# Reordering symphony movements



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Once again there is a thread about the preferred order of the middle two movements of Mahler's 6th symphony. The argument seems to devolve into either (1) do what Mahler explicitly wanted or (2) do the opposite because it makes more sense and/or "sounds right to me". This isn't an argument that I remember having seen about any other symphony, either by Mahler or anyone else but if one is going to use the rationale of what sounds better or seems to make more musical sense, then why not consider other symphonies? So the question is: if you believe that it is appropriate to do so, what symphony do you think works better if some of the movements are reordered, and why?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

This should never happen - play it the way the composer wrote it. I remember reading an astonishing account of someone (I wish I could remember who) conducting the Tchaikovsky 6th and thought the audience wanted to leave the concert on a happy note so switched the order of the last two movements. I have participated in concerts where the conductor has omitted a movement because of time, his lack of understanding or the orchestra's inability to play it...and I hated doing it. I've also done the Mahler 3rd with the 4th and 5th vocal movements omitted. Didn't like that either, but saved the problem of getting a chorus and soloist.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Personally I agree but given the logic used for the Mahler 6th S/A order...


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Other than the over 30 versions or editions of the 9 Bruckner Symphonies, which opens them up to a wide choice of preferences by listeners because of Bruckner's own insecurities, I can't imagine any well-known symphony being different than what the composer intended. What a mess. But even then I doubt if the order of the movements that Bruckner wanted has ever been challenged or desired to be different... I don't know, there are so many different edits, either by himself or others, to easily keep track of them all.

Some symphonies have of course been played with major cuts over the years, such as the Rachmaninoff Symphony No. 2, but even then the composer knew what he wanted and grudgingly gave into the edits for one reason or another. I have no problem with hearing either the short or long performance because Rachmaninoff wasn't being insecure as if he didn't know which end was up when he wrote it. He wanted the complete or longer version played, and of course now it is.

In Mahler's instance, there's no indication that he didn't know exactly what he wanted once he finally decided to perform his 6th publically, and he never doubted his decision in the choice of order in the 5 years after he made it, nor did anyone else until a number of years later after he died. 

If he'd played it even once publically with the Scherzo before the Andante, it might have shown some serious doubts on his part about how to order those middle-two movements, but he never did, ever, while having plenty of time to do so before he died. 

Those who like the Scherzo-Andante order probably heard the symphony for the first time in that order and they're so used to it that they are unable to hear it any other way. Okay fine. Nevertheless, MAHLER obviously heard it in rehearsal in the S-A ordering, decided that he didn't like it, and HE was able to adjust. So who has the better ears?—a conductor such as Christoph Eschenbach, who probably heard it for the first time as S-A and still prefers it that way because it's what he used to with rationalizations, or Maher, who wrote the symphony in the first place? It's an interesting and unprecedented situation, but with Mahler's published scores and time on his side rather than Radz's and Alma Mahler's. 

Osmo Vänskä and the Minnesota Orchestra's recent recording of the 6th has the A-S ordering, and I believe there will be more contemporary recordings by others using and honoring Mahler's final published score. Simon Rattle and Maurice Janson also use A-S.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

So has it been that most conductors have played Mahler 6 in S-A order? All my sets are that way and I have Abravanel, Bernstein, Kubelik, and Levine.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

You are not wrong. But I learned the work wityh the S/A order, found it made wonderful sense to me that way and, like any good Philistine, prefer hearing it that way. What to do? I'm too old to change, and my listening habits should not be something anyone else needs to lose sleep over. 

On the other hand, I wouldn't care if the Brahms Second didn't have any inner movements at all.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

This sometimes happens when I put stuff on my USB for the car. Sometimes the numbering / tagging gets mixed up by my car mp3 player. I listened to Mahler's 1st with the middle two movements the wrong way around last week. It wasn't that strange, tbh. When I was doing all my LvB cycle reviews there was one performance of Beethoven's 4th that played completely out of order (something like 3-2-4-1). Now that was *really* odd however I did enjoy the novelty (even if it did my head in).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't think my position (viz a vis Mahler 6) is represented in the summary of positions in the OP. It isn't about which order sounds right to me. I actually think it is a problem for the conductor to fix whichever way you play it - it is a big weakness of the work, if you will - and thinking that may help me not to get very exercised about the question. My position, for what it is worth, is that a great performance is a great performance .... and I believe quite a few great performances play it in the "wrong" order. I prefer not to programme my player to "correct" the order as I think that the conductor's interpretation is made for the order s/he uses. Obviously, I do reorder the Barbirolli because we know he wanted the Scherzo after the slow movement but EMI overruled him.

I do think that when a composer (or a playwright) writes something for performance they have let it go. They can go back to edit it further (and many composers have done this repeatedly). But it is not at all uncommon for performers to change what they know the writer may have intended. And, then, when the performance is out there, it is what the audience make of it (rather than what was intended by writer _or _interpreter). Indeed any written work or painting belongs to the audience in the end and what they find in it is what is there as far as that moment is concerned. Of course, discussion of meaning and artists' intentions can influence how an audience like a work to be done - this thread is perhaps proof of that - and rightly so.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Regardless of what I say above, I do believe that in general, a composer's second or third thoughts have merit. (The exception is Schumann, whose revisions tended to make things worse.) The Mahler First is better without the Blumine movement. Britten excised an entire song from the Serenade, and the published result has a far better shape and progression. The "original" Janacek Mass, as recorded by MacKerras, is in no way superior to the version we all know. The part of the danced version of Appalachian Spring that Copland left out of the orchestral version would bring the whole thing to a halt. (This matches my views as a writer, that editors generally know what they're doing.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

MarkW said:


> The "original" Janacek Mass, as recorded by MacKerras, is in no way superior to the version we all know.


That is a very different situation given the reasons why the changes were made (and many of the changes were made AFTER Janacek died).


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

What about Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov. He wrote the 1869 version and then in 1872 added the Polish and Kromy Forest scenes and deleting the cathedral scene, but some conductors keep all of it and then have the holy fool twice. Which version did Mussorgsky prefer? It seems the 1872 version was only done after the theater requested a female vocal part be added and his companions in the Mighty Five sort of pressured him, particularly R-K.

Who here re arranges Boris Godunov? I like to include the Polish scene, keep the cathedral scene, but eliminate the Kromy Forest scene.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

MarkW said:


> The Mahler First is better without the Blumine movement.


I find Blumine utterly pointless. No wonder Mahler binned it.


----------

