he abandoned the former in favour of the latter right up to just before the world première.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

[sorry for returning here but only on this wider issue that you raise, ferney]

To me there might also be a gap, possibly a wide one, between theorists - or perhaps a better term would be, pattern-makers - and sceptics or empiricists. For the theorist, the beauty and logic of the theory or pattern is so compelling that the presence of inconvenient facts that seem to disturb the pattern are brushed aside: the pattern-maker believes so strongly in the pattern that the facts are bent to conform to it. It ought to be, therefore it is. We have surely come across examples of this in science, literary theory, biography and history. The empiricist or sceptic on the other hand will say that the disturbing facts have to be taken into account and if necessary the theory revised. How far this applies to music I don't know, but I am sure that in science and history the pattern-maker does need the sceptic.

You're absolutely right, of course. Musicians are only human, and are no less prone to interpreting information as they would wish it to be, rather than as it is, than anyone else.

But even the most sceptical empiricist cannot deny that in the two bars before fig 7 in the First Movement, A major is immediately followed by A minor; that between figure 28 and 30, A major is followed immediately by A minor, that at figure 33 A major is immediately followed by Aminor; and that at the end of the First Movement, A major is followed immediately by .... err ... Eb major?

"Disturbing facts" are to be faced by both sides - the diary/letters readers no less than the Musicians - it isn't enough for someone to claim that that others are telling "downright lies" if that someone then tries to pretend that the Musical problems that arise don't exist by ignoring these problems.

[aeolium]

Yes, but I would say the disturbing facts there are that Mahler chose that particular key sequence in full awareness of it when changing the order of movements before first performance; that he then performed the work twice with that sequence; that there is no documentary evidence at all for his changing his mind about it; and what circumstantial evidence there is for that is very weak. If that key sequence creates musical problems then they have been created by Mahler himself, no-one else. And they do not appear to be problems for those musicians (including many distinguished ones) who have supported that order.

I'm not sure where the allegation of "downright lies" comes from or to whom it refers. If it is related to the Alma Mahler telegram to Mengelberg then neither the Bruck essay nor Jeffrey Gantz suggested that Alma was lying, only that she was confused and misremembering (as she did at other times).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm not sure where the allegation of "downright lies" comes from or to whom it refers. If it is related to the Alma Mahler telegram to Mengelberg then neither the Bruck essay nor Jeffrey Gantz suggested that Alma was lying, only that she was confused and misremembering (as she did at other times).

From the RM-W article cited by Laurie Watt:

We now know, as we did not in 1998, and as the IGMG has recently confirmed, that Ratz’s assertion that Mahler changed his mind towards the end of his life regarding the middle-movement order was nothing more than a downright lie.

[aeolium]

From the RM-W article cited by Laurie Watt:

We now know, as we did not in 1998, and as the IGMG has recently confirmed, that Ratz’s assertion that Mahler changed his mind towards the end of his life regarding the middle-movement order was nothing more than a downright lie.

Thank you. I hadn't recalled that statement in the RM-W article. I don't agree with it, preferring the view that it was an assertion based on slim evidence.

[bluestateprommer]

Deneve SRSO Mahler 6, R3 Live in Concert from this past Sunday

Well, FWIW, Stéphane Denève comes down on the side of Scherzo-Andante (thank goodness) for the middle movements of Mahler 6, as evidenced by the R3 broadcast of the performance with the Stuttgart Radio Symphony Orchestra this week:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03d7plc

Catching up with it now, as the Scherzo is playing. Pretty good work so far, with the orchestra sounding in fine shape (through the limits of computer speakers). The Mozart Violin Concerto No. 5 got a rather chipper reading from Henning Kraggerud, almost insouciantly cheeky in the finale, if that makes sense. (Stick around for his encore in the 1st half.)

[Nick Armstrong]

Well, FWIW, Stéphane Denève comes down on the side of Scherzo-Andante (thank goodness) for the middle movements of Mahler 6, as evidenced by the R3 broadcast of the performance with the Stuttgart Radio Symphony Orchestra this week:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03d7plc

Catching up with it now, as the Scherzo is playing. Pretty good work so far, with the orchestra sounding in fine shape (through the limits of computer speakers). The Mozart Violin Concerto No. 5 got a rather chipper reading from Henning Kraggerud, almost insouciantly cheeky in the finale, if that makes sense. (Stick around for his encore in the 1st half.)

Great to hear... but you found a long-silent thread, bsp, which was rather overtaken recently by another Mahler 6 thread with some good stuff on it - so I've merged the two, makes sense to pool the opinions/info I think.

[Barbirollians]

I don't get the thank God it is Scherzo - Andante when Mahler seemed evidently to want Andante -Scherzo . To me it is a bit like sticking to Bach a la Karl Richter just because that is what you are used to .

[bluestateprommer]

Great to hear... but you found a long-silent thread, bsp, which was rather overtaken recently by another Mahler 6 thread with some good stuff on it - so I've merged the two, makes sense to pool the opinions/info I think.

For Caliban, I guess it is the inveterate recycler in me here :) . That aside, just saw this review of a widely admired conductor on the Forum, Semyon Bychkov, leading the New York Philharmonic in Mahler 6:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/arts/music/review-an-intense-yet-pastoral-mahler-cowbells-included.html

Oestreich notes in the review:

"Mr. Bychkov followed Mahler's original order, with the Scherzo coming second and the Andante third."

The overall verdict on the concert last night in NYC:

"Mr. Bychkov made the most of it despite the hall's intractable acoustics. Nothing was overblown, and the balances among the various sections, especially between brasses and woodwinds, were exquisite.....

All in all, an excellent outing for orchestra and conductor."

There is a broadcast series of NY Phil concerts via the WFMT network (Chicago-based - go figure), but the schedule seems erratic, so I don't know when, if ever, this Mahler 6 might make it to US radio broadcast.

[Tevot]

Thanks for posting this BSP,

Indeed the NYP posted some photos on Facebook showing the percussion section and the off stage cow bells with the performer / facilitator / herdsman (delete where applicable) at the ready waiting for the signal from the video screen in front of him...

Audience feedback judging from the FB comments seemed positive.

Best Wishes,

Tevot

[jayne lee wilson]

David Matthews has just published an excellent new contribution to this discussion - ( or, unresolvable dilemma...) on his website...

http://www.david-matthews.co.uk/writings/article.asp?articleid=76

[HighlandDougie]

Many thanks for the link, Jayne. DM makes a convincing case for what seems somehow musically right.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Many thanks for the link, Jayne. DM makes a convincing case for what seems somehow musically right.

- the book to which DM refers at the start of his article is this excellent tome:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0199249652

[Beef Oven!]

Ahinton quoted from that Matthews chapter in post #66 and for me, ahinton nails the reason for scherzo-andante in post #58. ferney too, later on.