Order of movements in Mahler 6

[Daniel]

As mentioned earlier in this thread I'm very glad to hear both orders of movements, even though I definitely feel that Scherzo/Andante discernibly drains the symphony of a certain momentum. I appreciate the logic and force of the A minor/major etc arguments of ferney and ahinton's amongst others, but it's just not what feels most significant when I hear it. It may just be that ferney et al just hear long-term relationships/structures at a higher level than I do, which is fine and very possibly true, and I remain open to enriching my experience/understanding through that of others.
For now though my experience is that the complementary power between the movements is greatly magnified by the A/S order. The reasons for this are many (and already articulated far better elsewhere) but basically boil down I think to emotional contrast and balance of energies.

I should add that I find Richard's idea in #283 of a 'missing' slow movement a fascinating one. And I also very much agree with the last part of this statement too.

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

But from all sides this is a fascinating discussion which has stimulated me to listen to this music with new ears.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Fair points, Daniel - but it's not a case of "long-term" Tonal relationships: the First Movement ends with a Coda in A major and the Scherzo begins in A minor. With the Scherzo as second movement it's an immediate juxtaposition (just as with the A major to A minor chords in the motto). It only becomes "long-term" if the Andante breaks up this juxtaposing - a prolongation even Schenker would have flinched at!

[kea]

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. (edit: which makes me think, if there were another slow movement after the (third-placed) Scherzo, what might it have sounded like?)

The introduction to the finale almost is another slow movement; it is simply less independent as an introduction than the Adagietto in No. 5 (which serves a similar function: emotional relief after the Scherzo and preparation for the Finale) and returns in the middle of the finale to prepare for the recap like a sort of parody of Beethoven 5. There's at least one theme in it that never appears in the Allegro as far as I can tell, though it's hard for me to keep track as this finale has about 25 different themes, several of which are usually happening at the same time.

I've never thought of a connection to No. 5 but 6 definitely does seem like an effort to "fix" perceived problems in retrospect—march-like first movement followed by a contrast instead of a more grotesque version of itself; slow movement/finale hybrid form instead of the quasi-independent-but-not-really slow movement plus finale. I'm considering the possibility that originally 6 used his dividing-works-into-parts things (Part I = first movement and scherzo, Part II = Andante moderato and finale, or possibly there was at some point a fifth movement planned somewhere and the finale was Part III) and also that he conceived the andante third to fix the "Adagietto problem" of 5 by writing a more independent, non-introductory slow movement, then changed it to fix the "three-fast-movements-in-a-row problem" of 5 (and ditched his dividing-works-into-parts thing forever as he realised it had outlived its usefulness).

Am not sure why he wrote a "traditional" four-movement symphony using traditional forms at this stage, unless he was particularly interested in the tension between form and content? Or if as with the First there were originally other movements planned which he didn't write/scrapped/recycled into the 7th or whatever. (Allegro energico - Andante moderato - Scherzo - Nachtmusik II - Finale??? Ok, probably not hahaha)

[ahinton]

The introduction to the finale almost is another slow movement; it is simply less independent as an introduction than the Adagietto in No. 5 (which serves a similar function: emotional relief after the Scherzo and preparation for the Finale)

Whilst I agree with you about the Adagietto of the Fifth in its provision od emotional relief, it is an inddependent movement and of vastly greater length than the introductiory measures to the Finale of the Sixth - and if those opening pages of the Sixth's Finale provide emotional relief to anyone I would frankly be astonished! The rest of what you write follows on consrructively from Richard Barrett's interesting speculation, though.

[kea]

Whilst I agree with you about the Adagietto of the Fifth in its provision od emotional relief, it is an inddependent movement and of vastly greater length than the introductiory measures to the Finale of the Sixth - and if those opening pages of the Sixth's Finale provide emotional relief to anyone I would frankly be astonished! The rest of what you write follows on consrructively from Richard Barrett's interesting speculation, though.

By "introduction" I mean the whole section up to Allegro moderato, which starts at 4:30 in the recording I have (Kubelik/Audite), and is therefore about 60% of the length of the Adagietto if it's taken at speed. The "main" bit of the finale (the sonata form or whatever) seems to start at Allegro energico about 4:55 in. (Though apart from my Beethoven 5 comparison the role of the previous "introductory" material in the movement is comparable to a more recent symphony, Franck's.) It provides emotional relief after the Scherzo (taking A-S as read) by contradicting its relentless downward spiral and creating a buildup that can be rather exciting, I suppose.

As far as the Adagietto being an independent movement—it leads directly into the finale without a real ending, it foreshadows material that will appear in the finale and even less "happens" in it (in terms of development) than in the Andante moderato of No. 6. I suppose none of those things prevent it from being independent, but in practice it feels like an introduction to me, no different from the introduction to Schumann's Op. 11 piano sonata (also a quasi-independent piece), and adds weight to what is otherwise a very light and frothy finale. Performances that attempt to overdramatise it and make it more than just an introduction simply don't work for me. No idea why.

[visualnickmos]

1, 2, 3, 4

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

1, 2, 3, 4

Of course - when you put it like that ...

[Bryn]

1, 2, 3, 4

March on.

[visualnickmos]

March on.

Apologies - couldn't stop myself..... shall I leave now?

It really is one of those musical - 'anomalies' probably isn't too strong a word - that will never achieve full resolution in terms of a once-and-for-all answer; much of Bruckner of course, falls under the same category, not too mention the subject of next week's BaL....

I'm sure there must be many other such musical conundrums of which I, in my ignorance, am blissfully unaware, but others of the more knowledgeable on her, will know of. It may be interesting to hear of any such lesser-known ones.......?

[Daniel]

Fair points, Daniel - but it's not a case of "long-term" Tonal relationships: the First Movement ends with a Coda in A major and the Scherzo begins in A minor. With the Scherzo as second movement it's an immediate juxtaposition (just as with the A major to A minor chords in the motto).

Yes though the significance of that effect is long term for you, whereas it isn't for me. The far more palpable contrast of mood and dynamic between 1st movement and Andante is what my brain latches on to, prioritises and clings to. We hear the same music but give different characteristics priorities. It's both 'how' we hear and who we are I guess.
Though actually by 'long term' I was thinking more of ah's 220 comparing the same A maj/min relationship between 1st movt and Scherzo, with the ultimate collapse of the A major build-up in the Finale. But re-reading it now, he may not have meant that, not sure.

Btw, I've gone back to the first part of this thread (which starts in A min and builds up to hard won A major), which I seem to have missed the first time round, plenty of interesting stuff. E.g more examples of ferney's long term hearing - the following is a connection I didn't make at all for example, but will now listen out for -

... The C major to A major movement in the middle of the Andante is echoed in the next Movement only if the next Movement is the Finale (c minor - a minor)..

And Roehre's () #118 referring to Mahler's initial thoughts of an extra movement being necessary, followed by ah's related comments in #122

There's also this from ts -

So having them on Shuffle is a bad idea then?

.. which may in fact be the only truly appropriate way to listen to this symphony ...

1, 2, 3, 4

[Richard Barrett]

Daniel's post sent me back to this one:

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.

... which I hadn't seen before, having come to a similar idea on the evidence of the music only. I wonder where Roehre got this information from because I've never come across it.

[ahinton]

Though actually by 'long term' I was thinking more of ah's 220 comparing the same A maj/min relationship between 1st movt and Scherzo, with the ultimate collapse of the A major build-up in the Finale. But re-reading it now, he may not have meant that, not sure.

Whilst the A major to A minor progression in the first movement is indeed repeated in the opening of the finale, what I sought to refer to when mentioning the sense of disintegration into nothingness at the close of the Scherzo is the parallel in the opening of the Finale following the establishment of A (with the major to minor progression coming again) where the music subsides into new nothingness on an A, leaving it to have to drag itself up from that point; in the Scherzo, this disintegration comes at the end whereas in the Finale it occurs near the beginning but, with the Andante intervening, they're separated by an entire movement whereas with Scherzo placed third they;re hardly separate at all. Andante placed third therefore enables the opening of the Finale to be possessed of even more drama than it would otherwise contain (and that's a lot anyway!).

Btw, I've gone back to the first part of this thread (which starts in A min and builds up to hard won A major), which I seem to have missed the first time round, plenty of interesting stuff. E.g more examples of ferney's long term hearing - the following is a connection I didn't make at all for example, but will now listen out for -

And Roehre's () #118 referring to Mahler's initial thoughts of an extra movement being necessary, followed by ah's related comments in #122

I don't know to what extent, if any - or indeed at what stage - Mahler might ever have contemplated the Sixth being a five movement work (it would likely have dwarfed even the Third in dimensions had there been one, thereby making it his largest symphony of all), but Richard Barrett's ruminations on this subject are self-evidently interesting; I do think, however, that, if Mahler ever did give thought to this, his conclusions were that the "classical" four movement plan yet with music stretching it to bursting point (as Richard says, albeit in different words) offered the best solution in the interests of this almost unremittingly tense and powerful work.

[ahinton]

Daniel's post sent me back to this one:

... which I hadn't seen before, having come to a similar idea on the evidence of the music only. I wonder where Roehre got this information from because I've never come across it.

Nor have I; your speculation on that idea was clearly presented as that and no more, in the context of Mahler's conclusions first time around. Time to consult a Matthews or two, peut-être...

[Daniel]

... having come to a similar idea on the evidence of the music only.

Which as I said, I think is a very exciting idea to have! Driving to work yesterday I found my mind compulsively dwelling on how that movement might have begun, had it come directly before the Finale.

Thanks, ah, for your explanation, whose logic is very strong.

As far as the extra movement goes, I mentioned your post 122 because the following suggested to me you might have some knowledge of it. Apologies if I misread yet again.

Firstly, there seems to be no more (evidence) 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.

[ahinton]

Which as I said, I think is a very exciting idea to have! Driving to work yesterday I found my mind compulsively dwelling on how that movement might have begun, had it come directly before the Finale.

Thanks, ah, for your explanation, whose logic is very strong.

As far as the extra movement goes, I mentioned your post 122 because the following suggested to me you might have some knowledge of it. Apologies if I misread yet again.

No problem; the lack of due clarity was mine. Instead of

"Firstly, there seems to be no more (evidence) 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."

I should have written

"Firstly, there seems to be no more (evidence) for the reason/s behind any change of mind on Mahler's part that led to the symphony being cast in four movements instead of five than there is for his changing the middle movement order. Secondly, as it seems likely that he abandoned a five-movement plan (if any) at a relatively early stage of working on this symphony yet he proceeded with it thereafter up to is completion in S-A order and changed his mind about the middle movement order only at first rehearsals, it seems implausible that a long since abandoned five-movement plan (if any) had any material bearing on the order of movements in the four-movement one right up to just before the world première."

Profuse apologies for having cause this confusion, which arose from a "let's assume that Mahler had initially thought of a five-movement plan for the symphony - what then?" whereas, of course, there's no evidence that he ever did any such thing. We don't know if he ever did think of such an idea (and the work's immediate symphonic predecessor and successor do follow a five-movement plan) and it would be fascinating if he did, but that must remain in the realms of pure speculation unless any evidence ever emerges.