Order of movements in Mahler 6

[ahinton]

You seem to be getting perilously close to contradicting yourself here. You deny that Alma's statements play any role in the argument

No, I don't; I point out, quite simply, that her statements are not so far known to be supported by authoritative evidence.

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!

Sorry, but why wouldn't we? The issues about the order of those middle movements and what Mahler might have thought about them from the time of his decision until the end of his all too short life would continue to pertain regardless of what Alma or Ratz sought to claim, provided that there were Weberns, Mitropouloses and other conductors as well as Matthewses (OK, there's only one of these here!) who felt raeson to raise doubt about Mahler's decision and the reasoning or whatever else behind it.

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.

No. He wants us to consider, not necessarily accept, that possibility which is not necessarily based solely on Alma's claims in any case and the purpose of this is not to undermine but to question the perceived unassailability of Mahler's perceived "authority" (for which for some read possible "autocracy") "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.

No. It plays a rôle all right; the question is what rôle it plays or might be thought to play and what credibility it might have.

[ahinton]

Welcome to ahintonworld!

Where's that, then? I don't think that I've ever visited and might appreciate some satnav directions to where I could possibly risk breathing the air of another planet, as long as it's not the one inhabited by P. G. Tipps...

[ahinton]

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 .

Exactly - which serves only to muddy the waters here, as I've stated previously and of which David Matthews is of course only too well aware.

Ah, if only the Great Gustav could sign up here and give us of his profoundest thoughts!...

[waldo]

Ahinton, I think we must have very different ways of understanding arguments. We could probably come to some kind of agreement if we met in person, but here it would take many long exchanges to agree on basic terms. After reading your last posts, I am not all sure what you are getting at now. I thought I knew.........

Anyway, it was nice to exchange views. As it happens, I don't care which way round these movements are presented. It really doesn't make much difference to me. I quite like the andante third, but only because I like to save my treats until I feel I have earned them.

[Barbirollians]

Ahinton, I think we must have very different ways of understanding arguments. We could probably come to some kind of agreement if we met in person, but here it would take many long exchanges to agree on basic terms. After reading your last posts, I am not all sure what you are getting at now. I thought I knew.........

Anyway, it was nice to exchange views. As it happens, I don't care which way round these movements are presented. It really doesn't make much difference to me. I quite like the andante third, but only because I like to save my treats until I feel I have earned them.

Likewise I don't mind much albeit I have to say some of the best Mahler 6s I have heard have been A-S - the Chailly Prom of a couple of years back for example . I do , however , believe it is appropriate to accept what Mahler decided no matter whether one regards it as "wrong " .

[Richard Barrett]

Starts off 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 F-Ds singing.

I couldn't have produced a better summary than that! I think Barthes was a highly original and insightful thinker in many ways, and I remember finding many of his ideas influential and eye-opening when I first encountered them, but here he falls as you say into the trap of constructing a somewhat flimsy intellectual justification for a preference that probably stems from something much less readily expressible. There's been a certain amount of that on this thread!

Returning to the topic I can't help thinking once more that if Mahler's opinion on the matter is really to be taken seriously then the question of the order is better kept open than contentiously "resolved" one way or the other.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I do , however , believe it is appropriate to accept what Mahler decided no matter whether one regards it as "wrong " .

Do you have the same attitude to Bruckner, Barbie?

[ahinton]

Ahinton, I think we must have very different ways of understanding arguments. We could probably come to some kind of agreement if we met in person, but here it would take many long exchanges to agree on basic terms. After reading your last posts, I am not all sure what you are getting at now. I thought I knew.........

Anyway, it was nice to exchange views. As it happens, I don't care which way round these movements are presented. It really doesn't make much difference to me. I quite like the andante third, but only because I like to save my treats until I feel I have earned them.

That's a nice way of putting it!

[kea]

This thread reminds me that I have never actually heard Mahler 6 in Andante-Scherzo order.

I will reverse the order of the middle two tracks of the recording I have (seeing as I anyway haven't listened to the piece in a long while) and report back with my, undoubtedly extremely valuable thoughts

[Barbirollians]

Do you have the same attitude to Bruckner, Barbie?

As you know very well one is not comparing like with like in Bruckner's case . Mahler's intentions were clear - he insisted on the erratum slip in the first edition and the order of the movements was changed in the other editions issued in his lifetime .

[kea]

This thread reminds me that I have never actually heard Mahler 6 in Andante-Scherzo order.

I will reverse the order of the middle two tracks of the recording I have (seeing as I anyway haven't listened to the piece in a long while) and report back with my, undoubtedly extremely valuable thoughts

I think it can work either way. The Andante loses nothing—it's already light-years off from the end of the first movement so has the otherworldly feel from the start. The Scherzo loses nothing—it starts with the grim inevitable turn to minor, the shoe we've been waiting a quarter of an hour to drop. The finale I'm not so sure about as what is the point of starting in C minor only to go back to A minor within a few seconds? On the other hand the tuba theme "balances" the scherzo main theme and brings it back out from the depths, giving more of a sense of continuous development. Also I do see the logic of not following 14 1/2 minutes of Andante with another 4 1/2 minutes of Andante-ish and then thirty seconds of buildup. It basically cuts the forward momentum of the piece, whereas placing the finale intro after the scherzo may create an island of slow music but one that's very far from relaxed.

On the other hand the end of the Scherzo feels like the end of a larger division of the work, and makes a really good halfway stopping point where I can get up, make myself a cup of tea, etc and after it the Andante comes in as Something Completely Different. Some have remarked that the Scherzo nullifies the triumph of the first movement immediately rather than leaving us in suspense. And of course the Andante-Finale trajectory makes better harmonic sense. Possibly the original version is more striking and dramatic, whereas the revised version is more coherent and "musical". I mean take this with a grain of salt, I'm no David Matthews

[ahinton]

I think it can work either way. The Andante loses nothing—it's already light-years off from the end of the first movement so has the otherworldly feel from the start. The Scherzo loses nothing—it starts with the grim inevitable turn to minor, the shoe we've been waiting a quarter of an hour to drop. The finale I'm not so sure about as what is the point of starting in C minor only to go back to A minor within a few seconds? On the other hand the tuba theme "balances" the scherzo main theme and brings it back out from the depths, giving more of a sense of continuous development. Also I do see the logic of not following 14 1/2 minutes of Andante with another 4 1/2 minutes of Andante-ish and then thirty seconds of buildup. It basically cuts the forward momentum of the piece, whereas placing the finale intro after the scherzo may create an island of slow music but one that's very far from relaxed.

On the other hand the end of the Scherzo feels like the end of a larger division of the work, and makes a really good halfway stopping point where I can get up, make myself a cup of tea, etc and after it the Andante comes in as Something Completely Different. Some have remarked that the Scherzo nullifies the triumph of the first movement immediately rather than leaving us in suspense. And of course the Andante-Finale trajectory makes better harmonic sense. Possibly the original version is more striking and dramatic, whereas the revised version is more coherent and "musical". I mean take this with a grain of salt, I'm no David Matthews

There are so many considerations here. To take a single one in isolation when the Scherzo's placed second, I am especially impressed by how that Scherzo ultimately disintegrates almost into an A minor nothingness and then, after the serenity of the Andante (not that this movement is all serenity, of course!), the Finale's opening gestures wrench the music back to a dramatic and almost horror-struck A major - A minor again and it then does something not dissimilar, from which descent into the depths that movement has to pull itself up over the ensuing half hour or so; this effect is undermined or even lost when the Scherzo is placed third.

[kea]

That's the drama side of things I suppose—on the structural side of things, having the finale immediately replay in greatly compressed form the scherzo trajectory and then set out to deliberately reverse it works quite well for this committed non-Mahlerian when the scherzo is still fresh in one's ears. I wonder if Mahler planned to revised the very beginning of the finale to make it lead more effectively on from the scherzo: that transition is the only thing about Andante-Scherzo that raised an earbrow when I listened.

(Also I have to say... with Andante-Scherzo I found myself actually enjoying the Andante. I've never liked it and I'd thought it was the recording, but to a greater extent I think it's that placed second it feels like much more of an independent movement, whereas placed third it seems like an extended introduction to the finale. Also when the beginning of the scherzo brutally crushes any vestiges of E-flat major without the grace of a connecting chord, and there's 37 (+ or -) minutes of music afterwards in which not a single of its ideas is ever heard again, the sense of something irrevocably lost/destroyed is much stronger.)

[ahinton]

That's the drama side of things I suppose—on the structural side of things, having the finale immediately replay in greatly compressed form the scherzo trajectory and then set out to deliberately reverse it works quite well for this committed non-Mahlerian when the scherzo is still fresh in one's ears.

Well, that's fine, although it doesn't do so for this deeply committed Mahlerian!

I wonder if Mahler planned to revised the very beginning of the finale to make it lead more effectively on from the scherzo: that transition is the only thing about Andante-Scherzo that raised an earbrow when I listened.

I have no idea but, if ever he did contemplate such a thing, there appears to be no evidence that he tried to do anything about it.

(Also I have to say... with Andante-Scherzo I found myself actually enjoying the Andante. I've never liked it and I'd thought it was the recording, but to a greater extent I think it's that placed second it feels like much more of an independent movement, whereas placed third it seems like an extended introduction to the finale. Also when the beginning of the scherzo brutally crushes any vestiges of E-flat major without the grace of a connecting chord, and there's 37 (+ or -) minutes of music afterwards in which not a single of its ideas is ever heard again, the sense of something irrevocably lost/destroyed is much stronger.)

That last sentence is one with whose sentiments I would concur were it not for the fact that this is precisely the effect when the Finale follows the Andante, only even more powerfully so! (except that the performance of that Finale would likely risk serious lacklustrousness if distended to 37 minutes!).

To me, the opening of the Andante works on its own terms when placed second; it's the effect of this order on the remainder of the symphony where it falls apart for me.

[vinteuil]

As you know very well one is not comparing like with like in Bruckner's case . Mahler's intentions were clear - he insisted on the erratum slip in the first edition and the order of the movements was changed in the other editions issued in his lifetime .

... but are the composer's intentions the final arbiter? As in my literary examples above, Wordsworth and Henry James were both convinced that their later versions were the ones they wanted : nowadays many people and most scholars prefer the earlier versions.

Doesn't the 'work of art' have an integrity that supersedes any authorial intention?