Order of movements in Mahler 6

[ahinton]

Returning if I may to (the known fact of) Mahler's indecision here... much of what makes the Sixth special in Mahler's oeuvre is the tension between an explicitly "classical" form and a compositional momentum which can hardly be contained by it. Maybe just as interesting a question as which order the central movements should be in is why there are only two of them, not three as in nos. 5, 7 and 10. The intrinsic sense of balance found in the four-movement forms of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven is perhaps impossible to maintain when the two outer movements are given such structural, expressive and durational weight as in a work like Mahler's Sixth. This issue was addressed in later symphonies by counterbalancing the outer movements with three inner ones, producing an overall symmetry of a different kind (nos.7 and 10 and the Lied von der Erde), or rearranging the balance of the four-movement form by putting the slow movements on the outside (no.9), or letting the dramatic impetus of the work create an altogether different form whose symphonic underpinnings are less explicit (no.8). In no.6 Mahler's indecision about the order of the central movements could perhaps be seen as the result of trying to find a sense of balance which in the four-movement form couldn't be found.

Now this is really interesting! I have to admit that I'd never considered the possibility that you raise in your last sentence here. That you also raise the spectre of the apparent contradictions of the Sixth's architectural "classicism" on the one hand and the "compositional momentum which can hardly be contained by it" (how elegantly put!) lends even more credence to the fact that this symphony was, at the time of writing, not only by far the most powerful that Mahler had conceived but perhaps the most searing and far-reaching that anyone had by then conceived, notwithstanding even Bruckner in his final two examples; it would not at all surprise me if Mahler's "fear" of certain aspects of it gave rise to all manner of attitudes, questions and uncertainties in his mind; this determined forcing of a gallon into a pint pot perhaps confers upon the symphony yet another level of tension over and above the immense ones already inherent in its music.

These are imaginative speculations rather than scholarly observations of course.

OK, but very welcome ones, though.

I'm more interested in a stimulating discussion than in being "right"!

!!! Well, you've certainly added another layer to such a discussion here.

[waldo]

And musicians know better that there were indeed such, of whom one was a pianist...

If I remember correctly, there was also a third brother, a musical prodigy with Mozart-like gifts, who drowned himself as a young man........

[visualnickmos]

I've found this thread to be very interesting in respect of the discussion that it has engendered.... over what, on face value, seems a comparatively minor point. In fact I've discovered that it is really quite an ongoing debate. When I listen to this (possibly my fav. Mahler symphony) I tend to swap the A and S more or less at random, just depending on my whim of the moment! Thank goodness I'm not a conductor......!

In the excellent sleeve notes with the recent BBC Music Magazine CD (BBC Philharmonic/Mackerras) he says

"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."

I guess all conductors have their own particular views.... it's up to us as listeners to make our choices as to what we prefer.

[waldo]

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

.
http://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/seminar/fallacy.htm

What I saying about authorial intent does not quite fall under the scope of this apparent fallacy. I am not talking about judging a work with regard to an author's intentions - which is not really a very fruitful way of judging a work of art. Every work of art has to stand on its own two feet. I am simply saying that the author's intention, expressed in an act of publication, typically acts as a cut-off point for the purposes of evaluation. Once a work has crossed that line, we usually think of that work as being "finished" and "definitive" - particularly when compared to the versions which exist prior to the act. Such works are then legitimate candidates for evaluation. An author, basically, has the right to say, "Here is my finished work. Judge me by this."

[teamsaint]

Critical theory, specifically in regards to literature , provides a well established framework and language for radically differing approaches to culture/texts/works.
It is a problem , it seems to me, that although the kind of approaches that critical theory offers are relatively widely recognised by readers, they really doesn't seem to have permeated the wider musical culture.
I'm sure those approaches are alive and flourishing in University music and philosophy departments, but approaches to music seem to be rooted, (in the mainstream media ), in very narrow, quite possibly/probably flawed, understandings of the composers intention and context.

As a further thought, when discussing music written a long time ago, even as " recently" as Mahler and where evidence about intention ( for example)may be scarce, I would have thought that alternative approaches to criticism and appreciation might prove very fruitful.

[Richard Barrett]

I'm sure those approaches are alive and flourishing in University music ... departments

To put it mildly... although it does mean that when people are writing essays about one's stuff they tend not to want to ask endless questions!

[ahinton]

In the excellent sleeve notes with the recent BBC Music Magazine CD (BBC Philharmonic/Mackerras) he says

"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."

It's a valid point, of course; indeed, there's no getting away from the fact that at least certain aspects of the Scherzo are as described but, of course, the first movement has so very much more besides. OK, even the second theme in the Scherzo is in F major just as is "Alma's theme" in the first movement. That said, the differences between first movement and Scherzo seem to me to well outweigh their similarities and, of course, that final disintegration with which the Scherzo finally collapses is in about as marked a contrast as possible with the "at last" hard-won affirmative nature of the first movement's conclusion.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Returning if I may to (the known fact of) Mahler's indecision here... much of what makes the Sixth special in Mahler's oeuvre is the tension between an explicitly "classical" form and a compositional momentum which can hardly be contained by it.

- YES!

(I'm never sure if it's a case of yer Boulezian "taking delirium and organizing it" or taking organization and deliriumizing that; but nevertheless - yes, yes, yes!!!)

[ahinton]

- YES!

I know - the nail hit firmly on the head with what I imagine is probably a smaller hammer than Mahler envisaged for use in the work! This is just how the work feels - to me, at any rate; the 5 movement structure of its immediate predecessor and successor as well as even the Tenth (not to mention the six-movement Third) simply do not have to struggle so hard to accommodate such almost overbearing tension. Indeed, the very fact of the exposition repeat in the first movement, emphasising yet further the "classical" aspect of the work, seems to contribute yet another frisson of tension in that irreconcilable contrast. To suggest that the Sixth is one of the greatest symphonies of the 20th century sounds allmost like a rash claim - but I'll risk making it anyway...

[vinteuil]

I am simply saying that the author's intention, expressed in an act of publication, typically acts as a cut-off point for the purposes of evaluation. Once a work has crossed that line, we usually think of that work as being "finished" and "definitive" - particularly when compared to the versions which exist prior to the act. Such works are then legitimate candidates for evaluation. An author, basically, has the right to say, "Here is my finished work. Judge me by this."

... and a reader / listener has the 'right' to say, "Your 'finished' work is interesting - but is not as good / interesting as an earlier version which you produced. And therefore I shall choose the earlier work - and judge you on that."

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I don't see the claim as "rash" at all, ahinton - I'd've only balked at the "one of", until I remember the others! And even then ...

That's why the 1904 movement order is important to me: the taming of the experience and the dislocation of the Tonal movement when the Andante follows the First Movement ... it's as if Gustav was taking pity on other symphonists!

[waldo]

... and a reader / listener has the 'right' to say, "Your 'finished' work is interesting - but is not as good / interesting as an earlier version which you produced. And therefore I shall choose the earlier work - and judge you on that."

Well, yes - you could do that. It wouldn't be typical, of course. And if I was an artist, I would probably feel a little hard done by if someone got their hands on an old draft and started "judging" me on it. I am not talking about hard and fast "rights", so much as a sensible degree of consideration - a decent respect for the wishes of the person who created the thing in the first place. In ordinary circumstances, I feel it must be for them to decide when a work of art is "finished". It seems to me that it is also quite natural to distinguish between the various steps that make up the creative process and the completed article. Judging the former, when the latter is available, seems a touch perverse.

[teamsaint]

To put it mildly... although it does mean that when people are writing essays about one's stuff they tend not to want to ask endless questions!

Good news.Sounds like a win/ win

would this be a good place to dip a toe in the water ?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adorno-Modernism-Mass-Culture-Critical/dp/1871082811/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1455907928&sr=8-1-fkmr2&keywords=beginning++critical+theory+music

[Richard Barrett]

would this be a good place to dip a toe in the water ?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adorno-Moder...l+theory+music

I don't know that book, I'm afraid, and I'm not really a specialist in the theoretical side of things, but the same author's Adorno's Aesthetics of Music is quite interesting.

[teamsaint]

I don't know that book, I'm afraid, and I'm not really a specialist in the theoretical side of things, but the same author's Adorno's Aesthetics of Music is quite interesting.

Thanks for that.