Order of movements in Mahler 6

[waldo]

It is not, I think, as clear as you seem to believe that Matthews' position is based - or even in any way dependent - upon Alma's pronouncements....

But he does seem to devote a fair amount of space to Alma's statements! He also says, quite clearly, that he is inclined to believe her on this! It would be odd, indeed, for an author to include such a large chunk of material in a relatively short argument,and to claim that he believes Alma here, if he did not believe that it supported his position.
What I think is going on here (and I could be wrong) is this:

When there are two or more versions of a work of art, it is conventional - almost a rule - to take the later one as being authoritative. Not in all circumstances (if, say, the work was revised fifty years later and senility comes into play etc) - but generally if the decision appears to be final and was made not too long after the earlier judgement. Matthews isn't stupid and he knows that the weight of "authority" naturally lies with Mahler's second decision: it is the way he himself performed it and also how he asked for it to be published. In the absence of compelling contradictory evidence, we would almost always defer to this later, (apparently) final decision.

The question of "mistakes" does not and cannot enter this matter: the author has the final say. We might think it could be improved, but that is too bad: it is not our work to meddle with and alter.

So Matthews, who prefers to earlier version, has a problem. It is not enough to argue that the musical logic lies with him, and not with Mahler. He also has to counter the "authority" of Mahler himself - when that authority is usually taken to be the ultimate, incontrovertible, unalterable verdict. So what does he do? He attempts to undermine Mahler's authority on the grounds that he was overcome by irrational forces etc. Essentially, Matthews has gone for a version of the "not in his right mind" argument. And the only way he can do this is to rely on Alma's (highly unreliable) testimony.

You may read it differently, of course.......

[waldo]

Well, Herr Joseph Blöggschmidt probably wouldn't but Matthews is a distinguished Mahler scholar who has worked many years ago on the performing version of the composer's Tenth Symphony and is a symphonic composer in his own right........

That's a rather odd argument! Haydn was a great composer, but that didn't give him the right to alter a single note of Mozart's! This has nothing to do with Matthew's eminence - which I don't challenge in the least. It is about the absolute authority every artist has over their own works.

[Alison]

I have long preferred s/a, whatever the authenticity, but must say Waldo is making an unusually clear and lucid case.

[vinteuil]

When there are two or more versions of a work of art, it is conventional - almost a rule - to take the later one as being authoritative. Not in all circumstances (if, say, the work was revised fifty years later and senility comes into play etc) - but generally if the decision appears to be final and was made not too long after the earlier judgement. ... The question of "mistakes" does not and cannot enter this matter: the author has the final say. We might think it could be improved, but that is too bad: it is not our work to meddle with and alter.

....

I am not sure this views still holds. Certainly in the field of literary criticism it used to be the case that the 'last edition' seen by the author was seen as authoritative. But over the last thirty years or so views have been changing. For Wordsworth, for Henry James, and various other writers the tendency now is for scholars to prefer the 'first' versions, variously being the manuscript, first printing, first book version.

It depends whether we think that the author - at a particular stage in his/her development - is always the 'best' judge of her/his work.

[ahinton]

But he does seem to devote a fair amount of space to Alma's statements! He also says, quite clearly, that he is inclined to believe her on this! It would be odd, indeed, for an author to include such a large chunk of material in a relatively short argument,and to claim that he believes Alma here, if he did not believe that it supported his position.

On the contrary, it would be odd - and indeed somewhat remiss - were Matthews to have omitted mention of Alma's decalred position in this, given that she evidently sought to persade people that she had one and that it accordingly is a part of the history of the subject. As we also do not know if Mahler really did say anything to her late in life about the possible desirability of reversing his decision, we can neither assume that he did so or that he made no such reference to it in conversation with her; whilst there's no evidence in support of the former, the latter is another matter, to the extent that, as with so many other issues, it's always easier to prove that something doid happen than that it didn't! The fact that Alma's declared position on this issue might be deemed to "support" Matthews position is a somewhat semantic one, rather as is the question of whether Matthews ought better to hve used the word "misjudgement" instead of "wrong"; its not so much a question of corroborative support in advance from Alma but of Matthews happening to share what she claimed to believe. Much the same goes for Ratz's position, in the sense that whilst Matthews agrees with it in principle, he makes no efort to conceal the fibs that Ratz told in order to try to get his point across; again, as with the Alma, question, it's a matter of coincidence that Matthews takes the same view.

What I think is going on here (and I could be wrong) is this:

When there are two or more versions of a work of art, it is conventional - almost a rule - to take the later one as being authoritative. Not in all circumstances (if, say, the work was revised fifty years later and senility comes into play etc) - but generally if the decision appears to be final and was made not too long after the earlier judgement.

That's fair comment insofar as it goes.

Matthews isn't stupid and he knows that the weight of "authority" naturally lies with Mahler's second decision: it is the way he himself performed it and also how he asked for it to be published. In the absence of compelling contradictory evidence, we would almost always defer to this later, (apparently) final decision.

Except, of couse, that Webern didn't (for whatever reason) and, from what we now understand, Mitropoulos also didn't even before Ratz published his statements on the matter; I don't of course have the entire pre-Ratz performance history of the work immediately to hand but it's percectly possible tht some other conductors might have performed it with Scherzo placed second during that period.

The question of "mistakes" does not and cannot enter this matter: the author has the final say. We might think it could be improved, but that is too bad: it is not our work to meddle with and alter.

Whilst I understand the principle under which you write this, I still believe that there is a potential inherent danger in setting undue store by the assumption that composers always get it right, either first time or once they've made their final revised decisions, not least because, in this instance, Mahler appears to have convinced himself at rehearsal for the work's première that he'd made a fundamental error of judgement but only conducted the work three times altogether and died within a few years of making his decision. Revisions that composers make long after completion of a work might not necessarily be down to senility, as you suggest above (although I imagine that such revisions are relatively rare); Elliott Carter made several revisions to his works long after their completion, but he didn't become senile even at his most advanced age!

So Matthews, who prefers to earlier version, has a problem. It is not enough to argue that the musical logic lies with him, and not with Mahler. He also has to counter the "authority" of Mahler himself - when that authority is usually taken to be the ultimate, incontrovertible, unalterable verdict. So what does he do? He attempts to undermine Mahler's authority on the grounds that he was overcome by irrational forces etc. Essentially, Matthews has gone for a version of the "not in his right mind" argument. And the only way he can do this is to rely on Alma's (highly unreliable) testimony.

No it isn't and no he doesn't anyway; he cites Alma but presents his own arguments, not her claims, in support of his view. Is there no possibility that a composer might find him/herself susceptible to the making of irrational decisions in extreme cases such as this one? I believe that to deny any such possibility in all cases might be a potentially dangerous and possibly unrealistic stance to adopt.

You may read it differently, of course.......

I do rather, as I've sought to outline above!

[waldo]

I am not sure this views still holds. Certainly in the field of literary criticism it used to be the case that the 'last edition' seen by the author was seen as authoritative. But over the last thirty years or so views have been changing. For Wordsworth, for Henry James, and various other writers the tendency now is for scholars to prefer the 'first' versions, variously being the manuscript, first printing, first book version.

It depends whether we think that the author - at a particular stage in his/her development - is always the 'best' judge of her/his work.

Yes, I know there are different views on this - especially in literature (I was thinking about Leaves of Grass, which Whitman buggered up as he got older. There are also two Critiques of Pure Reason - the A and the B - and many prefer the A.). But I still think it is less common in music (when compared to the application of the convention). It isn't just chronology that comes into play, of course, but other factors - such as publication, performance and so on. The fact Mahler published the symphony before changing his mind is critical. If he had simply changed his mind, then published, we wouldn't dream of following the original decision.

My feeling is that, on Mahler 6, the particular circumstances put the balance of "authority" firmly onto the second decision.

[ahinton]

That's a rather odd argument! Haydn was a great composer, but that didn't give him the right to alter a single note of Mozart's! This has nothing to do with Matthew's eminence - which I don't challenge in the least. It is about the absolute authority every artist has over their own works.

This isn't really about rights; however, this "absolute authority" is all very well when it works but, speaking as a composer myself, I cannot help but accept that there's a degree of myth in this and that there would otherwise be no room for argument with what I've done because I'm always right (ahem!). Look at Boulez, a fair few of whose works seemed often to be in a constant state of flux, reinvention et al, sometimes for many years; where in his case would this "absolute authority" be thought to lie? Think also of composer/performers who might conclude that they've made certain misjudgements as a direct consequence of performing their works themselves; consider, for example, the revised versions of Rachmaninoff's first and last piano concertos. Look at Sibelius's Fifth and Shostakovich's Fourth symphonies; the first version of the former is almost another work altogether that happens to share elements with the final version that we've long known and the first forays into the latter were likewise until Shostakovich found the way to make the piece work and then proceeded with it at something approaching his customary haste, putting aside his intial efforts with it (and if anyhone ever finds the long lost orignal final score, they'd deserve a medal, though not the Order of Lenin, of course!).

[ahinton]

I am not sure this views still holds. Certainly in the field of literary criticism it used to be the case that the 'last edition' seen by the author was seen as authoritative. But over the last thirty years or so views have been changing. For Wordsworth, for Henry James, and various other writers the tendency now is for scholars to prefer the 'first' versions, variously being the manuscript, first printing, first book version.

It depends whether we think that the author - at a particular stage in his/her development - is always the 'best' judge of her/his work.

That last sentence is the crucial one here!

[waldo]

No it isn't and no he doesn't anyway; he cirs Alma but presents his own arguments, not her claims, in support of his view. Is there no possibility that a composer might find him/herself susceptible to the making of irrational decisions in extreme cases such as this one? I believe that to deny any such possibility in all cases might be a potentially dangerous and possibly unrealistic stance to adopt.

You seem to be getting perilously close to contradicting yourself here. You deny that Alma's statements play any role in the argument, and then go on to put forward the possibility of Mahler making an irrational decision. But we wouldn't even be discussing that latter possibility, if we didn't already accept Alma's statements! That's the whole point Matthew's is making. He wants us to accept the possibility of irrationality (based on Alma's claims), so we can set aside Mahler's authority in this case.

I can't see much point re-hashing my arguments. You obviously read this key passage of Matthew's differently. I believe it plays a role in the argument; you don't.

[waldo]

I am simply pointing to the convention which typically grants authority to composers. I am not saying it is a good or bad thing! Or that there aren't exceptions.

[Beef Oven!]

I am simply pointing to the convention which typically grants authority to composers. I am not saying it is a good or bad thing! Or that there aren't exceptions.

Welcome to ahintonworld!

[teamsaint]

Just as well Roland Barthes didn't get around to music.


Or maybe he did?

[Richard Barrett]

Just as well Roland Barthes didn't get around to music.

He certainly did - for example there's his quite well-known essay "The Grain of the Voice" which tells us what's wrong with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau...

[teamsaint]

He certainly did - for example there's his quite well-known essay "The Grain of the Voice" which tells us what's wrong with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau...

I'll stick with the theory I already don't understand very well, thanks all the same.

edit, actually, I might give that a read.
Unless you would care to precis for us, RB?

Edit:

Here it is.

http://www.gregsandow.com/BookBlog/grain_of_the_voice.pdf

Starts off at and with a quite interesting and significant point about the language we use to discuss / describe music, ( in the context of critical theory)and then seems to be a smart but pointless attempt to justify his dislike for FF-Ds singing.

On a quick skim through......

[Barbirollians]

Alma is reported to have said the way Mahler conducted it in Amsterdam was the right order - but he never conducted it in Amsterdam and always conducted it in the A-S order .