# Mahler 6



## Elliott Carter (Dec 23, 2020)

Mahler 6 is the greatest symphony ever written. Change my mind. Go ahead, try.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Yes, I love this work and it's my favorite Mahler as well. Poetically and narratively it portrays immense emotional strength in the face of adversity, not giving up until the final bitter A minor chord and low A pizzicato.

I particularly like the final A major section in the finale before the ending coda. What a beautiful, heartfelt chorale. There's a genuine sense that _this time_, there will be a genuine triumph from minor into major - and it doesn't happen! There's a sense that it could happen because this A major section has strong ties to the A major ending of the first movement. Because the first movement ends in A major victory, so could the finale, but the terror of the dum... dum... da-dum dum dum timpani rhythm starts to take over and prevent the epic triumph from happening.

Of course, to convey the sense of victory in the first movement so that we genuinely anticipate it at some level in the finale, we must have the (correct) Andante-Scherzo order, so that the victory in the first movement is "sectioned off" and taken seriously, not thrown away with an immediate return to A minor.

Speaking of the Andante, this is also my favorite Mahler slow movement, despite the more famous slow movements of the 3rd, 5th, and 9th. It's so pastoral and heavenly. Love the horn and the cowbells in the E major section, the singing solo violin in the C major section, and the crystalline momentary glimpse of A major. Love the constant teasing between parallel major and minor - it's this movement's main tie-in idea with the rest of the symphony.

Simply the best!


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Probably my second favorite Mahler symphony, after the 9th (if we don't cound DLvDE). People always rave about the andante and the finale, but the first movement might be my favorite... great development section.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Elliott Carter said:


> Mahler 6 is the greatest symphony ever written. Change my mind. Go ahead, try.


Good ..but not the greatest. 9 is better but bringing in singing, 2-3 and 8 bets them all.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

Beethoven 9th...try beating that


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> People always rave about the andante and the finale, but the first movement might be my favorite... great development section.


Speaking of that development section: in the slow mysterious middle part there's at several points a sneaky brass chorale. It is the same theme as the wind chorale in the exposition's transition section, that is, the part immediately after the timpani's dum... dum... da-dum dum dum. This chorale theme is also played when the development section picks up again in tempo, as well as in the coda. This is a detail easily missed - I thought for the longest time that this chorale only appeared in the exposition's and recapitulation's transition sections.

And speaking of chorale: chorale - as a textural idea of "chorale" itself (not necessarily the exact theme), comes back in the finale and plays an integral, integral role as both a beacon of hope in the long introduction and a tired, deflated, sputter of death in the final coda, not to mention other roles throughout the main body of the movement.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

HerbertNorman said:


> Beethoven 9th...try beating that


This doesn't mean I want to bash the 6th symphony... btw , I quite enjoy it too


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Symphony no. 6 is not even my favorite Mahler symphony: I prefer 2, 3, 9, and DLVDE over it.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

I rate Mahler 9 the same as 6. Can't separate them. I think that Beethoven 9 is better than both. Your mileage may, and obviously does, vary.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

No, it isn't....


----------



## Axter (Jan 15, 2020)

6 is a great symph. specially this recording, I always return to:


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Personal preference: one of the very best symphonies ever composed, better than anything by Beethoven (save his 6th), but still not even Mahler's best (I rate DLVDE, the 4th and the 9th even higher). Some other symphonies I rate higher are Bruckner 9, Schubert 8, and Gorecki 3.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

It's certainly on my short list.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

After Mahler's own 2nd


----------



## John Lenin (Feb 4, 2021)

Mahler's greatest symphony... Beethoven's 3rd is better though.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

As Alban Berg said: "The _only_ sixth, despite the pastoral". The symphony is a great one, the closest Mahler ever came to writing a true classical symphony. But the greatest symphony ever written? How does one even measure something like that? What is the criteria for being a great symphony? If we apply the definition laid down by the Father of the Symphony, Haydn, then no, it's not. It is certainly an exciting, moving roller coaster of a symphony. Now that the Leipzig Mahler Festival this May has been cancelled, I think I'll put the 6th on today - I need gloom. I had tickets for the Berlin Phil/Petrenko concert. Very upset.


----------



## Elliott Carter (Dec 23, 2020)

You see, I love the choral works deeply, but I feel what is so special about 5 - 7 (of which 6 is clearly the finest), is that he doesn't let extra musical/philosophical ambitions interfere with his total mastery of chamber-music-like orchestration and color.


----------



## Elliott Carter (Dec 23, 2020)

That is very sad. And yes it was more of a joke to finger the pulse on Mahler 6.


----------



## Elliott Carter (Dec 23, 2020)

But the 3rd and 4th mvmts of the Eroica don't live up to the first two.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Not really needing to change your mood ... it's certainly among the 10 greatest ones. The Currentzis recording was the one that really made me appreciate it as that. Bertini is good too.


----------



## vincula (Jun 23, 2020)

I think the "what's the best and so on" debate seems totally superfluous. I've got a few renditions of this merry behemoth on my crowded shelves. Bertini's certainly good and its SQ's stunning. A real bargain-box.

Listening to this one right now:

















Live recording with much to enjoy.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

John Lenin said:


> Mahler's greatest symphony... Beethoven's 3rd is better though.


That's on my short list also.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Elliott Carter said:


> Mahler 6 is the greatest symphony ever written. Change my mind. Go ahead, try.


True since it was actually written by Beethoven and found by Mahler by accident.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

The 9th is better, part of the holy symphonic trinity:

Beethoven 9
Bruckner 8
Mahler 9


----------



## lluissineu (Dec 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> As Alban Berg said: "The _only_ sixth, despite the pastoral". The symphony is a great one, the closest Mahler ever came to writing a true classical symphony. But the greatest symphony ever written? How does one even measure something like that? What is the criteria for being a great symphony? If we apply the definition laid down by the Father of the Symphony, Haydn, then no, it's not. It is certainly an exciting, moving roller coaster of a symphony. Now that the Leipzig Mahler Festival this May has been cancelled, I think I'll put the 6th on today - I need gloom. I had tickets for the Berlin Phil/Petrenko concert. Very upset.


I absolutely agree. It would be impossible for me to say what's the best symphony, and even saying which is my favourite one. Of course there are some symphonies I prefer to others, but even in some cases I found that depending on the version I listen to, I prefer one symphony to another. I mean that orchestra and conductor can make you change your mind about your opinion about that work.

It's a crying shame that you can't attend your concert in Leipzig. I've been four times in Leipzig and Gewandhaus is a place I really love.

Just let me ask to the forum which is your favourite version(s) of this symphony. I like Tennstedt as it has been mentioned, Solti as well, but perhaps my favourite ones are Hallé/Barbirolli and RCO/Chailly.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

My favorites: Barbirolli/EMI. Bertini/EMI. Segerstam/Chandos. Maazel/Sony.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

To my ears it's not the greatest symphony ever, yet it's one of my favorites by Mahler nowadays, together with Nos. 2, 9 and DLVDE. When I was starting to listen to Mahler it's first movement was my favorite by him.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

No.2 is still my favorite Mahler. I have never understood the love affair of his 9th. After reading this thread, I will once again listen to the 9th to try to understand the mass appeal of this work (as many of us try to understand certain works that are "favorites" of the masses, but "just don't get.").

I visited this thread because I am listening to a version that NO ONE ever mentions, yet I find absolutely clarifying in the detailed tuned orchestral performance of George Szell & the Cleveland Orch's recording of this fine work. I have only begun enjoying and appreciating the true "Greatness" of Mahler's symphonies in the past 3 years or so. Although the 2nd at first hearing blew me away decades ago. I don't have, nor listened to, the many versions many here have listened to, I find Szell's 6th to be fantastic.

Just curious what many here think of Szell's 6th.

V


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

I've got Szell's Mahler 6 on cd, and I think it's a rather cold and superficial affair. As an exercise in orchestral virtuosity and clarity it's fine, but he misses some essential qualities that make the best recordings unforgettable. His Andante is the fastest ever recorded, and the sensuous beauty of the music is completely destroyed.

I grew up with Tennstedt's LPO studio version, still a great one. Add Barbirolli/PO, Chailly/CGO - and maybe the most electrifying of them all (despire the mono sound), Mitropoulos/NYPO.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Not to say the Mahler Sixth is not a great work of musical art, however ...

One simple reason Mahler's Sixth Symphony is not the greatest symphony ever written is it can end two different ways. Name one other "great" symphony with such an obvious shortcoming.

A second reason is the two middle movements can be switched -- a practice the composer himself endorsed. Name one Beethoven, Brahms or Sibelius symphony where this can take place.

I have heard/owned/digested/endured versions by *Szell*, *Karajan*, *Bernstein*, *Abravanel,* *Levine*, *Kubelik*, *Mackerras*,* Rattle, Neumann* and some others and believe the most satisfactory version is by *Abbado*. He eschews the idea of mankind being felled and offers what amounts to a happy Mahler Sixth Symphony -- especially at the end.

I recently also heard *Dudamel*'s account; and have placed it in a special category:it was hideous, pulled every which way and stretched out like taffy. He made Bernstein's eccentricities tame by comparison.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I think the 6th symphony is good but not perfect. In Mahler´s output I rate the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 9th the highest. The second cast is the 6th and the 7th. After that the 1st and the 4th. The final spot is reserved for the 8th.

My criticism on the 6th:

1. There should be no repetition of the first movement´s exposition section. Otherwise, perfect movement!
2. The Andante has to be the second -- if the scherzo is played second, the symphony resembles too much the architecture and sturm und drang of the fifth and ruins the whole experience by annoying maximally.
3. The Scherzo should be in another key not to resemble too much or associate with the first movement.
4. The Finale is way too long in relation to the almost nonexistent variety of the material. The same dotted march rhythms are being repeated for over half an hour and they just do not carry the momentum or excitement enough. I would cut the movement at least one third.

Had Mahler acknowledged the 4 things written above (the point 2 was actually acknowledged by him), the symphony would undoubtedly be one of the true masterpieces of the symphonic genre.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Mahler 6 will be ongoingly performed when the critics' names are forgotten for decades.

There was some french guy who detected errors in Beethoven's Symphonies. So he published a "Corrected Version".

Do you know his name? You don't. Vere dignum et iustum est.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> Mahler 6 will be ongoingly performed when the critics' names are forgotten for decades.
> 
> There was some french guy who detected errors in Beethoven's Symphonies. So he published a "Corrected Version".
> 
> Do you know his name? You don't. Vere dignum et iustum est.



Are you somehow suggesting that criticism should be avoided when talking about music, and especially when talking about Mahler? Do you think criticism somehow undermines the value of music and composers and is not good for the community and the music itself? Are you suggesting we should be mindless fanboys and fangirls and just follow the leaders or the opinion of the majority or the establishment?


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> Are you somehow suggesting that criticism should be avoided when talking about music, and especially when talking about Mahler?


No.


Waehnen said:


> Do you think criticism somehow undermines the value of music and composers and is not good for the community and the music itself?


No, the music will overcome such criticism.


Waehnen said:


> Are you suggesting we should be mindless fanboys and fangirls and just follow the leaders or the opinion of the majority or the establishment?


No.

But it would leave me somewhere between pity and smiling if someone came up saying in a teacher-like style "Composer X made some major errors in his work Y and I will show you how he would have done better". (Provided that composer X and work Y are from some league.)

The more apodictically such phrases appeared, there more such emotions would emerge in me.

I think it was more honest to say "I did not understand so far why the Scherzo is in the same key as the first movement. I feel the need for some variety in this place. Could please someone help me to improve my understanding?".


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

larold said:


> Not to say the Mahler Sixth is not a great work of musical art, however ...
> 
> One simple reason Mahler's Sixth Symphony *is not the greatest symphony ever written is it can end two different ways*. Name one other "great" symphony with such an obvious shortcoming.
> 
> A second reason is *the two middle movements can be switched* -- a practice the composer himself endorsed. Name one Beethoven, Brahms or Sibelius symphony where this can take place.


Two different endings is only a shortcoming if one or both of them don't work. So, please explain the defect in either.

Only one order is authorized by the composer.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> I think it was more honest to say "I did not understand so far why the Scherzo is in the same key as the first movement. I feel the need for some variety in this place. Could please someone help me to improve my understanding?".


You seem to suggest that there is the truth out there possessed by some wise people and we should humbly ask for them to enlighten us. As though a composition by Mahler was a law of nature without any possibilities for flaws and that we would need some clerics to interpret the otherworldly works for us.

Are you maybe a possessor of that kind of truth to a significantly higher level than myself?

You have talked in those lines before so let me just tell you: I am not interested in the humble attitude you suggest, always thinking some one else always knows everything better. Your attitude is more problematic than mine, in my opinion.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> Are you maybe a possessor of that kind of truth to a significantly higher level than myself?


No. But I think Mahler is a possessor of a significantly higher level of truth than the two of us.


Waehnen said:


> Your attitude is more problematic than mine, in my opinion.


I think I am in position to stand that.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

larold said:


> Not to say the Mahler Sixth is not a great work of musical art, however ...
> 
> One simple reason Mahler's Sixth Symphony is not the greatest symphony ever written is it can end two different ways. Name one other "great" symphony with such an obvious shortcoming.


Not a symphony but there is Beethoven's op.130/133 and there are also some other works considered among the best of their genre that exist in different versions, e.g. Bach St. John's passion, Handel's Messiah (etc.), Mozart's Don Giovanni, (I think) some of Schumann's and many of Liszt's piano works. There are also unfinished works that are justifiedly famous despite the obvious shortcoming of not being complete  Schubert's b minor symphony, Mozart's c minor mass and Requiem, Puccini's Turandot


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mahler Symphony no 6


I'm a new comer to Chailly's earlier Concertgebouw Mahler cycle. Given that I've been very impressed by his later Gewandhaus near-cycle which is often precise, powerful, and dare I say classicist at heart; I was in for a shock for such a romantic affair of the Concertgebouw cycle, so much so...




www.talkclassical.com












Mahler 6: Scherzo-Andante or Andante-Scherzo?


Please vote which order of the middle movements of Mahler’s 6th Symphony do you think is musically better, more convincing and more suitable for your ears, heart and mind? Scherzo-Andante (the original order) Andante-Scherzo (the ”final” order) Please note that this is not a musicological poll...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Waehnen said:


> You seem to suggest that there is the truth out there possessed by some wise people and we should humbly ask for them to enlighten us. As though a composition by Mahler was a law of nature without any possibilities for flaws and that we would need some clerics to interpret the otherworldly works for us.
> 
> Are you maybe a possessor of that kind of truth to a significantly higher level than myself?
> 
> You have talked in those lines before so let me just tell you: I am not interested in the humble attitude you suggest, always thinking some one else always knows everything better. Your attitude is more problematic than mine, in my opinion.


I'm not sure your haste in ridding humility out of your mentality is a wise choice. Sure we all get haughty sometime (Like my absolute criticism on most modern art is the equivalent of the "Emperor's New Clothes."), but when something has lasted a long time in a certain Canon, and seems well established in said Canon, by a universally accepted Master of a certain craft (Mahler in this case), I believe humility is the wise and correct choice.

I still can't stand Le Sacre de Printemps, but given it's universal adoration by other Masters and people of considerable knowledge, I assume it's MY shortcoming that I can not enjoy the piece. Sure, there's a "chance" 100 years from now, it will be thrown on the trash heap of musical history and I will be vindicated that it is a crap piece of music, but 1. I will be long dead by then and 2. (More importantly) given the fact that I am filled with so many human flaws and shortcomings that plague millions of my fellow human beings, I doubt it. I don't get Mahler's 9th either. I don't hate the piece, but I still assume it's ME who's missing something. This goes for many things in my life ie: Grapes of Wrath: Booooring!!! As dry, boring, & desolate as the landscapes he describes.

It's not thinking that some *ONE* else knows better, it's seeing that MANY other's (who have outstanding qualifications) think better, and given it has past the harsh test of time, it just may be YOU missing something and not everyone else. But then again, I could be wrong about this whole post and you may be the greatest gift to music since J.S. Bach and we are all lesser mortals than you. Just thinking out loud here.

V


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Mozart's Don Giovanni, (I think)


There are different versions of the work, other than the ones fabricated by people of the 19th century and after who didn't/don't understand Mozart's genuine intentions for his _dramma giocoso_?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Yes, there is a Prague and a Vienna version both conducted by Mozart in his time, AFAIK they differ certainly in Ottavio's and Leporello's arias and the structure of act II. IIRC both Gardiner's and Norrington's recordings are programmable to get either version.
That today we have hybrid versions that mix them is another question I didn't and cannot answer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Yes, there is a Prague and a Vienna version both conducted by Mozart in his time, AFAIK they differ certainly in Ottavio's and Leporello's arias and the structure of act II.


I thought omitting/replacing a few arias was more like a casual thing done in opera frequently. By a "version", I meant something like-


> "Nevertheless, for Berlioz, Mozart's main achievement as an opera composer is Don Giovanni. Like other contemporary writers, he calls Mozart 'l'auteur de Don Juan'. It is amazing, however, to observe his limited and one-sided view of this work, too. He wrote quite extensive reviews of Don Giovanni in 1834-35, when the opera was given for the first time at the Opéra (previously it was performed at the Théâtre Italien and at the Odéon), in a new French version by Deschamps and a musical adaptation by Castil-Blaze, which was an important event in Parisian musical life of the 1830s.
> 
> This performance is described in detail in Katharine Ellis's 1994 article. The music was transposed to suit Adolphe Nourrit (the great tenor singer of the day) in the role of Don Giovanni, originally a baritone part. Mozart's two-act opera was divided into five, and the plot changed considerably: Anna commits suicide at the end and Don Juan has a nightmare foretelling his own death. The 'scena ultima' was cut and the opera ended, after Don Giovanni's destruction, with Anna's funeral, to the sound of 'O voto tremendo' from Idomeneo and the 'Dies irae' from the Requiem. A ballet (with excerpts of other works by Mozart) was inserted into the ball scene, in accordance with the tradition of French grand opera.
> 
> ...


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I thought omitting/replacing a few arias was more like a casual thing done in opera frequently. By a "version", I meant something like-





Varick said:


> I'm not sure your haste in ridding humility out of your mentality is a wise choice. Sure we all get haughty sometime (Like my absolute criticism on most modern art is the equivalent of the "Emperor's New Clothes."), but when something has lasted a long time in a certain Canon, and seems well established in said Canon, by a universally accepted Master of a certain craft (Mahler in this case), I believe humility is the wise and correct choice.
> 
> I still can't stand Le Sacre de Printemps, but given it's universal adoration by other Masters and people of considerable knowledge, I assume it's MY shortcoming that I can not enjoy the piece. Sure, there's a "chance" 100 years from now, it will be thrown on the trash heap of musical history and I will be vindicated that it is a crap piece of music, but 1. I will be long dead by then and 2. (More importantly) given the fact that I am filled with so many human flaws and shortcomings that plague millions of my fellow human beings, I doubt it. I don't get Mahler's 9th either. I don't hate the piece, but I still assume it's ME who's missing something. This goes for many things in my life ie: Grapes of Wrath: Booooring!!! As dry, boring, & desolate as the landscapes he describes.
> 
> ...


WRT "Modern" Art my approach is if I can do it its not Art! Lots of it like throwing paint randomly on a canvas or a white canvas with a black dot in the middle etc isnt in my mind Art. Art should require some type of talent. That aint talent


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Varick said:


> I'm not sure your haste in ridding humility out of your mentality is a wise choice. Sure we all get haughty sometime (Like my absolute criticism on most modern art is the equivalent of the "Emperor's New Clothes."), but when something has lasted a long time in a certain Canon, and seems well established in said Canon, by a universally accepted Master of a certain craft (Mahler in this case), I believe humility is the wise and correct choice.
> 
> I still can't stand Le Sacre de Printemps, but given it's universal adoration by other Masters and people of considerable knowledge, I assume it's MY shortcoming that I can not enjoy the piece. Sure, there's a "chance" 100 years from now, it will be thrown on the trash heap of musical history and I will be vindicated that it is a crap piece of music, but 1. I will be long dead by then and 2. (More importantly) given the fact that I am filled with so many human flaws and shortcomings that plague millions of my fellow human beings, I doubt it. I don't get Mahler's 9th either. I don't hate the piece, but I still assume it's ME who's missing something. This goes for many things in my life ie: Grapes of Wrath: Booooring!!! As dry, boring, & desolate as the landscapes he describes.
> 
> ...


Just because I am not willing to accept 'The Philidor Humility Package', which has been offered to me by him many times, it does not mean I would not have any humility in me or would not understand the value of expanding one´s views and putting in the effort and listening to other people. Quite the opposite.

My point is that if there is a thread on Mahler´s 6th where the OP states it is the greatest symphony ever written and asks for comments and views on the matter, of course I have the right to comment. I have listened to and thought about the Mahler symphonies for almost a year now, almost daily. I have multiple recordings of each, I have scores, I have a bibliography of Mahler, I have read articles, I have discussed Mahler on this forum with who I consider experts... If after all the contemplating and research I have done I have 4 simple suggestions which _in my opinion_ would make the symphony better, it does not show a lack of humility, it shows honesty and it shows how I think about these matters.



Waehnen said:


> 1. There should be no repetition of the first movement´s exposition section. Otherwise, perfect movement!
> 2. The Andante has to be the second -- if the scherzo is played second, the symphony resembles too much the architecture and sturm und drang of the fifth and ruins the whole experience by annoying maximally.
> 3. The Scherzo should be in another key not to resemble too much or associate with the first movement.
> 4. The Finale is way too long in relation to the almost nonexistent variety of the material. The same dotted march rhythms are being repeated for over half an hour and they just do not carry the momentum or excitement enough. I would cut the movement at least one third.
> ...


I think my comments above show I have done my research and put in the effort. What is so horrible about my comments? I totally reject the idea suggested by Philidor and echoed by you that I would not have all the right in the world to express my thoughts on how the Mahler 6th would be a better symphony in my ears, heart and mind. I expressed a view which is well thought out.

The problem seems to be that some people find my comments hurtful. On this forum Mahler seems to be held by some in a position above all criticism as though he was the greatest and most flawless composer who has ever lived. I am not into worshipping people, I am into honestly respecting artists as human beings.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> What is so horrible about my comments?


One answer could be that the comments are far away from being on eye's level with the symphony. E. g. in terms of complexity they are taking into account.

From my perspective, it is not the question of humility, it is the question of the level where we are moving and discussing.

Just show your expertise, e. g. in an elucidating analysis of the finale, and we are one step further. Sorry to say, but imho your comments are far away from showing deeper insight. I do not say that you don't have such insight, you just didn't show it yet. From my perspective there is no hint that you could do something similar such as Mahler's 6th symphony. This makes things difficult. It feels a little as someone who makes suggestions how to improve the current procedure for landing on the moon but is not able to back into a parking space or to understand and to apply the laws of gravity. I do not want to bother you by these words, and of course I only describe my impression. But I want to point out, that it is not a question of humility, but of knowledge and abilities. (From my perspective.)

Why should be no repetition of the first movement? Just requiring it makes no statement on eye's level. The reason behind makes the difference. Do you feel bored when hearing the exposition twice? This could be an individual problem since, as you said, you are listening Mahler's music every day. Then it is not the problem of the symphony. (Just to give an example.) So show your reasons and how they are emerging intrinsically out of the music's structure. (I don't think that Mahler's music was written in order to be listened to every day, so maybe our preconditions could be inadequate for judging the 6th symphony. One thought could be that the symphony was written for a first-time-listener, thus the repetition could be very adequate. Please keep in mind that I do not make an apodictic statement on "right" and "wrong" about the repetition. Maybe for an audience that knows Mahler #6 very well it could be more adequate to omit the repetition. Maybe.)

A last thought: Most people that have gained expertise in some area have become modest by this expertise. For instance, because they have learnt that each answer they have found raised three new questions. - Thus, those who are cropping up with an attitude of "I know everything and I know how to improve everything because I have studied this thing for one year" are a priori suspected to be a little distant from something that one could call expertise.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Varick said:


> I still can't stand Le Sacre de Printemps, but given it's universal adoration by other Masters and people of considerable knowledge, I assume it's MY shortcoming that I can not enjoy the piece.


Always the most boring conversation that seems to reoccur on this forum, and often an excuse to beef up the opinions of coincidental majority-members like themselves. I should ask though, would you say that uniquer musical perspectives would find any value with this blind approach to popularity? Opinions of some popular critics?

Many of our favorite composers and works are cannon, but we have favorites because we're each highly unique beings with deep complex minds, not because we coincidentally share some arbitrary similarities to our genetic brothers.

_Le Sacre du printemps_ is probably the most agreed upon work on this forum as an example of great music, statistically, yet at the same time I don't know anyone who legitimately believes it's the tip top of the tier. Maybe however it's because we all hear it and like it but recognize Stravinsky's not as great composing other works, we diminish the value of The Rite.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> From my perspective, it is not the question of humility, it is the question of the level where we are moving and discussing.


In your original reply to me, it was a question of humility. Only now you seem to focus on expertise.



Philidor said:


> Just show your expertise, e. g. in an elucidating analysis of the finale, and we are one step further. Sorry to say, but imho your comments are far away from showing deeper insight. I do not say that you don't have such insight, you just didn't show it yet. From my perspective there is no hint that you could do something similar such as Mahler's 6th symphony. This makes things difficult. It feels a little as someone who makes suggestions how to improve the current procedure for landing on the moon but is not able to back into a parking space or to understand and to apply the laws of gravity. I do not want to bother you by these words, and of course I only describe my impression. But I want to point out, that it is not a question of humility, but of knowledge and abilities. (From my perspective.)
> 
> Why should be no repetition of the first movement? Just requiring it makes no statement on eye's level. The reason behind makes the difference. Do you should feel bored when hearing the exposition twice? This could be an individual problem since, as you said, you are listening Mahler's music every day. Then it is not the problem of the symphony. (Just to give an example.) So show your reasons and how they are emerging intrinsically out of the music's structure. (I don't think that Mahler's music was written in order to be listened to every day, so maybe our preconditions could be inadequate for judging the 6th symphony.)
> 
> A last thought: Most people that have gained expertise in some area have become modest by this expertise. For instance, because they have learnt that each answer they have found raised three new questions. - Thus, those who are cropping up with an attitude of "I know everything and I know how to improve everything because I have studied this thing for one year" are a priori suspected to be a little distant from something that one could call expertise.


If you do not understand something I have written or do not agree with it or want to know more, you can comment and ask questions. That is the expected norm in a forum conversation. Not claiming that the other person lacks in humility. I also do not feel like proving my expertise everytime I write something. If you want to know the reasoning behind my statements, please ask me to elaborate or share your own view on the matter -- then we have a true conversation which hopefully goes deeper into the matter.

As a composer I just do my best and it is for other people to evaluate my work after it is published or performed, if it ever is. I make no objective claims on my own output or my own abilities as a composer. I don´t claim to be anything I am not. Also, I do not compare myself to other composers. When I evaluate or criticise the work of Mahler, of course I am not talking as though I was an equal of Mahler. I have not put out 9 symphonies known all around the world for over a hundred years. Still I have all the right in the world to continue artistic evaluation on the works of others. It inspires me and helps me in my own work.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> In your original reply to me, it was a question of humility. Only now you seem to focus on expertise.


This is your interpretation and I do not recognize how it could emerge. But course you are free to interpret it like this.


Waehnen said:


> If you want to know the reasoning behind my statements, please ask me to elaborate or share your own view on the matter


I see, you are definitively right ... your point ... apologies. So please go ahead and show the reasons behind your statements.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> Still I have all the right in the world to continue artistic evaluation on the works of others.


That's correct. And others have all the right in the world for not taking it too seriously.  (You could call it an artistic evaluation of your statements, if you want.)


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> This is your interpretation and I do not recognize how it could emerge. But course you are free to interpret it like this.
> 
> I see, you are definitively right ... your point ... apologies. So please go ahead and show the reasons behind your statements.


Thanks, Philidor, I will do just that, probably later today. But now I have to go für einen Spaziergang am Bach.

I will immediatedly point out, however, that I do not have similar suggestions for symphonies 2 and 3 (which I consider easthetically perfect and perfectly pleasing). Neither do I have such suggestions for symphonies 4, 5 and 9, which I also consider perfect although I do not like everything about their overall balance or every musical element. It is the symphonies 6 and 7 which I continuously find compositionally the most problematic. A little editing would have done wonders. For symphony no. 8 I just do not care for, due to personal preferences -- I do not like so much singing, I find it stressful.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Waehnen, do you believe these modifications would make for a better experience for you individually/personally, or would make the works themselves better, or both/neither? 

I think in principle I'm content to leave the works as they are, exposition repeat and all. And I would generally agree with the argument that even if I didn't understand something in a work of Mahler, I should still defer to Mahler's own genius because I don't have a comprehensive knowledge of everything Mahler. But your above comment


Waehnen said:


> A little editing would have done wonders


reminds me that Mahler himself did quite a lot of editing after setting down the score after hearing these works for the first time. But most of his emendations were on finer points of instrumentation, balance, dynamic levels, and these sorts of things, whereas you are proposing much larger-scale _structural_ amendments. By the time Mahler was writing the middle symphonies, he had already proven himself as a master composer, so I think it would take serious, overwhelming musicological evidence to make me consider any changes. Not to drag everyone back into the Andante/Scherzo or Scherzo/Andante debate about the Sixth symphony, but that issue is one such example of debate, based on evidence both from within the music and from extramusical sources. Transposing the Scherzo would be a big modification so it would need a big justification. So I'm also curious to see your arguments.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Monsalvat said:


> By the time Mahler was writing the middle symphonies, he had already proven himself as a master composer, so I think it would take serious, overwhelming musicological evidence to make me consider any changes... So I'm also curious to see your arguments.


It would of course be futile and arrogant of me to try to actually do the editing to the finale of the 6th and the 1st movement of the 7th. I actually like the material in both movements. Still, no matter how much I contemplate and listen to different versions, I always find myself thinking: this music and these symphonies would benefit SO MUCH from some serious editing on these movements.

My problem now is how to choose the right method of analysis in pointing out the need for some edits. One of the options rising to mind earlier today was quantitive analysis: making it visible in numbers just how many times you have the dotted march rhythm in the finale of the 6th. Or maybe listing the main building blocks and showing how many times the same gestures are being circulated all over again, one wave after another. 

Too long, too much repetition, the handling of the material seems to occasionally be all over the shop with no clear direction in both movements. Had there been some editing, there inevitably would not have been the problem of too much length nor the problem of too much repetition nor the problem of not always having a direction for the music.

The key of the Scherzo is a minor detail. I think C-minor would have been better (@Kreisler jr´s idea actually), but even if it stays A-minor, it ruins nothing, it just puts too much A-minor pressure on the listener who has already soaked up the extremely heavy weight first movement. Even the repetition of the 1st Movement ruins nothing, it just puts unnecessary burden on the listener who is facing a huge and lengthy symphony anyways.

Both the finale of the 6th and the first movement of the 7th put totally _*unnecessary burden*_ on the listener by being too lengthy and repetitive _*for no reason! *_They gain nothing by doing so!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> Always the most boring conversation that seems to reoccur on this forum, and often an excuse to beef up the opinions of coincidental majority-members like themselves. I should ask though, would you say that uniquer musical perspectives would find any value with this blind approach to popularity? Opinions of some popular critics?


 Argument_from_authority 
Argumentum_ad_populum
certain popular critics tend to be overrated too, btw.


hammeredklavier said:


> Mara Parker, who claims to have examined over 650 string quartet works from 1750-1797 (and is much better than the overrated Charles Rosen) -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> I thought omitting/replacing a few arias was more like a casual thing done in opera frequently. By a "version"


There are no such different versions for Zauberflöte or Così AFAIK and in the case of Giovanni they are more or less officially called "Vienna" and "Prague" (and today usually a hybrid is used with both of Ottavio's arias). In any case the difference are greater than swapping two movements and having a hammer blow or not...  which was the charge about Mahler 6th not having a "definite" version.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

There have been remarks on the length of the finale of Mahler 6 (“way too long”).

From my perspective, the excellence of this unique symphony relies heavily on its finale. I admit that it is long, I admit that it is complex, but I trust in everyone with some basic understanding of musical structure that he or she will recognize the need of the expansion as well as the underlying awesome architecture. Of course, both aspects, expansion and architecture, are closely related.

I will try to make a humble attempt to show the need for the expansion by unfolding the structure. To add my perspective, I mostly regret at the end of the finale that it is already over. But what great a journey I was allowed to witness …

In order to get a very easy access to the finale, we could use the three hammer blows (the last of which was cancelled by Mahler). Maybe you could try to listen to some recording with all three strokes to get deeper into the music’s structure and basic ideas (Bernstein/DG or Zander).

From a very simple perspective, the music is starting three times for victory. Three times we are listening to some big stellar flight with crescendo and intensifying density of the singleton events, three times we are stopped by some hammer blow. Three times our imaginary hero tries to accomplish his mission, three times he is getting more and more self-confident, three times he is blinded by his own (assumed) brilliancy, three times the fate interrupts his delusions of grandeur, and the third stroke is killing him. Of course, such story is not to everyone’s liking.

That’s basically the story. But yes, such a simple story is maybe not enough to fill half an hour of music with exciting content. Additionally, the paragraph above is not only an extremely simplified view on the finale, it is just wrong. So we have to get deeper into the stuff.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

*Symbols in Mahler's 6th Symphony*

In the 6th symphony, Mahler makes heavy use of extramusical semantics. He uses symbols in order to communicate abstract processes. So we have to decipher the symbols in order to dive deeper into the world of the 6th symphony. Most symbols are well-known from other works.

*Marches* We know marches from the finale of Beethoven’s 9th, we know them as Marcia funèbre in the Eroica or from the Symphonie fantastique, with Mahler we find them in “Die zwei blauen Augen” and “Tamboursg’sell” or in the first movement of the third symphony (“Pan erwacht. Der Sommer zieht ein”). Thus, marches can have several decipherments. In the 6th symphony I would associate some inexorable proceeding, some execution of a necessity.

*Rhythm of inexorability* You’ll hear it in the first movement, after about 1:44 to 1:55, played by the timpani, accompanied by a roll on the snare drum. It is derived from the march’s rhythm. It often comes together with the

*Major-minor-seal* Played by three trumpets – a chord in A major in fortissimo, decrescendo, turning into A minor.

*Choral* Well-know from Mendelssohn, Symphony No. 5, and Mahler, Symphony No. 2 (“Auferstehn, ja auferstehn”). It is the symbol for religion, or more abstract for order and structure. Sometimes Mahler is deforming it to caricature, so in the second subject of the first movement, where Bernstein’s words are delivering the perfect description: “ … his chorales [sound] like all Christendom gone mad“

*Xylophone* The xylophone is a symbol of the macabre, as did already Saint-Saens in his “Danse macabre”. Its sound reminds rattling bones.

*Tam-tam* No other instrument stands so much for the death as the tam-tam. To be found in Berlioz’ requiem, in Tchaikovsky’s 6th symphony or in “Death and Transfiguration” by Richard Strauss.

*Cowbells* The cowbells are NOT used for suggesting some rural landscape with cows on a meadow. They are rather in place as a symbol for maximum loneliness and remoteness from the world. It is like standing on a high mountain and hearing cowbells at a large distance, as a last reminiscence of civilization.

*”Meer” chord* This chord is called “Meer” chord, because it appears in Schubert’s Lied “Am Meer” (Schwanengesang). It is c – e-flat – g-flat – a-flat, so you could ask whether the “Meer” chord isn’t just some A-flat7, resolving to D-flat major/minor. Well, if it resolves to D-flat major/minor, it is an A-flat7, a dominant seventh chord. But if it resolves to C major (as in Schubert’s Lied), then it is a “Meer” chord. It stands for indefiniteness and confusion.

*Church bells* Interpreting church bells as symbol of religious dogmas is leading the way.

*Hammer* “The indiciation of the intervention of something which is out of this world, of something overpowering, of something fateful, something shattering and supernatural, against which man cannot fight.” (Paul Bekker, Mahler Symphonies, 1921)

Equipped with these symbols and their decipherment we are looking to the plan of the finale.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

I am using three recordings for time indications:


Leonard Bernstein, New York Philharmonic, Sony/CBS
Sir Georg Solti, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Decca
Leonard Bernstein, Wiener Philharmoniker, DG
























The finale is written in sonata form.


*Introduction*

The introduction itself shows already a multi-part architecture. Its expansion supersedes the expansion of the subjects.

0:00/0:00/0:00* „Introduction of the introduction“*, starting with the “Meer” chord. Its indefiniteness is augmented by an stroke on the cymbal with a wrapped mallet. The *“subject of the introduction” *starts at 0:05/0:06/0:06 with an octave in the 1st violins. At 0:18/0:22/0:22 we are encountering the Major-minor-seal with the rhythm of inexorability together with the middle section of the subject of the introduction.

0:36/0:41/0:43 *1st section, remote music I*. The bass tuba is playing some other theme, also starting with an octave, pointing back to the first subject of the first movement as well leading the way to the first subject of the finale. – The „requiem“ section of the coda will also start with such octave played by the bass tuba. In the bass clarinet there is a clear allusion to the first subject of the exposition(1:13/1:16/1:28). – Almost everything that can be heared clearly is some piece of a subject appearing later, the music is rising from the fog – or we are witnessing the creation of the world out of the chaos (“Meer” chord). – Low church bells, anticipation of the 3rd subject of the finale by the French horns. The music is turning back to indefiniteness.

2:34/2:42/3:07 *2nd section, choral in the wind instruments*. „Schwer. Marcato“. The choral leads to the Major-minor-seal with the rhythm of inexorability (3:24/3:29/4:00).

3:30/3:34/4:05 *3rd section, remote music II*. Again we find frazzles of future subjects, grounded by shimmering strings and singleton harp tones. Little by little there is more structure again, at 4:30/4:35/5:07 there is the major-minor-seal.

4:33/4:39/5:10 *Transition* to Exposition, clear anticipation of the first subject, acceleration.


*Exposition

First subject group*
5:00/5:07/5:39 First subject. – To be remembered: the motif played by the trumpet at 5:07/5:14/5:46.

*Second subject group*
5:42/5:49/6:25 at first there is the Major-minor-seal on repeated tones in the trombones, then the *Chorale Theme* appears in the French horns – it starts with an octave downwards..

*Third subject group*
7:14/7:17/8:04 *Third subject*, at first in 1st horn, then continued by the woodwind. First culmination to hymnic and grand gestures.


*Development*

8:17/8:20/9:15 *Introduction*, starting with the subject oft he introduction followed by reminiscences to further motifs from the introduction of the movement, e. g. the theme of the bass tuba. Remote music, cowbells, celesta, tremolo, low church bells. Later: spotlights from nearby.

9:48/9:56/11:07 *1st section*, development of the third subject group. By and by more tempo and more structure, again turning to hymnic and grand gestures.

11:45/11:54/13:26 *2nd section*, starting with the *1st hammer stroke*, followed by the chorale theme (trombones), by the Major-minor-seal (horns) and high activity in the strings. Development oft he choral theme and motifs of the first subject, later with motifs from the third subject group. – Calming down. - At 13:11/13:16/15:09 starts some battle scene using material from the first subject group and sharp rhythms. At 13:29/13:33/15:29 we have the *1st tam-tam-stroke with* Major-minor-seal.

13:32/13:36/15:32 *3rd section*, development of the march-like characters from the first subject group, only here we encounter the rute. At 13:42/13:43/15:42 there is the *2nd* *tam-tam-stroke*. At 14:58/14:47/17:06 we have the chorale theme, at first in the french horns, then powerfully in the trombones. From 15:26/15:14/17:38 there are the hymnic and grand gestures again, then the subject of the introduction has its entry, motifs from the third subject group are joining. Calming down.

16:14/16:00/18:30 *4th section*, starting with the *2nd hammer stroke* and the *3rd tam-tam-stroke*. – Essentially we are facing the development of the chorale theme with agitated strings.


*Recapitulation*

17:08/16:47/19:38 *Introduction*, starting with the *4th tam-tam-stroke*. „Meer“ chord, then the subject of the introduction in the 1st violin, then Major-minor-seal with the rhythm of inexorability.

17:46/17:27/20:30 *Remote music*, similar to the introduction. Three french horns are playing the subject of the bass tuba, accompaniment by violoncelli in tremolo and harps with mediator etc. Low church bells, then cowbells. Beginning of the third subject.

19:45/19:11/22:41 Recapitulation of the *third subject group*, partially together with the chorale theme, but it is in the basses. – At 21:05/20:30/24:11 we have the rhythm of inexorability.

21:33/20:57/24:45 Recapitulation of the *first subject group*. – At 22:20/21:40/25:35 we have the Major-minor-seal with the rhythm of inexorability followed by some recapitulation-like section- At 24:09/23:14/27:29 the music is turning again to hymin and grand gestures, at 24:56/24:00/28:27 even together with the rhythm of inexorability (maximum hubris?).


*Coda*

25:39/24:43/29:19 *5th tam-tam-stroke*, „Meer“ chord, subject of the introduction, at 26:01/25:07/29:50 the *3rd hammer stroke (the deathly one*) with Major-minor-seal and rhythm of inexorability. The fate has won.

26:21/25:25/30:15 *Requiem*, solemn music with four trombones and bass tuba, later with french horns and woodwinds, everything above an timpani roll on A. End of the symphony with the rhythm of inexorability and an a-minor chord (instead of the Major-minor-seal). No more major to turn into minor.

_I owe most of these lines by the bool on Mahler’s Symphonies by Constantin Floros together with a pocket score from Eulenburg and some smaller addenda of my own._


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> I trust in everyone_* with some basic understanding of musical structure *_that he or she will recognize the need of the expansion as well as the underlying awesome architecture.


I thank you for the great analysis but would rather you not writing all the time that people who do not agree with your conclusions do not have any basic understanding of musical structure. I would appreciate if you also rid yourself of expressions like: "I look at your writings with pity and amusement."

You are basically saying that if one finds problem´s with the finale of Mahler´s 6th, they have problems in basic understanding of musical structures and are ridiculous -- people to be laughed at, people that should not be taken seriously.

Sentences like that undermine the sincerity of your analysis. That could be a problem. I rarely have to put up with such rudeness, if ever.

On my own, I have also figured out symbolic gestures from the finale. The relentless adventures of the hero (in many waves) also come to mind inevitably. Also the hammer blows of course are major dramatic points.

I admit all the elements needed for a great great symphonic finale are there. I just think it could have been executed better with some serious editing and further focus of the material and expression. I was even thinking that I could do some editing on DAW of actual recordings (that would be more appreciative of Mahler) to let you hear what I mean but I am afraid I do not have the time, and Philidor would continue to be utterly amused in between feeling great pity towards my efforts.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> I thank you for the great analysis but would rather you not writing all the time that people who do not agree with your conclusions do not have any basic understanding of musical structure. I would appreciate if you also rid yourself of expressions like: "I look at your writings with pity and amusement."


I did neither write the first nor the second pseudo-quote. And I recognize the usual way of guys and girls being short of arguments: There are leaving the discussion ad rem and they say that their "opponent" is a bad guy with bad behaviour etc. They are entering discussion ad personam. I would like to discuss Mahler 6 and I would be glad if you could join this.

I am looking forward to the reasons behind your statements on Mahler 6 that you announced.

I am saying that if someone wants to "improve" Mahler it would be nice to have an idea that this guy or girl is more or less on eye's level with this composer. Maybe it is due to my bad perceptive qualitites, but I did not see this so far.

To be clear: Writing down an analysis with major parts by Constantin Floros, retracing it along the score, finding the link between Mahler's symbolism and architecture does not bring me to that required eye's level. But I do not want to improve Mahler, so I think I do not have to show that I am on par with him.

By the analysis I just tried to understand even better why the finale is so good, and I think, I was in position to bring up some unconscious understanding to a conscious level. At least for myself. If it supports anyone else in listening to Mahler 6 - fine. I think it is one of the major objectives of such forums to support each other in understanding music.

And I feel that I am not alone with my appreciation of the finale. There are lots of people which know much more about composing than I do who are appreciating it highly. I just name Alban Berg ("There is only one 6th symphony, in spite of Beethoven"). So I think those who don't share this appreciation are to show their argument. I did not find much of such yet, but maybe it is my lack of perception.

To my mind, if anyone thinks that the finale is not so good by some unconscious feeling, it could be a good idea to look for the roots of this nonunderstanding.

Maybe you could try to use the analysis to sharpen your undertanding? How about that?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Elliott Carter said:


> Mahler 6 is the greatest symphony ever written. Change my mind. Go ahead, try.


I guess no one changed this member's mind. Certainly, they've not returned to contribute since the thread started 18 months ago.

Did I miss where anyone offered a reasoned argument in favour of an alternative candidate?



EdwardBast said:


> Two different endings is only a shortcoming if one or both of them don't work.


I'm not sure I follow this. If one of the strengths of a candidate for greatest is the coherence of its overall structure, introducing a variation (or two in this particular case) would seem to undermine the claim. On the other hand, the fact that members are willing to argue in favour of the greatness of the 6th and no one argue in favour of, say, Beethoven's 3rd, 5th or 9th or Mozart's 40th or 41st (though some of these have been mentioned) is a point in its favour.

I have a problem with the idea that "greatness" is taken to mean only that which is in some way monumental, serious, deep, meaningful. In fact, the more enigmatic and obscure, the better. Philidor's analysis may help towards an understanding of the symphony's structure etc, but it isn't necessarily an argument for greatness.

Much as I like Mahler's 6th, there are others that I listen to more often, but I guess that just makes me a shallow listener.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Mahler's 9th is not worse imho ...  ... neither from a structural nor from a semantical perspective ...


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

A lot of Philidor's analysis is beyond my knowledge level but I appreciate the breakdown of the 'symbols' used and the link to timings on recordings is of great interest to me. When time permits I will sit down with one of the recordings and try and learn a bit more of the dark arts of composing!
One thing that I was aware of but seeing the timings together highlighted just how much Bernstein had slowed his interpretation down over the years.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> I would like to discuss Mahler 6 and I would be glad if you could join this.
> 
> I am looking forward to the reasons behind your statements on Mahler 6 that you announced.
> 
> Maybe you could try to use the analysis to sharpen your undertanding? How about that?


I have given you arguments. Do you think I have not? What are your requirements for an argument? Is analysis similar to yours the only form of expression you will accept?

Even if I did some research, you could still state I have said nothing. Just like I can say that in your analysis you just gave names to stuff but it does not the slightest change the fact that the movement is too long for the material.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Forster said:


> *I'm not sure I follow this.* If one of the strengths of a candidate for greatest is the coherence of its overall structure, *introducing a variation (or two in this particular case) would seem to undermine the claim.* On the other hand, the fact that members are willing to argue in favour of the greatness of the 6th and no one argue in favour of, say, Beethoven's 3rd, 5th or 9th or Mozart's 40th or 41st (though some of these have been mentioned) is a point in its favour.
> 
> I have a problem with the idea that "greatness" is taken to mean only that which is in some way monumental, serious, deep, meaningful. In fact, the more enigmatic and obscure, the better. Philidor's analysis may help towards an understanding of the symphony's structure etc, but it isn't necessarily an argument for greatness.
> 
> Much as I like Mahler's 6th, there are others that I listen to more often, but I guess that just makes me a shallow listener.


What's to follow? How does having alternate endings, both of which are coherent, constitute a defect? Seems on its face that could just as easily be heard as a mark of special skill.

As for arguing the Sixth is the greatest symphony ever, I find arguments of that kind categorically silly. A specific argument based on perfection of structure doesn't impress me because to my ears Mahler's symphonic structures are always a hot mess, and often wonderful despite or because of this.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> the fact that the movement is too long for the material.


I think there is still no argument for this statement.

If I look to the first movement of Haydn's op. 50 Nr. 1, there is far less material, and the ratio between length and material could be even larger.

But to my mind, the quotient Length/Material is in no way a sensible parameter for discussing the quality of music. Look at the first fugue in the WTC I. In particular when the material is coming along with some semantics.

I think we cannot determine the quality of a novel by dividing the number of pages by the number of pairwise different words (= material) in that novel. Else, everyone would be an expert for literature.

What the composer does with the material is what matters.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

I alternate between 6 & 9 as my favourite and most highly rated of his symphonies. I like 2 & 3 very much too, but they aren't really symphonies, more like extended orchestral suites with vocals, DLVDE even less so.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> What's to follow? How does having alternate endings, both of which are coherent, constitute a defect? Seems on its face that could just as easily be heard as a mark of special skill.
> 
> As for arguing the Sixth is the greatest symphony ever, I find arguments of that kind categorically silly. A specific argument based on perfection of structure doesn't impress me because to my ears Mahler's symphonic structures are always a hot mess, and often wonderful despite or because of this.


What's to follow? The argument that something can be coherent, have complete integrity, and yet have alternative components in its construction. Since you go on to describe "Mahler's symphonic structures" as "a hot mess", it seems we're in agreement.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I have listened to different versions of the finale of the 6th lately. The most convincing version I have heard is surprisingly by Karajan. I felt totally happy with the music for the length of two heroic waves. But again -- I felt disbelief when the 3rd wave started to rise. "How can you be so stupid that you bring this on YET AGAIN?" is always my intuitive reaction. I also felt huge disappointment. I cannot avoid it or help it. The music itself always drives me to the conclusion, although I listen to the work with an open mind, every time.

So my statement is that the finale of the symphony would be much better if there were only 2 heroic waves. The second wave could be made even larger. Inevitably some of the cool material between the waves also needs to be left out, but "luckily" there is plenty of repetition there also. And then after the last wave and some cooling off -- the spectacular ending with the timpany strikes. Now that would be a perfect symphonic finale! Gimme some more concentrated drama with only two heroic waves, please!!!


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> The most convincing version I have heard is surprisingly by Karajan. I felt totally happy with the music for the length of two heroic waves. But again -- I felt disbelief when the 3rd wave started to rise. "How can you be so stupid that you bring this on YET AGAIN?" is always my intuitive reaction.


You are in full accordance with Karajan, and if one didn't know it better, one could suspect that you knew some detail from Karajan's biography.

When Karajan conducted the 6th symphony for the first time (1977), he planned to omit the third section of the finale. His manager at the Berlin Philharmonic ("Intendant" in German, Wolfgang Stresemann in this time) reported that Karajan murmured something about "Kapellmeistermusik", when he left the plane in Berlin for the rehearsals. In fact Stresemann got aware of this cut not earlier than before the last rehearsal.

The manager went to Karajan's room and stated that nobody would understand such giant cut with Mahler. The discussion could not be continued at this point, as the orchestra's assistant reported that the orchestra was ready from rehearsal.

However, Karajan removed the cut in concert, but without rehearsing the part in question. (What artistic achievement for players and conductor!)

So you may feel in excellent company with Herbert von Karajan! However, as always, great people make great errors.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> You are in full accordance with Karajan, and if one didn't know it better, one could suspect that you knew some detail from Karajan's biography.
> 
> When Karajan conducted the 6th symphony for the first time (1977), he planned to omit the third section of the finale. His manager at the Berlin Philharmonic ("Intendant" in German, Wolfgang Stresemann in this time) reported that Karajan murmured something about "Kapellmeistermusik", when he left the plane in Berlin for the rehearsals. In fact Stresemann got aware of this cut not earlier than before the last rehearsal.
> 
> ...


Wow! I had no idea that Karajan also would have liked to cut the last wave. This means a lot to me. Thanks. I am not alone with this although nobody has really agreed with me on TC.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> I am not alone with this although nobody has really agreed with me on TC.


Honesty is the best policy.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> Honesty is the best policy.


Not sure what you mean?


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Afaik, "Honesty is the best policy" is an english proverb.
HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY | meaning, definition in Cambridge English Dictionary


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> Afaik, "Honesty is the best policy" is an english proverb.
> HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY | meaning, definition in Cambridge English Dictionary


I am telling the truth, not lying. Or are you thanking me for being honest? I really cannot tell now.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

I am not talking about you.

I was honest enough for not hiding this chapter from Karajan's biography.

What remains is the funny coincidence that you had Karajan's thoughts when listening to Karajan's recording. Sheer magic.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> I am not talking about you.
> 
> I was honest enough for not hiding this chapter from Karajan's biography.


Thanks for explaining. And thanks for not hiding the chapter.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

You would do well to read this blog from Mahlerian, a musical scholar/composer and former TC member/moderator:
Understanding Mahler's Sixth Symphony, Fourth...
It is worth noting Mahlerian's opinion of HvK's Mahler 6th:
_"Karajan's Mahler infuriates me as a Mahler lover because he messes with the orchestral balances so it doesn't even sound like Mahler, because he blithely ignores Mahler's numerous performance directions, and because he emphasizes certain things over other details which are just as important or even more so. I love the Sixth. It's my favorite Mahler symphony and perhaps my favorite symphony in the whole repertoire, and when I hear Karajan's version it feels like a distortion of the work that is recognizable even under the heavy hand of a Bernstein or the laser-sharp focus of a Boulez (who tends to underplay climaxes, but with such a firm command of structure that the whole is overwhelming despite that)."_


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Thank you very much for sharing, Becca! Yes, it is strange with Karajan's Mahler ... I know the 6th and both recordings of the 9th, but despite their reputation, I never was too lucky with them.

Technically, everything seems to be close to perfection, but the most important things seem to be missing ... in the 9th it happens in the transcendent section of the 3rd movement and in the finale. Correct notes, yes, semantics, well ...

It is reported that when Bernstein was invited to conduct the Berlin Philharmonic, he chose Mahler 9 (this is well-known so far). There is one important entry of the trombones missing (all four trombones!!), but it is reported that Karajan was crying in his loge when Bernstein conducted the finale.

However, this didn't not prevent him rehearsing Mahler 9 after Bernstein's concert and opening the rehearsal with some words about the "répetiteur" who had worked with the orchestra on Mahler 9 before ...


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> _Two different endings is only a shortcoming if one or both of them don't work. So, please explain the defect in either.
> 
> Only one order is authorized by the composer._


Imagine Beethoven's Ninth Symphony ending before the final choral statement or with the chorus singing something else. That's the folly of having a symphony end two different ways.

As to reversing the inner movements, sorry but Mahler authorized it. He even played it that way. It wasn't hard to find this online: "The composer also altered the original order of the symphony's internal movements. Initially he intended for the Scherzo to precede the Andante moderato, but Mahler reversed this sequence between the Essen dress rehearsal and concert."


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

larold said:


> As to reversing the inner movements, sorry but Mahler authorized it. He even played it that way. It wasn't hard to find this online: "The composer also altered the original order of the symphony's internal movements. Initially he intended for the Scherzo to precede the Andante moderato, but Mahler reversed this sequence between the Essen dress rehearsal and concert."


The fact that he swapped the order between publishing and first performance does not mean that he authorized the use of either ordering, quite the contrary as he instructed his publisher to include an erratum instructing that Andante/Scherzo was the correct order.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

larold said:


> Imagine Beethoven's Ninth Symphony ending before the final choral statement or with the chorus singing something else. *That's the folly of having a symphony end two different ways*.
> 
> As to reversing the inner movements, sorry but Mahler authorized it. He even played it that way. It wasn't hard to find this online: "The composer also altered the original order of the symphony's internal movements. Initially he intended for the Scherzo to precede the Andante moderato, but Mahler reversed this sequence between the Essen dress rehearsal and concert."


No, that's the folly of ending Beethoven's Ninth the way you describe.

Read carefully: "Only one order is authorized by the composer." Is, _present tense_. Whatever authorization the initial order might have had was revoked by the author more than a century ago. Had, was, _past tense_.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> What remains is the funny coincidence that you had Karajan's thoughts when listening to Karajan's recording. Sheer magic.


The symphony sounded very inspired... until the 3rd wave begun. I felt sorry for Karajan for being forced to conduct yet another wave -- as it is against basic musical instincts and sense of scope and constellation if you ask me.

Then again I must say: if there are people who truly love even the 3rd wave and think it is refreshing music and feel that there are new ideas pouring one after the another, and feel most enthusiastic and invigorated by the gorgeous marching all the 30 minutes of the finale even after the 45 minutes of the first three movements, and then who am I to question their experience? If there are people who see NO PROBLEMS AT ALL in the finale, well good for them!


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Waehnen said:


> What is so horrible about my comments? I *totally reject the idea suggested by Philidor and echoed by you that I would not have all the right in the world to express my thoughts on how the Mahler 6th would be a better symphony *[emphasis added] in my ears, heart and mind.


Not sure where I (I can't speak for Philidor, as I have not re read the entire thread & all his posts) suggested you don't have a right to express your opinion. As I have exercised right to express mine about specifically your statement regarding your lack of will towards humility in this case. The rest of the points in your post are fair enough. Taking you at your word, I would hazard to say you have studied this piece of work far more than I have.

V


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Ethereality said:


> Always the most boring conversation that seems to reoccur on this forum, and often an excuse to beef up the opinions of coincidental majority-members like themselves. I should ask though, would you say that uniquer musical perspectives would find any value with this blind approach to popularity? Opinions of some popular critics?


I believe there is a great difference from "Opinions of some popular critics" and something deeply entrenched in a particular Canon that has withstood the harsh test of time, as I stated in my post.

One doesn't have to believe in the afterlife, hell, purgatory, or heaven (paradise) to recognize the greatness and the deep philosophical nature and truths of the human spirit throughout "The Divine Comedy" and that it is worth serious consideration and contemplation. I do believe there are objectively great things that have been created by man. I think an indication of that greatness is the passing the harsh test of time, not by "some" critics, but by multitudes of them, many/most of whom are steeped in the study and understanding of a particular subject. Is this an airtight formula? Of course not. Outliers have completely changed the course of history, and thank God for them. I rather like outliers and those that see things from a different (minority) perspective. They may be wrong, but rarely uninteresting.

There's a huge difference between my perspective regarding the arts and the fleeting popularity of Top 40 music. Just as there is a big difference in wanting to "blindly" investigate music BECAUSE it's in the Top 40 charts and wanting to "blindly" investigate Bach's Mass in B Minor BECAUSE it's been around for so long, has been studied so thoroughly, and performed and adored through the ages.

Perhaps Waehnen is such a person. He certainly makes a compelling case for his suggestions to the improvements of Mahler's 6th. I took issue with his bold statement regarding humility. But as they say, fortune [often] favors the bold.

V


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Varick said:


> Not sure where I (I can't speak for Philidor, as I have not re read the entire thread & all his posts) suggested you don't have a right to express your opinion. As I have exercised right to express mine about specifically your statement regarding your lack of will towards humility in this case. The rest of the points in your post are fair enough. Taking you at your word, I would hazard to say you have studied this piece of work far more than I have.
> 
> V


Philidor and I sorted that thing out. He didn´t like the way I expressed myself I didn´t like the way he expressed it. Sometimes that is hard to avoid in a forum environment. I admit that my writing is sometimes strong and bold, and could even be annoying. So I will not be playing victim here. That´s all, no harm done!


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

I think, many people are discussing their individual problems with this and that in the internet. So I agree Waehnen has all the right to do this, too.

I also think that it is the level of arguments that makes the difference between a discussion to be taken seriously and to be taken not seriously. To my mind, some statement like "I feel it is too long" is just too few. "I feel it is too long" - the reasons for this may be on the source's side or on the receiver's side. In other words: "I feel it is too long" is not necessarily a statement on the piece, but on its listener.

In addition, we are more than 100 years away from the times when Mahler's symphonies were written. For me, it feels (and now I start to express feeling, too ...  ) like with some churches. In the Romanic time, some church was built, and in the Gothic time, taste has changed and people came along saying "I think we should change this and that".

Sometimes, they actually changed this and that. The result was mostly some stylistic patchwork, which satisfied some individuals in details, but lost his wholeless, his being "all of a piece".


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> I think, many people are discussing their individual problems with this and that in the internet. So I agree Waehnen has all the right to do this, too.
> 
> I also think that it is the level of arguments that makes the difference between a discussion to be taken seriously and to be taken not seriously. To my mind, some statement like "I feel it is too long" is just too few. "I feel it is too long" - the reasons for this may be on the source's side or on the receiver's side. In other words: "I feel it is too long" is not necessarily a statement on the piece, but on its listener.
> 
> ...


Of course one cannot scientifically prove in laboratory environment that a Mahler symphony is of a perfect length, too short or too long. One should not require arguments from others that one cannot give themselves.

So the evaluation has to be done in relation to the context of the western classical music. One attempt for creating context on this matter is to make comparisons and ask questions like:


Are Mahler symphonies longer than other symphonies in average?
What are the musical techniques with which Mahler has achieved the additional length?
What specific challenges the additional length produces for the performers and the listeners?
How do people vote in a poll that tries to tackle the issue of Mahler´s symphonies possibly being too long?
What are the common arguments and what musical values do the different opinions of the community represent?

Things like that.

The reason why I am sometimes bold in my statements is due to the fact that I have lived my life in this culture. This culture has built me (although of course there are certain factors specific to an individual). The values of this culture are strongly represented in me. So whenever I have a strong intuitive or analytical view on some musical matter, I can be pretty sure that my opinion echoes and mirrors the opinions of some other people, too. So far it has always been that way.

When it comes to the finale of the Mahler´s 6th Symphony, Karajan himself was ready to perform the finale with a similar cut I had in mind. The two of us most certainly came to the same conclusion because we have lived in the same culture and the values of the culture affect our musicality. Although we did not know of each others pondering on it.

None of my musical views or deeds or compositions or performances or experiences have never represented just myself.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> Are Mahler symphonies longer than other symphonies in average?
> What are the musical techniques with which Mahler has achieved the additional length?
> What specific challenges the additional length produces for the performers and the listeners?
> How do people vote in a poll that tries to tackle the issue of Mahler´s symphonies possibly being too long?
> What are the common arguments and what musical values do the different opinions of the community represent?


To my mind, a composer with intrinsic need to write a symphony would never ask such questions, whether it is longer than other symphonies, what are the challenges, what are the poll results, ...

To be honest: You said the things that I suspected. I am sorry to say this.

I think it won't change your opinion to state the examples by Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Liszt and many more who never asked whether something is too long, too difficult or had some poll in mind when composing.

Other question, to be very clear: Is there some difference in, say, designing a new fragance and writing a symphony? Or do both have to obey the same laws of the market?

To my mind, your approach is far away from an artistic approach. Just my opinion. You say that you are a composer. Ok, I believe it. Do you have polls in mind when writing your pieces?


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> To my mind, a composer with intrinsic need to write a symphony would never ask such questions, whether it is longer than other symphonies, what are the challenges, what are the poll results, ...
> 
> To be honest: You said the things that I suspected. I am sorry to say this.
> 
> ...


I edited my text a bit, please read it again. I think you missed the point. Of course composer has the right to compose what he or she wants. But the composition and the reception still happens within a context of a culture.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Karajan was a merchandiser with the ability to conduct. It is well-known that he often made decisions for non-artistic reasons.

For the rest: I do not see any reason to change my statement. I think you are keeping alive some non-artistic discussion.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> But the composition and the reception still happens within a context of a culture.


Yep.

And this context of culture has changed a little bit since Mahler.

Today's music culture is dominated by clips with a length of about 3 minutes, right?


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

Philidor said:


> Today's music culture is dominated by clips with a length of about 3 minutes, right?


There were plenty of 3 minute songs back in 1906, too. Overwhelmingly more than orchestral pieces of the same year. The 3 minute pop song is not unique to our era.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> To my mind, your approach is far away from an artistic approach. Just my opinion. You say that you are a composer. Ok, I believe it. Do you have polls in mind when writing your pieces?


It is hard for me to follow your logic, to be honest.

I said to be of the opinion that the 6th Symphony Finale by Mahler would benefit from some edits. That´s all.

In reaction, the above statement of mine has so far caused you to claim that:


I am not humble enough
I am not expert/competent enough
I am not artistic enough

How about you rather admitting that even in the context of our culture there can be many different OK ways of perceiving the output of Mahler?

I think it is totally OK and wonderful actually if one is able to love even the 3rd wave of the finale! I don´t consider anyone incompetent for loving the finale.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> Yep.
> 
> And this context of culture has changed a little bit since Mahler.
> 
> Today's music culture is dominated by clips with a length of about 3 minutes, right?


The context inside which Mahler´s music was evaluated back then and is evaluated even today is the context of the western classical symphonic concert music. The competence of the listeners to do this evaluation is wider and deeper today than it has ever been.

The context is not Top 10 Pop Songs of 2022.

If I created a 90 minutes long Pentatonic Symphony using only the black keys of the piano and the waltz rhythm, would you accuse all the critics of the work having a non-artistic approach? Would you say they are not humble enough? Would you say their expertise is not high enough to do the evaluation?

If you would allow the criticism towards Waehnen´s 90 minutes Pentatonic Black Key Waltz Symphony, then you must also allow the criticism towards your favourite composers.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

So @Philidor asked me on another thread why I think the 6th is too long whilst the 3rd is not. He also suggested that the finale of the 6th might be too complicated for me.

The finale of the 6th is not too complicated for me, but the repetition gets boring for my ears and creates frustration at the 3rd wave -- and I used to think the 3rd wave shows some lack of judgement. Then again, I figured out a little while ago that the excess repetition is not due to lack of judgement but the great Mahlerian aim of trying to _overwhelm_ the listener.

It would be very easy to point out through music analysis that the 3 immense waves of the finale of the 6th put much more pressure on the listener than, say, the 1st movement of the 3rd Symphony. To begin with, you START with the huge movement when it comes to the 3rd. There is much more repetition in the 6th whereas there is a lot more variation and contrasts in the 3rd symphony. The rhythms of the 6th symphony finale are also much more monotonous and simple. Also the harmonies are simpler in the 6th (there is less variation). The melodies are more inspired and varied in the 3rd Symphony. Only the polyphony and certain orchestral effects and dramatic gestures of the finale of the 6th offer higher profile than the 3rd.

Also, the 3rd does not suffer from the recycling of material. I actually had an idea this morning that maybe I should gather a data table: for I have spotted SO MANY rhythms, gestures and melodic fragments that the symphonies 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 share with each other. So for me it is inevitable that those symphonies fall behind the 2nd, 3rd and the 9th which succeed in providing the most unique material of all the Mahler Symphonies.

Now I would kindly ask @Philidor to tell me in detail just how he would like me to continue this conversation. I am ready to answer your every detailed question and go to the bottom of this. Then you also have to consider the method with which I am supposed to even be able to give an answer. If you ask me to objectively prove the 6th Symphony finale is too long, then you have to be able to objectively prove it is not too long. I will not be mindlessly hopping around trying to prove my competence to you.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> the repetition gets boring for my ears


That's exactly the point. Your are bored, my pleasure is raising from wave to wave. So I think you can't set your perception as absolute. If you are bored, I think it is your problem.


Waehnen said:


> It would be very easy to point out through music analysis that the 3 immense waves of the finale of the 6th put much more pressure on the listener than, say, the 1st movement of the 3rd Symphony.


Please explain what you mean by "pressure on the listener". Never heard this expression in such context.


Waehnen said:


> Also, the 3rd does not suffer from the recycling of material.


To my opinion, this is no argument at all. What do you mean by "recycling of material"? "Recycling" sounds for me as if the material was already used, now it is old and it has to be restaurated in order to be fresh ... I think your wording lacks precision in this point. And our wording is a mirror of our thinking.

I have no problem if the subject of the first fugue of WTC I appears a lot of times. I wouldn't call it "recycling".


Waehnen said:


> for I have spotted SO MANY rhythms, gestures and melodic fragments that the symphonies 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 share with each other.


Yeah. No problem. You find the same with Bruckner 7/8/9.


Waehnen said:


> If you ask me to objectively prove the 6th Symphony finale is too long, then you have to be able to objectively prove it is not too long.


I think I did not say that the finale is objectively not too long. But I understood that you confirmed several times that the finale was too long. Objectively.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

DELETED


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

I would lie if I said that I didn't expect a similar reaction. - Good luck!


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

DELETED


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> That's exactly the point. Your are bored, my pleasure is raising from wave to wave. So I think you can't set your perception as absolute. If you are bored, I think it is your problem.


I am not often bored or frustrated with classical music. I happen to be of the opinion that if I, a product of the western classical music culture, constantly get bored or frustrated over a particular piece of music in the somewhat same place, it is very likely that many others also will find problems with similar things. I even made a poll here, where 50% of the TC community found places in Mahler´s output which would benefit from some editing or shortening. So no, I am not alone in this. And no, it is not only my problem.

That a signicant portion of us listeners find some problems in Mahler´s output does not mean that we would try to rob Mahler his artistic freedom in hindsight, like you have suggested. Of course not. We are just expressing that the music would have benefitted from some editing -- and that is one of the views on the matter that the classical music community has. There is nothing wrong in expressing that.



Philidor said:


> Please explain what you mean by "pressure on the listener". Never heard this expression in such context.


I think a composer needs to some extent keep in mind the receptive, mental and neurological capabilities of the audience. In the symphonic literature this principle has quite often resulted in that the most heavy-weight movement is the first movement, whereas the finale has often been triumphant. Even in Mahler´s own output the 6th symphony is an exception in placing the most high-intensity and lengthy listening into the finale. The rewards and results for doing such a thing should be undeniable and I think they are not.




Philidor said:


> To my opinion, this is no argument at all. What do you mean by "recycling of material"? "Recycling" sounds for me as if the material was already used, now it is old and it has to be restaurated in order to be fresh ... I think your wording lacks precision in this point. And our wording is a mirror of our thinking.


Yes, I admit that the illusion collapses and the magic is broken when for example in the 4th Symphony I hear material that sound just like the Scherzo of the 5th. Or when I hear the even rhythm staccato hopping on the same note in every middle symphony. Or when Mahler comes down the minor scale with a dotter march rhythm. The recycling of the same melodic fragments, basic rhythms, harmonic elements, motivic elements and orchestral gestures from symphony to symphony create a great feeling of the composer being _uninspired, lazy or in a rush. _I really do not like that in music. Add to that the huge length.



Philidor said:


> I think I did not say that the finale is objectively not too long. But I understood that you confirmed several times that the finale was too long. Objectively.


I have never said to be able to prove in a laboratory environment that the 6th Symphony Finale is too long. What I have been saying is that in the context of the Western classical symphonic concert music, the meaning, position and quality of Mahler is not undisputed. There has always been and still is place for criticism. That Mahler´s output is somewhat uneven is one of the views held in the classical music community. I happen to be of that view.

I have lately realised that people tend to rank the symphonies in a similar way that I do -- outside of Talk Classical, that is. When ranked outside Talk Classical, the symphonies 2, 3 and 9 are always on top, and symphonies 6, 7 and 8 in the bottom. For me it tells that as an agent of the community, I am merely putting into words something that many before me have come to realise.










Beethoven's Eroica voted greatest symphony of all time


German and Austrian composers occupy eight of top 10 places in survey of leading conductors by BBC Music magazine




www.theguardian.com




*The BBC Music Magazine top 10*

*1.* Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
*2.* Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
*3. *Mozart Symphony No 41 (1788)
*4. Mahler Symphony No 9 (1909)
5. Mahler Symphony No 2 (1894 rev 1903)
6.* Brahms Symphony No 4 (1885)
*7.* Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique (1830)
*8.* Brahms Symphony No 1 (1876)
*9.* Tchaikovsky Symphony No 6 (1893)
*10. Mahler Symphony No 3 (1896)



classicalmusiconly*
Symphony No. 5
Symphony No. 9
Symphony No. 2 in C Minor (Resurrection)
Symphony No. 1 in D Major (Titan)
Symphony No. 3
Symphony No. 6 (Tragic)
Symphony No. 4 in G Major
Symphony No. 8 in E-flat Major (Symphony of a Thousand)
Symphony No. 7 (Song of the Night)



*





Which is the best Mahler Symphony? | Classical Music


All nine Mahler masterpieces ranked worst to best



www.classical-music.com




*Symphony No. 9
Symphony No. 3
Symphony No. 2
Symphony No. 1
Symphony No. 4
Symphony No. 7
Symphony No. 5
Symphony No. 6
Symphony No. 8


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Art is not democratic, though; at least most art isn’t. And Mahler was not known to necessarily be friendly to audiences; he insisted that ushers not allow latecomers, for example. Perhaps his music could be viewed as a challenge to the audience, to expand their horizons, ability, or creativity, but not to give them something that would easily please them. Webern certainly challenged his audiences, albeit in a _very_ different way.

As far as the editing is concerned, my view would be to leave them alone, and most people I think would agree with this in modern performance. I acknowledge however that Mahler was known to revise scores; usually, this did not extend into the _structural_ as I recall but more points of balance, orchestration, and texture. The Ninth obviously did not receive this stage of revision since Mahler never heard it; the Sixth, however, did, but one could speculate about whether Mahler may have made more revisions if given the chance. I think what you are saying is not to allow a musicologist to revise Mahler's scores and come up with a condensed performing version, but instead to express remorse that Mahler's own internal revision processes did not extend farther in the case of the Sixth. If so, that seems reasonable to me, even though I don’t share any desire to change it and don’t experience the frustration that you do with this piece. Since this did not occur, we are left with the score as we have it and must base our performances and speculations off of that.

I don’t wish to intrude on this discussion much further since it has turned personal and negative.


----------



## LKB (Jul 27, 2021)

It occurs that for many, " personal and negative " would be a pretty good description of Mahler's 6th...


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> I happen to be of the opinion that if I, a product of the western classical music culture, constantly get bored or frustrated over a particular piece of music in the somewhat same place, it is very likely that many others also will find problems with similar things.


To my opinion, the basic error this that you are looking for the reasons of your dissatisfaction only in the music, not within you.

The reception of music is a resonance phenomenon. You might get into resonance with the piece to a more or less extent. The degree of resonance does not depend only from the piece, it also depends from the listener.

A man who has never encountered Western music with its major/minor-oriented harmonics might have some problems to listen even to the best known Brahms waltz.


Waehnen said:


> I even made a poll here, where 50% of the TC community found places in Mahler´s output which would benefit from some editing or shortening.


This proves nothing from my point of view as about the same percentage of threads is of the kind "Beethoven for beginners" or similar.

Given the fact that McDonalds has the largest turnover of all restaurants, would you conclude that they are the best restaurant in the world?


Waehnen said:


> I think a composer needs to some extent keep in mind the receptive, mental and neurological capabilities of the audience.


No. Not at all. A composer has to compose what he has to compose. (If he is not a composer for merchandising jingles.) Maybe his piece will not get into resonance with many listeners - bad luck then.

But what kind of receptive should he have in mind? An expert for serial music? A beginner in classical music?

Besides, you are suggesting that the audience is uniform, which is obviously wrong.


Waehnen said:


> I have lately realised that people tend to rank the symphonies in a similar way that I do -


I think that ranking artwork of the complexity of a classic or romantic symphony is not a proof of the competence of the guy or girl doing this ranking. Full stop.

Why is Mahler #5 better or worse than Mahler #6? Nonsense. You can say that runner X is faster on 100 m than runner Y. But Mahler #5 "better" than Mahler #6? What a complexity-reduced view on classical music. What a pity.

All we can do is expressing different degrees of resonance. Some people get in better resonance with Mahler #5 than with Mahler #6, for others it is vice versa. This is at least to the same extent a statement on the listener as on the work itself - trivial, as it is a resonance phenomenon. So we cannot rank the piece, just the degree of resonance. And the listener contributes heavily to the result.

Do you really think that you can bring such complex, mulit-faceted entity as a symphony in a one-dimensional ranking without loss of essential aspects? Are you really a composer?


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Right at this moment, I cannot think of another way to approach this conversation other than answering to you, line by line. Arguing against conceptions produced by the imagined Straw Man.



Philidor said:


> To my opinion, the basic error this that you are looking for the reasons of your dissatisfaction only in the music, not within you.


On the contrary, I always look for the reasons for my dissatisfaction within myself first. It is only after some thorough research and exploring my own boundaries that I might come to the conclusion that the issue at hand might actually be a problem not limited only to myself. There must be a way to talk about the things that people truly find beyond just their personal taste, it must be allowed and it should be even welcomed.



Philidor said:


> Besides, you are suggesting that the audience is uniform, which is obviously wrong.


I am not suggesting that the audience is uniform. But I think a good composer keeps in mind the audience for whom the piece is composed. It is an art form directed for the human ears and mind, after all. One can never please everyone, but there is a point imaginable after which the composer might go too far in neglecting the audience, or a big proportion of the audience. There are limits to us being human. 

Creating esoteric curiosities for specialised clerics is another thing. But we are talking about a major mainstream composer here who is going through maybe the greatest hype of one single composer in the history of Western concert music. I think the Mahler hype has gone too far.



Philidor said:


> Do you really think that you can bring such complex, mulit-faceted entity as a symphony in a one-dimensional ranking without loss of essential aspects? Are you really a composer?


You made many assumptions on my opinions and I don´t have the energy to correct them all. Anyway, where have I said that a ranking would somehow be a definite indicator on the value of a piece of art? I have never said anything like that because I do not think that way. Every receiver is unique and have their own inner system of experiencing, balancing different aspects of the experience and then evaluating. The most refined composition on earth most probably is not the most popular... It is a given that ranking complex pieces of art has problems if you try to see too much depth from the results. Nevertheless, through polls and research we can still find some tendencies which tell vital information about the culture, community and the values.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Monsalvat said:


> I acknowledge however that Mahler was known to revise scores; usually, this did not extend into the _structural_ as I recall but more points of balance, orchestration, and texture.


Good point. Formally Mahler's symphonies are very strong, much stronger than their romantic, expansive and expressive content would make you think. It's significant that he always fixed the structure at an early stage of composition and he barely ever altered the structure of his works after the initial sketches. That's the reason too why we can enjoy the 10th symphony as a more or less completed work - even the raw sketches already contain the complete, yet skeletal, structure of the piece.

In that respect Mahler was an atypical Romantic composer. His method of composition seems to be much more "classical", or if you want, "neoclassical" than that of his contemporaries. The 6th is a casebook study in classical formality, with strict sonata form allegros as first and last movements. Just compare that to the puzzle piece/building block forms of Bruckner or the improvisational structures of Tchaikovsky. What could be done with some degree of success to Tchaikovsky's and even Bruckner's music (shortening/cutting like in the case of the Manfred symphony or any of Bruckner's works in old editions) would be nigh impossible with Mahler. So I think some people are very much barking up the wrong tree here.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> I am not suggesting that the audience is uniform.


But yes - you required that a composer has to take the audience into account. How should he do if there are various expectations and limits of perception in the audience?


Waehnen said:


> But we are talking about a major mainstream composer


Logical error on your side. Whether Mahler was a mainstream composer or not, was decided decades after the process of composing. It was the record which made Mahler mainstream. At his time, Mahler did not compose in mainstream style. Very easy.

May I say that I am tired to show up all your errors in argumentation?

Besides, Mahler himself said that his time will come. So he knew that he was not understood in his time and in no way mainstream.


Waehnen said:


> I think the Mahler hype has gone too far.


You may think this way. But who cares?

Hypes come and go, what will remain, is musical suibstance.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> May I say that I am tired to show up all your errors in argumentation?


So far you haven´t showed up a single error in my argumentation. You have only made twisted purposeful conclusions about my writings and then tried to hold me accountable for your own thought processes. Anyway, it seems I cannot change this argument method of yours. @Monsalvat is right that this is getting very negative, and I am sure everyone who has followed this thread will know who has been the more constructive one, and who the disrespectful and even aggressive one.

Case closed. Sorry all!


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

👍


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Waehnen said:


> I cannot change this argument method of yours.


No. But you can still _change_ the music; rewrite the Mahler in a way you would like.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> No. But you can still _change_ the music; rewrite the Mahler in a way you would like.


I do not have the time nor the will and I think it would be arrogant on my part. Quite many people are happy with the piece the way it is. Messing around with Mahler would create a lot of completely unnecessary negativity.

Yes, if the community gave me the task, I would remove the repetition from the first movement, change the key of the 3rd Movement Scherzo to C minor, and cut the 3rd wave of the finale with some necessary adjustments, making the 2nd wave even more dramatic and maybe adding some contrast -- everything based on rearranging Mahler´s own material with minimal changes. That way the symphony would have a more aesthetically balanced profile and less to do with the overwhelming. I would absolutely love the symphony that way. 

But messing with Mahler is none of my business, really. So I try to bring this little story to an end here. Again, sorry all!


----------

