Order of movements in Mahler 6

[Alf-Prufrock]

In the new Gramophone, in his review of Saraste's recording of Mahler's Sixth Symphony, Edward Seckerson states 'We now know that Mahler did revert to the original order', i.e. Scherzo before Andante. I am not aware of what it is we now know that is different from before. Has some new evidence just turned up?

Can anyone enlighten me?

[Alison]

I had to re-read Seckers to try and make sense of what he was saying and am left with the
same question as you.

[remdataram]

All I know is that the Andante sounds right as the 3rd mov.

Since I stream most of my music now, I've rearranged those recordings that have the Andante 2nd.

Perhaps purists will be shocked, but then I listen to the Cooke 10th as well!

I join you both in waiting to learn 'what we now know'.........

[Petrushka]

This is what happens when reviews get mercilessly truncated. In the old days Richard Osborne would have spent half a page discussing the latest evidence and pronouncing accordingly. I think we have to settle for the 6th existing in two versions. Up until the 1990's most versions were Scherzo/Andante but Simon Rattle amongst others seem to have set the trend for Andante/Scherzo which now appears to be increasingly the norm.

Call me a purist if you will but I always play it as the conductor intended whichever way that is. I'm happy to hear it either way.

I can see no reason why the third hammer blow is omitted, as it still is in the vast majority of performances/recordings and even I believe in the latest edition of the score. Surely any justification for omitting it has long gone and it should be reinstated. Anybody got a quick guide as to which recordings do so?

[Chris Newman]

Strangely both versions sound fine to me. The list of conductors and their choices in recordings was fairly distinguished on both sides before Simon Rattle chose to put the Andante first. HvK is put at the top of the list in the Wikipedia list below as a Scherzo first man but was a latecomer to Mahler. Horenstein may have made his Proms recording after HvK but had been a Scherzo first man for years. As Mahler was not sure I accept both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._6_(Mahler)

[ahinton]

I confess to having always been a paid-up member of the Scherzo Then Andante Society but I am looking into this now and have made a few enquiries; until and unless some results are forthcoming, however, the only thing of which I think we can be certain is that, having written the symphony with the scherzo as its second movement, Mahler had doubts about the order of those middle movements and, if any credible evidence does at last emerge to the effect that he finally made up his mind, that might just put the question finally to rest.

[Roehre]

I’ll throw a stone into the puddle…

For me the scherzo placed immediately after the 1st mvt is only rechewing -if you like- mood and some material we have listened to for some 22 minutes already - where a "relaxing" mvt IMO is needed.

The scherzo however placed third (if I must choose, my preferred option), doesn't offer the relaxation which IMO is needed before boarding the vast, emotionally exhausting and very dense (musically as well as psychologically) finale of 6.

Therefore my question: what is the aim of that scherzo? What would be lost if we didn't play it at all?

Is the scherzo in 6 a mvt to create a formally "classic" symphony? Then it might be superfluous per se.
Has it a meaning (apart from the children irregularly playing in the fields - the same fields covered by Alma's theme in mvt 1), what then does it contribute to the work ON TOP of the outer mvts?

I cannot place the scherzo within the present 4 mvt work.

Just like symphonies 5, 7 and 10 I think a 5 mvt structure would have been the better option, at least better balanced. Especially the inner mvts of 7 offer a glimpse of what that might have done to 6.
There is however some evidence - a sketch which might have developed into another scherzo, but of which it is very well possible that it was meant for 7 (according to Alban Berg)- that Mahler himself considered another mvt for 6, either to replace one, or one to be added to create a 5 mvt work.

As a consequence: most of the time I listen to 6 I skip the scherzo .

[Chris Newman]

Taking Roehre seriously as I always do here is the hint of a suggested new second movement in a five movement work. Obviously it will require rearranging for orchestra instead of singer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVE7S_wsYvc

Wer has das Liedlein erdacht?

might need a slow middle section for contrast: I rather fancy some of "Ich bin der Welt adhandeln gekommen" . After the new movement the symphony can resume with the Andante then the Scherzo. Of course it might mean dropping the symphony's nickname....

[Alf-Prufrock]

I don't think it was Simon Rattle who was first to want the Andante second. Barbirolli wanted it this way too, but his record company (EMI) unilaterally changed the order because the then printed score had the Scherzo second. I do not know if the latest version of the Barbirolli gives what the conductor actually wanted, or indeed if the latest 'authentic' score has reversed the order.

[ahinton]

I have consulted with David and Colin Matthews, each of whom states that there is no such new research about this - and they should know! Perhaps it is time for someone to ask Mr Seckerson from what source he derived his "information" that appears to imply otherwise...

[jayne lee wilson]

Mahler 6 - that endless argument... plus...

Okay, here's something to get your teeth into.

Mahler 6 - is it scherzo - andante, or andante - scherzo? And how do you respond to the various adducings of evidence for one order rather than the other?
Do you follow the documentary evidence as you can ascertain it, or your own emotional and musical response here?

And while we're about it, what ABOUT that 3rd hammer blow? It's fairly certain that Mahler himself did indeed suppress it, but given his reasons (!?) should we respect that choice, bearing in mind his original compositional decision?

If you haven't thought about it much recently, have a look at the last few editions of the IRR, in the correspondence...

Oh and, chuck in a few thoughts about those repeats if you like...

[ahinton]

Okay, here's something to get your teeth into.

Mahler 6 - is it scherzo - andante, or andante - scherzo? And how do you respond to the various adducings of evidence for one order rather than the other?
Do you follow the documentary evidence as you can ascertain it, or your own emotional and musical response here?

And while we're about it, what ABOUT that 3rd hammer blow? It's fairly certain that Mahler himself did indeed suppress it, but given his reasons (!?) should we respect that choice, bearing in mind his original compositional decision?

If you haven't thought about it much recently, have a look at the last few editions of the IRR, in the correspondence...

Oh and, chuck in a few thoughts about those repeats if you like...

It's a question that's not going away any time soon, whatever and however many answers are provided or whatever newly discovered evidence may come to light.

My emotional and musical response is unequivocal; scherzo first, followed by andante. My reasons are as follows. The first movement ends in a blaze of confident A major that's been an Olympian struggle to attain; follow that with the andante and the mood and continuing major tonality remain unthreatening, notwithstanding the obvious contrast between the end of movement 1 and the beginning of movement 2, whereas follow it with the scherzo and we're right back with the glowering menace of A minor, that confident ending having been undermined at a stroke. The andante then becomes a greater contrast with all that has preceded it, not least because it offers the only instance of a movement in a Mahler symphony that follows two others in the same key as one another (and, of course, its E flat major tonal centre is about as far away from the obsessive A minor that it's possible to get); also, with andante following scherzo, its opening becomes all the more magical after the scherzo has come to its only possible conclusion by running out of energy and petering out - OK, the dymanic contrast is less with the movements in this order, but at least the andante then begins something by rising gently out of the ashes. When the andante ends, the questing nature of the finale's opening harmony provides a link with the andante's E flat major that's present but uncertain, but then we're wrenched straight back after just this one hormonic link to the fearful world of A minor and the A-major-to-A-minor figure that's featured in the symphony previously, from which the andante has provided greater respite than it would d had it followed the first movement. The other case against andante first is that it (a) makes the opening of the scherzo sound rather too much like a resumption of unfinished business and (b) greatly undermine the power of the link betwen the lasts two movements.

The evidence in support of andante first rests entirely on Mahler's own decision to change his mind about the order of the two inner movements while rehearsing it, but the acceptance of this seems to me to be rather too much geared to the notion of "the composer is always right"; not only is that no more true of composers than it is of anyone else (and, as a composer myself, I know just how true it can be!), it is obvious that this change of mind suggests that the composer was not right first time around and discovered what he apparently perceived to be the error of his ways only when standing in front of the orchestra at rehearsals for the symphony's première. He lived only some five years after that première and, as far as is know so far, appears not to have changed his mind about this. Far be it from me to criticise Mahler, of all people, but I've always thought that this was a bad decision and that he was right first time around; of course it's so easy to put this to the test nowadays when on can try out each possibility by the mere pressing of a button or three and I have indeed conducted this test with quite a few recorded performances of the symphony over time, none of which has even begun to convince me of the possibility that andante before scherzo works properly. The matter is of particular interest because this was the only instance of such a change of heart on Mahler's part and, after all, it is in any case most uncommon for any composer to make and then seek to establish as gospel such a major revision as the reversal of order of the two inner movements of a four-movement symphony; just imagine the same thing being done to the Ninth Symphony! (or rather don't!).

Anyway - that's more than enough from me on the subject, but I hope at least to clarify that I've given this matter a lot of thought over the years.

It's also interesting to note that the first subjects of all four movements of the Sixth Symphony begin with only the first three degrees of the scale (at least if one regards the demisemiquaver G#s in the scherzo's first theme as the kind of grace notes to the As that follow them as indeed they sound); it's almost as though these themes have the additional struggle to free themselves from this constriction...

[Parry1912]

My emotional and musical response is unequivocal; scherzo first, followed by andante

Funnily enough, my response is the opposite. When I first got know this symphony, some decades ago now, I felt that putting the scherzo second sounded wrong. That was before I even knew of this controversy. It was a relief to me to find that I could listen andante-scherzo with a 'clean conscience'.

The evidence in support of andante first rests entirely on Mahler's own decision to change his mind about the order of the two inner movements while rehearsing it, but the acceptance of this seems to me to be rather too much hgeared to the notion of "the composer is always right"; not only is that no more true of composers than it is of anyone else (and, as a composer myself, I know just how true it can be!), it is obvious that this change of mind suggests that the composer was not right first time around and discovered what he apparently perceived to be the error of his ways only when standing in front of the orchestra at rehearsals for the symphony's première

No disrespect intended - I haven't heard any of your music as far as I'm aware - but Mahler was a genius. I think that makes it difficult for the rest of us (and I too compose) to say that he was wrong. Besides great composers often revise works in the light of rehearsal/performance (Bruckner, VW, Sibelius, Prokofiev all come to mind) but we don't insist on only listening to their original thoughts as a matter of course.

just imagine the same thing being done to the Ninth Symphony! (or rather don't!)

But, surely, if you are happy to disregard Mahler's final thoughts on the 6th then why not change the order of the movements in any of the symphonies. We could start the 5th with the Adagietto!

Anyway, just my view.

PS Mahler was not the type of composer to include repeats as a matter of course so they should always be observed IMHO

[amateur51]

Funnily enough, my response is the opposite. When I first got know this symphony, some decades ago now, I felt that putting the scherzo second sounded wrong.


But, surely, if you are happy to disregard Mahler's final thoughts on the 6th then why not change the order of the movements in any of the symphonies. We could start the 5th with the Adagietto!

Anyway, just my view.

Nice post Parry1912 - I agree with your reason for putting the Adagio second, but I also can see ahinton's viewpoint too - I am not a composer (although I'm a lovely little whistler ) by the way.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Okay, here's something to get your teeth into.

Ahh; those were the days!

Mahler 6 - is it scherzo - andante, or andante - scherzo?

Depends on the performers' ability to convince me of the "rightness" of their approach. Bernstein and Karajan (who both put the Scherzo second) convince me that this is how it should be done: as does Rattle (who puts it third)!

And how do you respond to the various adducings of evidence for one order rather than the other? ... And while we're about it, what ABOUT that 3rd hammer blow? It's fairly certain that Mahler himself did indeed suppress it, but given his reasons (!?) should we respect that choice, bearing in mind his original compositional decision?

They're "various" and, like questions about Repeats and HIPP, revolve in fascinating gyrations. Ultimately, it's down to performers to make their decisions sound as if that's the only way the work should be done.

Oh and, chuck in a few thoughts about those repeats if you like...

Just one: do them!

Best Wishes.

(PS: Excellent post ahinton.)