# Mahler Symphony no 6



## DavidA

Not yo be confused with the current Solti / CSO thread. 

This is an incredible and even disturbing work. Favoured recordings?


----------



## Bwv 1080

6 (and 7) is Boulez for me


----------



## Manxfeeder

I'm in a Boulez kick also.


----------



## Bill Cooke

Bernstein/Vienna was my introduction to the piece. I always thought it was magnificent until I tried Karajan, which became my go-to recording until I read so many bad reviews of it and thought I better explore other interpretations.

Lately I'm really enjoying Mariss Jansons with the LSO. It is strong on all counts: recorded sound, forward drive, drama, detail.

If you don't mind mono recordings, there's a live 1955 recording by Mitropoulos and the NYP that has great drive and character. Unfortunately the sonics are rather limited and audience noise is noticeable. 

If Sanderling is ever re-released, I'll add that one to my collection, too.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I have four prime recommendations:

Sir John Barbirolli (EMI)
Eduard van Beinum (Tahra)
Leonard Bernstein (DG)
Jascha Horenstein (1969) (BBC)

And then for additional listening:

Sir John Barbirolli (Testament)
Dmitri Mitropoulos (1955) (Archipel, NYPO)
Hermann Scherchen (1961) (Tahra)
Leonard Bernstein (Sony)
Herbert von Karajan (DG)
Thomas Sanderling (Real Sound)

Some say the studio Barbirolli is too slow in the beginning movement. To me it is one of the most powerful symphony recordings of which I know, one of the great Mahler recordings of all time alongside the Ferrier/Walter DLVDE, Walter 1939 1st, Horenstein 8th, and Barbirolli’s live 1960 9th.


----------



## Merl

Lots of great 6ths out there but for me Currentzis (recent favourite) , Jansons (both RCO & LSO) , Sanderling, Gielen, Kubelik (Audite), Tilson Thomas, Jarvi and Bernstein nail it. For two dark horses that ride roughshod over Mahler's wishes, but both sound great, I'll go for Barbirolli's dark as hell 6th and Karajan's orchestral perfection (the BPO play brilliantly).


----------



## DavidA

Merl said:


> Lots of great 6ths out there but for me Currentzis (recent favourite) , Jansons (both RCO & LSO) , Sanderling, Gielen, Kubelik (Audite), Tilson Thomas, Jarvi and Bernstein nail it. *For two dark horses that ride roughshod over Mahler's wishes,* but both sound great, I'll go for Barbirolli's dark as hell 6th and Karajan's orchestral perfection (the BPO play brilliantly).


This business of riding roughshod over Mahler's wishes - there seem to be many different ways of interpreting the music. Even those who knew him - Walter and Klemperer - conducted it in very different ways. I've heard said Klemperer ignores Mahler's markings in some of his performances. Even Mahler conducted his own music different ways. So some guidance as to who is conducting it the correct way is welcome!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

“I curse the conductor who does not do all he can to improve my music!”

- Gustav Mahler


----------



## Merl

DavidA said:


> This business of riding roughshod over Mahler's wishes - there seem to be many different ways of interpreting the music. Even those who knew him - Walter and Klemperer - conducted it in very different ways. I've heard said Klemperer ignores Mahler's markings in some of his performances. Even Mahler conducted his own music different ways. So some guidance as to who is conducting it the correct way is welcome!


Fair comment. Let's just say that they are two very different ends of the Mahler 6th spectrum. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Just listening to Tennstedt's studio recording. Scary stuff full of jagged edges. Just one movement at a time I think.

*BTW opinions about the order of movements [order of 2 and 3] and recordings which differ?*


----------



## Merl

DavidA said:


> Just listening to Tennstedt's studio recording. Scary stuff full of jagged edges. Just one movement at a time I think.
> 
> *BTW opinions about the order of movements [order of 2 and 3] and recordings which differ?*


I prefer Andante - Scherzo but I'm still OK with it the other way round sometimes. If I'm playing it on cd I'll often program it in A - S (and same in the car as I often reorder the track numbers). If not I'm not unduly bothered.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Boulez, Thomas Sanderling and Karajan. I'm a Scherzo-Andante person, but it's pure coincidence that those three recordings happen to follow that order. (I tend to programme playback to S-A on my other recordings in any case.)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I’ve never understood the S-A argument. In a S-A when I hear the beginning of S with repeated chord strikes I feel like I just finished hearing that already. A provides the correct contrast. And then S provides the perfect contrast following A. And then the slow, mysterious opening of the final movement makes the most sense after S. What am I missing?


----------



## Larkenfield

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've never understood the S-A argument. In a S-A when I hear the beginning of S with repeated chord strikes I feel like I just finished hearing that already. A provides the correct contrast. And then S provides the perfect contrast following A. And then the slow, mysterious opening of the final movement makes the most sense after S. What am I missing?


Bravo. I feel exactly the same way. You aren't missing anything. That's a good reason why Mahler probably changed it. And he never reverted to any other order while he was alive, and it was played that way for 10 years after he died. There's no justification for playing it any other way, IMO. It's top-heavy with an unrelenting, redundant, percussive turbulence in any other order and he wanted more contrast between the first two movements. I believe the need for the change became obvious to him when the 6th was being rehearsed before its premiere. That had been his first chance to hear it performed _live_ and he clearly decided-and he formally instructed his publisher likewise. Alma was the meddler.


----------



## DavidA

Interesting article by Kaplan

https://www.posthorn.com/Mahler/Correct_Movement_Order_III.pdf


----------



## starthrower

I was listening to Bernstein NYP over the summer. Now listening to Boulez. Will listen to Bernstein DG later. I also have the Tennstedt box. I think there's two 6ths in that set. Live and studio.

Boulez's intro is a bit sluggish, but the orchestra sounds beautiful.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've never understood the S-A argument. In a S-A when I hear the beginning of S with repeated chord strikes I feel like I just finished hearing that already. A provides the correct contrast. And then S provides the perfect contrast following A. And then the slow, mysterious opening of the final movement makes the most sense after S. What am I missing?


The final dashing of hopes with the initial thud of the fourth movement after the Andante offers a brief respite?


----------



## Heck148

Larkenfield said:


> ......There's no justification for playing it any other way, IMO. It's top-heavy with an unrelenting, redundant, percussive turbulence in any other order and he wanted more contrast between the first two movements.......


When I was first exposed to this work,there was no controversy regarding movement order.....the recordings came out Scherzo, then Andante....I acquired the Solti when it came out, c 1970..Solti uses the S-A order to great effect, for exactly the reason you cite: "unrelenting, pounding, percussive turbulence" with the Scherzo as the 2nd movement. Yes, and that's want Solti wanted, that's how he presented it. Solti's version is harsh and brutal - the subject is pummeled into dust, crushed, "No Break for You!!" 
Having the Scherzo follow the opening movement really puts this message across - it also sets up the relative peace and tranquility of the Andante most effectively, which is, of course, crushed in the Finale.....whether or not this is the "true" movement order [??] I don't know, but Solti used it in his interpretation, and IMO, he sells it most convincingly.

I find it tough to accept this "ex post facto" premise that all of the Scherzo-Andante performances are invalid, or "wrong", because present dictum is that the Andante must come first...
I learned the piece with Scherzo-Andante order, which was apparently the accepted order at the time, thru a terrific recording, that is put across most effectively...am I supposed to ignore this one, toss it away, forget that it ever existed?? I don't think so....I've not heard anyone put this piece across as convincingly as Solti, regardless of the movement order.


----------



## Becca

Heck148 said:


> Having the Scherzo follow the opening movement really puts this message across - it also sets up the relative peace and tranquility of the Andante most effectively, which is, of course, crushed in the Finale.....whether or not this is the "true" movement order [??] I don't know, but Solti used it in his interpretation, and IMO, he sells it most convincingly.


While I can accept your comments about it being the way you learnt the piece, and that Solti et.al. followed what they were (incorrectly) led to believe was the correct order, but has it occurred to you that perhaps this is exactly why Mahler changed the order during rehearsals? That he realized that this S-A message is exactly what he didn't want, hence his instructions to his publisher.


----------



## Bill Cooke

I always preferred S-A, because the drama of the final movement is so intense, it needs the relative calm of the andante to precede it. When listening the andante I feel as if Mahler is saying goodbye to his love before facing the triumphs and terrors of the final struggle and defeat.


----------



## Heck148

Becca said:


> ....has it occurred to you that perhaps this is exactly why Mahler changed the order during rehearsals? That he realized that this S-A message is exactly what he didn't want, hence his instructions to his publisher.


Perhaps , I've really no idea what Mahler's thinking might have been....Now, is it possible that if Mahler had heard Solti's presentation of the work, he might have said "Yes!! That's it!! that's exactly what I want....do it that way!!" ?? we'll never know....

I've worked with a lot of composers at the premieres of their works...they frequently change their minds, once they actually hear the work in rehearsal....


----------



## Heck148

Bill Cooke said:


> I always preferred S-A, because the drama of the final movement is so intense, it needs the relative calm of the andante to precede it. When listening the andante I feel as if Mahler is saying goodbye to his love before facing the triumphs and terrors of the final struggle and defeat.


That's how I hear it...that's how I learned it...as I said, when the recordings first came out, there was no issue about movement order...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Imagine the scherzo of Beethoven’s 5th coming second, with the da-da-da-dum motif you just heard in the first movement. It would be oddly redundant, whereas being placed 3rd it allows us to recall the 1st movement after some separation. Much more effective.


----------



## Becca

For what little it's worth, I also got to know the Mahler 6th via the Solti/CSO recording but for a very long time it remained my least favourite of the symphonies. I eventually got the Rattle/CBSO recording but that didn't change my views much. The first recording which did much for my opinion was the Abbado/CSO, but only a little. It was the Sanderling/St. Petersburg that really started shifting things. Then I heard just the 1st movement of the Barbirolli/NPO/Proms performance and that really kicked things into gear. I had heard the studio recording but found it too grim, the 3 minutes first movement difference between the studio & Proms performance made a big difference.


----------



## MarkW

I prefer "straight," less heart-on-sleeve performances -- Szell, Boulez, Leinsdorf/BSO.

I have long considered it his greatest symphony.


----------



## Larkenfield

The never-ending story... 

Those who prefer the 6th with S-A have probably heard it performed that way _first_ under conductors who blindly accepted the Radz edition of Mahler's collected works and should have known better-that's essentially it-and they have been unable to offer any possible reason why Mahler didn't like it that way himself, reversed the order, and never performed it that way in his lifetime. He conducted the premiere.

The source of the controversy goes back to Alma Mahler influencing William Mengelberg that the order should be S-A after he asked her about it almost 10 years after her husband's passing-what a mistake _that_ was-and it was because of Alma's indirect or direct influence that years later editor Radz, biographer de la Grange, Bernstein, the late reviewer Tony Duggan, and others were influenced by her on the matter of the order, as many of them knew her and she didn't shuffle off her mortal coil until the end of 1964, more than 50 years after Mahler's death. Out of their personal relationship with her or knowledge, they granted her the authority that she didn't actually have to make changes in Mahler's published score, and that included editor Radz, because there's no other possible reason why Mahler's final decision about the order should have been "officially" changed by him other than by being influenced by her and what she said about it.

But it should be underscored, pun intended, that the controversy goes back to that great but insecure conductor William Mengelberg being influenced by Mahler's meddling wife when Mahler himself was no longer in the position to defend or explain his final decision himself after hearing it performed during the rehearsals before its premiere. Other than through her influence and meddling there would be no controversy whatsoever on the final decision he made in the order of the middle two movements. None. It would have been accepted as a matter of course.

But even now there are conductors and listeners who are too disinterested in Mahler's final decision to respect it, one that he never changed during his lifetime that has such an important bearing on the overall shape, meaning, and structure of this great symphony. _The only thing I can say on Alma's behalf in the mess that she created is that he was so crazy in love with her that he probably would have forgiven her._


----------



## MarkW

Whatever you believe the "right" answer to be, trying to convince an S/A person that the "correct" order is A/S is not worth the effort (like trying to convince a Red Sox fan that the only team worth following is the Yankees -- or a Democrat that Trump is a great President). It's not a discussion worth too much persuing.


----------



## Kiki

MarkW said:


> I prefer "straight," less heart-on-sleeve performances -- Szell, Boulez, Leinsdorf/BSO.
> 
> I have long considered it his greatest symphony.


Good to see Leinsdorf mentioned... I only have his Bavarian 83 Live, and I admire the cleanliness and an Andante that does not drag on.


----------



## Larkenfield

Performance history of the 6th during Mahler's lifetime:

'Three weeks before the first performance, Mahler had the Symphony read through in Vienna under his direction, at which time he irrevocably decided that the correct middle-movement order should be Andante-Scherzo. _Mahler_ conducted the world premiere in Essen on 27 May 1906, with the middle movement order of A-S, after having instructed Kahnt to insert an erratum slip in the unsold copies of the scores and in Specht's booklet, detailing the correct middle movement order, and to republish the scores and booklet with the corrected middle-movement order, which Kahnt did in November 1906. ... From that point on, therefore, there would seem to be no question regarding the order of the movements, the more so as the remaining five complete performances of the Symphony in Mahler's lifetime were given with the order of A-S. Chronologically, these performances were:'

*October 1906, Oskar Fried conducting, Berlin (Mahler attended the rehearsals and performance)
*8 November 1906, Mahler conducting, Munich
*14 November 1906, Bernard Stavenhagen (a pupil of Liszt) conducting, Munich (the second performance in the city in a week)
*January 1907, Mahler conducting, Vienna (the Philharmonic Orchestra)
*March 1907, Hans Winderstein conducting, Leipzig
*April 1907, Ernst von Schuch conducting, Dresden (middle movements only, in the order Andante-Scherzo).

He never recanted or reversed his A-S score and had plenty of opportunities to do so during the remaining 5 years of his life. It seems obvious this is the way he wanted it and maybe some listeners should try it. It changes the order and influence of this often turbulent symphony, otherwise it sounds like some tragic force is constantly chasing and hounding him through the first half, rather than having the contrast of the psychic relief of the Andante in the second position and the great agitation and turbulence being more evenly distributed throughout the entire work. There are many possible reasons why he felt the way he did, and I believe he absolutely made the right choice. It's a much different symphony without it.


----------



## MarkW

Kiki said:


> Good to see Leinsdorf mentioned... I only have his Bavarian 83 Live, and I admire the cleanliness and an Andante that does not drag on.


If you can find it, the BSO rcording is better.


----------



## Kiki

There are so many Mahler 6 recordings that I like. To name a few that spring to mind,

Rattle/BPO 18 Live - Cold and powerful, despite the morning-hypotension, as often the case with Rattle.

Tennstedt/LPO 91 Live - Deeply heartfelt. My long time favourite.

Karajan/BPO 75/77 - I've always had a soft spot for this one. Cold? Probably as expected. Emotional? You must be kidding. Powerful? Karajan can be as loud as anyone. But to borrow the words from Anne-Sophie Mutter, it's the "beauty of the soul" that got me smitten. No, not Mahler, not here.

Mitropoulos/NYPO 55 Live - Agile, lively, exciting. Also love that tender outburst towards the end of the Andante, neither over-done or underwhelmed, sounds just right to me.

I am marvelled by the high energy level of Bernstein/VPO 88 Live, but it's too overwhelming for me; I can only listen to it movement by movement. And then I'm not a fan of DG's on-your-face style of recording/mastering either; that certainly has made it even more difficult for me to sit through it in one go.

Can't make up my mind which is my favourite among Barbirolli's four (won't be surprised if there are more available out there in the wild). Dark? Yes, love that. Are they really that slow? Apart from the EMI rendering, not really. The other three are some of the quickest around.

I have a number of dark horses as well. 

Luisi/Suisse Romande 97 Live - So refreshing. 

Haitink/ONdF 01 Live - Non-sensational but high-tension. 

Kondrashin/Baden-Baden 81 - Fast and exciting. Even at speed, the Andante works wondrously well with great affection.


----------



## Kiki

Merl said:


> Lots of great 6ths out there but for me Currentzis (recent favourite) , Jansons (both RCO & LSO) , Sanderling, Gielen, Kubelik (Audite), Tilson Thomas, Jarvi and Bernstein nail it. For two dark horses that ride roughshod over Mahler's wishes, but both sound great, I'll go for Barbirolli's dark as hell 6th and Karajan's orchestral perfection (the BPO play brilliantly).


Always love the sonority produced by Currentzis & MusicAeterna in just about everything they've recorded, including their Mahler 6. Their Mahler 6 may be less sensational than I expected, but that's not necessarily a bad thing either.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've never understood the S-A argument. In a S-A when I hear the beginning of S with repeated chord strikes I feel like I just finished hearing that already. A provides the correct contrast. And then S provides the perfect contrast following A. And then the slow, mysterious opening of the final movement makes the most sense after S. What am I missing?


Unfortunately (for me, that is!) the evidence for the correct order of movements seems to be 99.9% conclusively Andante then Scherzo. And yet I remain very much in favour of the other way round. Sorry.

My (personal) reasoning for this would boil down to the overall feel for the symphony as a whole, and of course part of that is "what I am used to". But consider that this is Mahler's most depressing symphony, the only one of them all that "ends badly", and much of that comes down to it being so relentless in its bleakness, albeit with one huge interlude. For me having the Scherzo following on from the - very similar - first movement, gives that "Oh $hit, here we go again" moment, that doesn't happen if it's the third movement. Right or (more likely) wrong, that is an immensely powerful sensation.

I'd also say I feel the Andante is in so many ways the most beautiful slow movement Mahler ever wrote, especially if it's given its due weight and not thrown away as a minor interlude. If it comes third, there's "better preparation" for the Finale, which is the hardest movement to endure emotionally, so many kicks in the teeth. And perversely, the immediate contrast there makes it all the harder...

I know these are very weak and personalised reasons, which I very much doubt would hold up well in a court of law, but it's our individual responses to a piece of music that make them great. As is traditionally done (SA), this is for me Mahler's greatest symphony. I am not so sure of that the other way round.

Favourite recordings? Well, Karajan for me makes the best case for the Andante, in his hands it is not far off perfect. But overall, I have to agree with all those Boulez fans here. He has probably replaced my older favourite, which was Szell/Cleveland. (I must try and find the Leinsdorf performance mentioned by MarkW....)


----------



## starthrower

The Boulez blew me away. A great recording, and the details he brings out in the score make for a great listening experience.


----------



## realdealblues

This was the first Mahler symphony I heard complete and was my favorite for many years (still might be). Such a tremendous work and it's another one I'm more critical of recordings.

My favorite recording would be:

Leonard Bernstein/Vienna Philharmonic
Leonard Bernstein/New York Philharmonic
Thomas Sanderling/St. Petersburg Philharmonic
Michael Gielen/SWR Symphony Orchestra
Yoel Levi/Atlanta Symphony Orchestra

Those would probably be might Top 5. There's a Kirill Kondrashin recording with the SWR Symphony Orchestra that is also fantastic. Chailly does very well in this one. Eschenbach loses a bit in the finale but is otherwise, excellent. There's a couple of old ones with Mitropoulos that are both really enjoyable. Haitink does good, Tennstedt is ok, Kubelik is Kubelik which is always worth hearing. There's a few others, but either Bernstein or Gielen depending on my mood would probably be the ones I would reach for the most. 

I go against the grain with many in that I don't really care for Boulez, Barbirolli or Karajan in this symphony.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Robert Pickett said:


> For me having the Scherzo following on from the - very similar - first movement, gives that "Oh $hit, here we go again" moment, that doesn't happen if it's the third movement. Right or (more likely) wrong, that is an immensely powerful sensation.


Funny, for me the "here we go again" feeling comes from hearing the scherzo played after the respite of the beautiful andante. That makes it even more powerful and disheartening, whereas as coming second makes it more familiar and redundant to my ears.


----------



## starthrower

Bernstein's 6th on DG will be my next listen. I'd like to listen to the Gielen too. I'm debating whether or not to buy the complete cycle? The only one I have is no.2.


----------



## Guest

I really enjoy this symphony - perhaps my second favorite of Mahler's, after his 2nd, which is always in my top 3 favorite symphonies.

I really enjoy Eschenbach's conducting of this symphony with the Philadelphia Orchestra on Ondine, and it is currently my favorite recording.


----------



## realdealblues

starthrower said:


> Bernstein's 6th on DG will be my next listen. I'd like to listen to the Gielen too. I'm debating whether or not to buy the complete cycle? The only one I have is no.2.


If you're talking about Gielen's cycle, it's well worth having. Gielen is more like Kubelik in that he is worried more about the lines and inner rhythms than the emotion of say Bernstein. Works as a perfect contrast to me. I love Lenny and I love his Mahler, but if I'm in a different mood where I want the opposite, Gielen is the perfect cycle to reach for. Both approaches work in Mahler and is just more proof that there is more than one way to play something and make it sound equally valid and fantastic.


----------



## Merl

realdealblues said:


> I go against the grain with many in that I don't really care for Boulez, Barbirolli or Karajan in this symphony.


I'm not with you on Karajan and Barbirolli (love both for very different reasons) but totally with you on Boulez. I don't like Boulez's Mahler at all, finding it cold, clinical and dull. But hey plenty of people might feel the same about my picks.


----------



## CnC Bartok

starthrower said:


> Bernstein's 6th on DG will be my next listen. I'd like to listen to the Gielen too. I'm debating whether or not to buy the complete cycle? The only one I have is no.2.


I'll echo the opinion that Gielen is well worth having as a complete cycle. I think he's a bit sluggish in No.6, but the detail and balance he brings to each work is wonderful. And no, it's not cold, any more than Kubelik is. Oh, and he does those weird oboe glissandi in the O Mensch movement of the Third, almost worth it just for that!


----------



## Faustian

Robert Pickett said:


> Unfortunately (for me, that is!) the evidence for the correct order of movements seems to be 99.9% conclusively Andante then Scherzo. And yet I remain very much in favour of the other way round. Sorry.
> 
> My (personal) reasoning for this would boil down to the overall feel for the symphony as a whole, and of course part of that is "what I am used to". But consider that this is Mahler's most depressing symphony, the only one of them all that "ends badly", and much of that comes down to it being so relentless in its bleakness, albeit with one huge interlude. For me having the Scherzo following on from the - very similar - first movement, gives that "Oh $hit, here we go again" moment, that doesn't happen if it's the third movement. Right or (more likely) wrong, that is an immensely powerful sensation.
> 
> I'd also say I feel the Andante is in so many ways the most beautiful slow movement Mahler ever wrote, especially if it's given its due weight and not thrown away as a minor interlude. If it comes third, there's "better preparation" for the Finale, which is the hardest movement to endure emotionally, so many kicks in the teeth. And perversely, the immediate contrast there makes it all the harder...
> 
> I know these are very weak and personalised reasons, which I very much doubt would hold up well in a court of law, but it's our individual responses to a piece of music that make them great. As is traditionally done (SA), this is for me Mahler's greatest symphony. I am not so sure of that the other way round.
> 
> Favourite recordings? Well, Karajan for me makes the best case for the Andante, in his hands it is not far off perfect. But overall, I have to agree with all those Boulez fans here. He has probably replaced my older favourite, which was Szell/Cleveland. (I must try and find the Leinsdorf performance mentioned by MarkW....)


I don't think you have anything to be sorry for. I think the symphony can be performed convincingly either way. I also came to know the work through recordings which featured the S-A order, and that order still feels "right" to me, however objectively wrong it may be. I do think it is worth being open to hearing the symphony the way Mahler thought best though. After the initial shock of digesting the symphony and making sense of it presented in a whole new light, I'm now quite fond of the Andante first as well.


----------



## Heck148

Robert Pickett said:


> My (personal) reasoning for this would boil down to the overall feel for the symphony as a whole, and of course part of that is "what I am used to". But consider that this is Mahler's most depressing symphony, the only one of them all that "ends badly", and much of that comes down to it being so relentless in its bleakness, albeit with one huge interlude. For me having the Scherzo following on from the - very similar - first movement, gives that "Oh $hit, here we go again" moment, that doesn't happen if it's the third movement. Right or (more likely) wrong, that is an immensely powerful sensation.
> 
> I'd also say I feel the Andante is in so many ways the most beautiful slow movement Mahler ever wrote, especially if it's given its due weight and not thrown away as a minor interlude. If it comes third, there's "better preparation" for the Finale, which is the hardest movement to endure emotionally, so many kicks in the teeth. And perversely, the immediate contrast there makes it all the harder...


Good points, well said...I feel much the same way...and many great conductors have affected that approach to the work.

Too many great conductors and orchestras have made a very cogent powerful case for S-A order [which, at the time, seemed totally accepted and legitimate] for it to be simply cast aside as "illegitimate" or unacceptable....should they have known better?? who knows??
what if a document is unearthed that states Bruckner wanted the Adagio of Sym #7 to be placed third in the order of movements... no doubt about it - Scherzo, then Adagio....does this automatically invalidate all of those wonderful previous performances?? classic efforts by Walter, Solti, Tennstedt, von Matacic, etc, etc?? does an "after the fact" determination invalidate all that preceded, when the preceding efforts were based on contemporary acceptance??
just asking...


----------



## CnC Bartok

........... rhetorically, I assume!


----------



## starthrower

Robert Pickett said:


> I'll echo the opinion that Gielen is well worth having as a complete cycle. I think he's a bit sluggish in No.6, but the detail and balance he brings to each work is wonderful. And no, it's not cold, any more than Kubelik is. Oh, and he does those weird oboe glissandi in the O Mensch movement of the Third, almost worth it just for that!


I'm not worried about cold. I don't think Boulez is cold, but other listeners used to romantic conductors seem to feel that way.


----------



## philoctetes

I like Gielen with Zemlinsky Lyric Symphony, one of the great budget discs out there. I suspect his Mahler would be excellent.


----------



## starthrower

I like Gielen's Resurrection symphony. Shopping around I found the 17 disc set for under 50 dollars. The Boulez is only 28, but I've already got 6, 9, 10, and the song cycles.


----------



## realdealblues

I don't find Boulez necessarily cold in Mahler, more stiff. Rhythms are usually stiff, he disregards a tremendous amount of Mahler's notes and tends to keep things at a singular tempo. Mahler says relax here, Boulez stays the course, Mahler says speed up here, Boulez stays the course. Stiff and rigid. That bothers me more than the lack of "charm" others are more willing to put into Mahler's scores. Boulez is like Gielen in that it isn't "heart on sleeve" Mahler as some refer to Bernstein, but Gielen still has charm and allows the music to expand and contract when necessary where Boulez is usually charmless and stiff as a board throughout. Barbirolli falls into that Boulez realm for me as well, very stiff in rhythms and tempos.

That said, I've heard far, far worse than Boulez and I'm not saying he is terrible in Mahler, but it's just not my preference, it works for some and as always it's different strokes for different folks. 

I think Boulez is excellent in his Mahler songs with Anne Sofie Von Otter and his Das Knaben Wunderhorn. His take on the 1st and 4th Symphony are both very good. His 3rd, 6th and 7th are just ok, his 5th & 9th are mediocre at best and his 2nd and Das Lied Von Der Erde I won't ever listen to again because they are just awful to me.


----------



## philoctetes

"I think Boulez is excellent in his Mahler songs with Anne Sofie Von Otter and his Das Knaben Wunderhorn"

All of von Otter's Mahler is outstanding


----------



## starthrower

The lieder disc with Von Otter is the first one I bought. It's a beautiful recording. Listening to Boulez's 6th I was so focused on the clarity and detail of the recording I may not have been paying attention to other factors. I got caught up listening to the timbre of all the instruments and how vivid it sounded.

Anyway, I've got Lenny's DG disc spinning now and this one sounds really good! I guess I just don't care for the 5th that much, but the 6th symphony is just fantastic!


----------



## EdwardBast

Heck148 said:


> That's how I hear it...that's how I learned it...as I said, when the recordings first came out, *there was no issue about movement order...*


For whom? Some of us thought the S-A order was bad on aesthetic grounds before we ever heard about the controversy. I'm sure there were people who felt this way about the early recordings.


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> For whom? Some of us thought the S-A order was bad on aesthetic grounds before we ever heard about the controversy. I'm sure there were people who felt this way about the early recordings.


I'm programming my discs eith the A -S option for a bit, certainly the Schezo after the first movement is a bit of an ear bash.

Just listening to Karajan's hypnotic slow movement.
Also have Kubelik (light of touch) and Tennstedt (wild) on this one. Great symphony but disturbing.


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> For whom? Some of us thought the S-A order was bad on aesthetic grounds before we ever heard about the controversy. I'm sure there were people who felt this way about the early recordings.


in the early 70s I don't recall that the issue even came up....


----------



## EdwardBast

Heck148 said:


> in the early 70s I don't recall that the issue even came up....


I'm not talking about an issue coming up. I'm talking about hearing the Sixth with the movements in the wrong order and thinking Mahler screwed up because it doesn't work very well. It was obvious to Mahler when he heard it performed, so it's no surprise that others might feel this way.


----------



## Becca

Heck148 said:


> in the early 70s I don't recall that the issue even came up....


I can't speak to other recordings but Barbirolli always did A-S, however someone at EMI chose to release his studio recording with the movements switched ... he was not pleased. Subsequent pressings revert to his preferred order as heard in his live performances.


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> I'm not talking about an issue coming up. I'm talking about hearing the Sixth with the movements in the wrong order and thinking Mahler screwed up because it doesn't work very well. It was obvious to Mahler when he heard it performed, so it's no surprise that others might feel this way.


those conductors using S-A did not think they were screwing up...obviously, they thought they were doing it right.
I don't think Mahler screwed up....I know the piece works wonderfully in S-A order....I guess it can also work in A-S order....I've not heard such a version that convinces me, as of yet, but I am certainly not close-minded to the possibility.....great music may often flourish under different interpretations.


----------



## Larkenfield

After hearing Szell's Mahler 6th with the middle two movements S-A, I was never comfortable with the symphony. Something seemed 'off' about it. I could not take the agitation of the first movement being carried over into the Scherzo. It was too much of the same. It was only after hearing it A-S that I felt that the overall symphony had some semblance of balance between all the movements, and it made sense to me. I don't think it works nearly as well with the middle two movements in the opposite order. The Scherzo as the second movement starts out even in the same key with same redundant agitation of feeling of the first movement. It's too redundant in key, tempo, and feel. I believe that Mahler decided that was too much and irrevocably changed the order. There are no indications whatsoever that he ever questioned or regretted making that change. Those who like it S-A probably first heard it that way.


----------



## Merl

I've permanently changed the order to A-S on the digital accounts I play most and, as I said, whenever I burn a new one to the car USB that gets reordered too. Occasionally I forget but its no big deal (it's just a bit irritating).


----------



## Granate

I'm not ready to argue about the order of the movements in this symphony. But my head asks for S-A. I personally find it more emotional and I like the crazy last movement to begin after the devastating Andante climax.

Favourite recordings for SQ and performance are Barbirolli NPO Studio (might need to hear the Testament recording again) and Bernstein WPO, but I hold admitation for the Tennstedt performances I own, especially the vibrant Royal Albert Hall recording despite the poor sound. Studio account comes second by a small margin.


































I've listened last weekend to the Theodor Currentzis recording in the context of the modern Adam Fischer and Thomas Netopil releases for Mahler. It was certainly the most surprising and shocking experience with Mahler in many months. But I have no idea if it was right or wrong. All I can say is that Sony should let him record all the recordings he want to, so in the future I have made up my mind about him.


----------



## realdealblues

I guess I'll chime in and say I think both A-S and S-A work equally well depending on the overall performance and tempo decisions. 

I spent quite a while last night listening to 4 recordings of the 6th and mainly focusing between the Andante and Scherzo order. I listened to the entire work one way and then swapped them around and listened to the entire work again. I can see how the Andante following the 1st movement can give a bit of calm after all the high tension of the first movement. But I also feel the similarity between the beginning of the Scherzo and the march of the 1st movement feels like a natural continuation because of the similarity, and some guys treat the 2nd major theme of the Scherzo as gentle as the Andante which does relax a bit of the tension as well. 

In the end, I found for me, both ways work, it just depends on the recording and the overall performance of each movement and how they transition from one to another. Some recordings I might like better if I were to flip the movements because the flow from one movement to another might seem more natural and improved. It's not something I've ever really thought about doing but perhaps I will spend some time with that this year. I've always just taken each recording as it was and judged it as such.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've never understood the S-A argument. In a S-A when I hear the beginning of S with repeated chord strikes I feel like I just finished hearing that already. A provides the correct contrast. And then S provides the perfect contrast following A. And then the slow, mysterious opening of the final movement makes the most sense after S. What am I missing?


Not a thing. I used to prefer the Scherzo-Andante order, feeling the need for some respite from all of the angst before the finale. But over time, like you, I've found that provides insufficient contrast during the first half of the symphony, and now prefer Andante-Scherzo, although I'm not dogmatic about it, and I will confess that my opinion is probably colored by reading the evidence that exists about what Mahler wanted.


----------



## EdwardBast

Heck148 said:


> those conductors using S-A did not think they were screwing up...obviously, they thought they were doing it right.
> I don't think Mahler screwed up....I know the piece works wonderfully in S-A order....*I guess it can also work in A-S order....I've not heard such a version that convinces me, as of yet, but I am certainly not close-minded* to the possibility.....*great music may often flourish under different interpretations*.


These are not two competing "interpretations." One is the composition as the composer authorized it, the other is an unjustified scrambling of his work and wishes.


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> These are not two competing "interpretations." One is the composition as the composer authorized it, the other is an unjustified scrambling of his work and wishes.


but the S-A order is not scrambled or wrong-sounding,. and I don't think those conductors using that order realized there was a big controversy about it...they certainly make a good case for the S-A sequence....more later,....I'm away from home computer...


----------



## DavidA

The obvious order is the one the composer himself conducted and heard, which is A-S. There is a case harmonically for S-A (which is why Mahler originally went for it) but certainly the respite the slow movement gives is logical after the march-like first movement. So I'll be reprogramming. Thank goodness for CD


----------



## Totenfeier

First, a quick note on order: I learned it S-A; I've come around to A-S. It's quite obviously the way Mahler hears it.

Now, a dark confession: while I _listen_ to Mahler's other symphonies, I'm...I'm a _user_ when it comes to the Sixth, and always have been. And when I need it, when I'm jonesing and getting the shakes...I tie off and reach for Barbirolli EMI. Silp away into darkness...


----------



## Heck148

The S-A order makes complete sense if we look at dramatic structure of the work - and many of those conductors who present it in that order make compelling cases that are really quite impossible to disregard...
M6 is bi-polar - alternate ups and downs - triumph/tragedy, euphoria/dejection, positive/negative, up/down…this occurs throughout the work, and esp is evident in the Finale…it's a brilliant work, to present these conflicting strains of positive and negative throughout the work…in this case, at the end, the negative, the downer, prevails, wins out…

The first movement contains both strains, quite prominently, and in obvious contrast - the opening march is dark sinister, threatening, the "Alma" theme and ensuing music is rhapsodic, euphoric…these two themes fight it out, but the movement ends on a high note, the "Alma" music prevailing, albeit, tentatively…
the scherzo is dark, threatening, overall, tho the 2nd theme [mixed meter 3/8, 4/8] is quite buoyant and cheerful…but darkness prevails…
the Andante is a break from the darkness, a respite, hopeful, lovely…
The Finale is all about up/down, rapture/disaster, victory/defeat, final tragedy - every time the music takes on a beautiful, positive, euphoric quality, it is brutally crushed by the sledge hammer strokes…the euphoria, the rapture soars forth, only to be devastated by the negative….

The S-A order presents this up/down, bi-polar concept perfectly - 
Mvt I up [+, sort of]; mvt II scherzo [-] downer; mvt III Andante[ +] up ; Mvt IV [-] ultimate downer - we get the up/down cycle of bi-polar experience..
If Andante precedes scherzo - then the first half of the work is too much weighted on the positive music, which conflicts with the ultimate "Tragic" nature of the work…. We have ++ -- for mvts…
S-A order provides the up/down, seesaw characteristic of bi-polar affliction +-+- , which to me, seems totally in sync with Mahler's concept of the work.
There have been so many conductors who have presented this order too strongly to be disregarded….
I'm not saying Mahler was wrong to say A-S, but maybe he would have been "more right" if he stuck with S-A…I think M6 works better that way…


----------



## Larkenfield

Becca said:


> I can't speak to other recordings but Barbirolli always did A-S, however, someone at EMI chose to release his studio recording with the movements switched ... he was not pleased. Subsequent pressings revert to his preferred order as heard in his live performances.


This is very true. It was EMI that changed the order on the basis of the now discredited Radz edition-Radz never explained why he changed the order in the first place, though it could only have had to do with Alma Mahler-after Barbirolli had originally recorded it A-S. He knew better and so did a lot of other listeners that Mahler had no doubts about his final decision of A-S. I first heard it S-A but it never worked for me and I was relieved to know that the authoritative edition was A-S by the composer himself. It must mean something that he never performed it any other way. The symphony makes a dramatically different overall impression. Those who like it S-A can try to justify it any way they want, but Mahler changed the order anyway and others can only speculate on the reasons why that order is not fact according to the composer. At the time of the Radz edition, many conductors took it as authoritative and as fact when the exact reverse was true. For the remainder of his life, Mahler never gave any indication whatsoever that he had doubts about his decision. None. And he was generally open to anything that would help improve the performance of his symphonies.


----------



## Heck148

Whatever Mahler's intentions, Scherzp-Andante order works very effectively...


----------



## EdwardBast

Heck148 said:


> Whatever Mahler's intentions, Scherzp-Andante order works very effectively...


For you apparently. For Mahler, not so much.


----------



## mbhaub

Does anyone happen to have a copy of Norman del Mar's book on the 6th? What did he say about S/A vs. A/S?


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> For you apparently. For Mahler, not so much.


maybe Mahler got it wrong?? wouldn't be the first time that conductors have questioned a composer's instructions - ie - the D/Db controversy in the "Berceuse" section of Stravinsky's " Firebird"....


----------



## Larkenfield

I’m convinced that if the controversy over the middle two movements had been a court case, the circumstances and evidence on the side of A-S would be so overwhelmingly compelling that I doubt if it would have ever gone to trial. I wouldn’t have wanted to be Alma's defense attorney. She might have been arrested for libel for giving a false report on her husband and ended up behind bars to reconsider her meddlesome ways and interference more than 10 years after the fact. But out of love, I do believe that Mahler himself would probably have been forgiving and willing to visit her on holidays and weekends at the Arnold Schoenberg Women’s Detention Center located at 12-Tone Row in Vienna.


----------



## Heck148

it's not a trial situation, and many great conductors have made a compelling case for it..it works!!


----------



## mbhaub

Heck148 said:


> maybe Mahler got it wrong?? wouldn't be the first time that conductors have questioned a composer's instructions - ie - the D/Db controversy in the "Berceuse" section of Stravinsky's " Firebird"....


D/Db - that's a minefield, isn't it? I've never had a conductor say a word about it. Only bassoonists seem to be aware of it.


----------



## Becca

Heck148 said:


> maybe Mahler got it wrong?? wouldn't be the first time that conductors have questioned a composer's instructions - ie - the D/Db controversy in the "Berceuse" section of Stravinsky's " Firebird"....


How many similar cases to the D/Db controversy can you think of? Probably quite a few.
How many similar cases to movement ordering can you think of? Probably none.

There really is a big difference between the two ... except perhaps to bassoonists


----------



## Larkenfield

Becca said:


> How many similar cases to the D/Db controversy can you think of? Probably quite a few.
> How many similar cases to movement ordering can you think of Probably none.
> 
> There really is a big difference between the two ... except perhaps to bassoonists


I was thinking the exact same thing. The controversy about the order was truly unprecedented-unique. Looking again at the symphony from Mahler's decisive point of view, if it's played S-A, the problem is also one of _timing_: the Andante comes in 13 minutes too late and the Scherzo comes in 12 minutes too soon, the approximate length of each movement in Abbado's performance, who incidentally played the symphony A-S according to Mahler's wishes... The timing of the entrance that each movement makes is a huge factor and makes s dramatic difference in the overall impression this challenging symphony makes. It was no small matter and perhaps that's why he never reversed his final decision that he wanted A-S.


----------



## Heck148

mbhaub said:


> D/Db - that's a minefield, isn't it? I've never had a conductor say a word about it. Only bassoonists seem to be aware of it.


Boulez has made a big deal of it....he insists on D natural, even tho Stravinsky at least twice instructed the bassoonist to play Db ]Kohon/NYPO, and iirc, Moritz/LAPO]...harmonically there is a D natural in the strings, but melodically. it is different from earlier phrases


----------



## Heck148

Abbado's CSO recording '79 uses S-A order...so does Haitink's live CSO Resound recording from 2007, same with Nelsons/BSO I heard a couple years ago, c2015...it seems as tho the order question is still unresolved...


----------



## Larkenfield

A


Heck148 said:


> Abbado's CSO recording '79 uses S-A order...so does Haitink's live CSO Resound recording from 2007, same with Nelsons/BSO I heard a couple years ago, c2015...it seems as tho the order question is still unresolved...


Well, that's very interesting because Abaddo's 2005 DG recording doesn't, so he obviously reverted to Mahler's final published order of A-S: https://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Symphony-No-6-Gustav/dp/B00092ZAM2, and why shouldn't he when there's no official justification for playing it S-A to begin with except because of Mahler's wife? There's no possible reason why Haitink would play it S-A except because of the discredited Radz edition. Ratz never justified the change to S-A. He just changed it without explanation. There's not one thing that would have ever justified the change to S-A without Mahler's permission. The change to S-A took place more than 10 years after his death due to Alma and not Gustav Mahler. If some people don't think that he knew what he was doing, then perhaps that's their problem and not his. I believe he decided that his symphony was too redundant and top-heavy with agitation and turbulence after the first movement with the Scherzo in the second position-that it lacked _contrast_ ... and speculators want to make it all about key relationships regardless of that lack of contrast by having it S-A. The end of the Scherzo as the third movement works perfectly well as a transition into the last movement. Haitink recorded the 6th three times the CSO, BPO, and Concertgebouw Orchestra and ignored Mahler's final published score three times and doesn't deserve a medal for playing the "old" order however his recordings may have turned out. Someone has to speak out on behalf of the composer's decision, who was not ambivalent on this matter while he was alive.



> One concerns the order of the inner movements, about which much has been said and discussed. In the "old" order the first movement is immediately followed by the Scherzo, which is rather similar to it in tempo and mood. I prefer what is now generally accepted as the correct order, with the Andante immediately following the first movement: this juxtaposition takes you on a journey that is more varied. After the intensity of the first movement, the relative calm and peace of the second movement offers a welcome contrast; that makes the return to the danse macabre feeling of the third movement all the more frightening. [unquote] -Alan Gilbert NYP
> 
> _Exactly_.


----------



## Heck148

Larkenfield said:


> .....I believe he decided that his symphony was too redundant and top-heavy with agitation and turbulence after the first movement with the Scherzo in the second position-that it lacked _contrast_ ...


I don't agree, and as I explained earlier - A-S order makes it too heavily weighted towards the positive side, in what is a "Tragic" work....one can hardly argue that M6 ends on a triumphant or positive note...S-A order definitely provides the up/down, euphoria/dejection aspect of the work...



> and speculators want to make it all about key relationships regardless of that lack of contrast by having it S-A.


They have a good point, and the contrast is much _enhanced_ by S-A order.



> ......[Gilbert] "I prefer what is now generally accepted as the correct order, with the Andante immediately following the first movement: this juxtaposition takes you on a journey that is more varied.


No, it is less varied, as shown.



> After the intensity of the first movement, the relative calm and peace of the second movement offers a welcome contrast; that makes the return to the danse macabre feeling of the third movement all the more frightening." -Alan Gilbert NYP


negative - the 1st mvt actually ends up beat, S-A provides the comedown, which makes sense....I've tried listening to the work A-S order, it's still a great piece, of course, but it does not make as much sense to me in that order, as compared with S-A order...too many great conductors have sold it with S-A to be ignored.


----------



## Larkenfield

O Heck, I hold you in high regard and I wish you the greatest of enjoyment in whatever order you prefer. But I personally cannot take this great symphony in the S-A order because it's redundant and top-heavy with percussion and turbulence, and as I've tried to explain until I'm blue in the face, evidently neither could Mahler. It's far more balanced in Mahler's chosen order and I believe that's why he irrevocably changed it before its premiere.

The Mahler Society in Vienna officially lists the 6th as A-S and I entirely agree with them. All I can do is guess that you first heard it S-A and you'll continue to enjoy it that way without ever considering it any other way and penetrating into why Mahler changed it, meaning before Alma's changed it without his permission years after his death. I believe he knew what he was doing after making his decision before its premiere and conducting it that way himself. I'm not one who believes that Mahler didn't know exactly what he was doing, whether everyone can appreciate or understand his decision or not.


----------



## DrSardonicus

Heck148 said:


> I don't agree, and as I explained earlier - A-S order makes it too heavily weighted towards the positive side, in what is a "Tragic" work....one can hardly argue that M6 ends on a triumphant or positive note...S-A order definitely provides the up/down, euphoria/dejection aspect of the work...


You could just as much argue that the A-S order provides a _harsher_ and more unapologetic experience. A triumphant opening which then subverts the listener with a placid slow movement, before taking a dark, accelerating trajectory with the Scherzo through to the nihilistic finale. The pessimism of the end is all the more impactful in light of the weighty optimism of the first half.


----------



## Heck148

DrSardonicus said:


> You could just as much argue that the A-S order provides a _harsher_ and more unapologetic experience. A triumphant opening which then subverts the listener with a placid slow movement, before taking a dark, accelerating trajectory with the Scherzo through to the nihilistic finale. The pessimism of the end is all the more impactful in light of the weighty optimism of the first half.


I don't hear it that way....the S-A order provides more up and down, "bipolar" effect which I find most persuasive....A-S order simply lacks that emotional "rollercoaster" trip that so many great conductors have presented with great success using S-A order.
maybe the piece works well with the Andante first, but I've yet to experience it....


----------



## DavidA

The argument over S - A only comes with a concert performance. Just program the CD to your choice.


----------



## Konsgaard

I never really "got" the 6th until I heard Currentzis and this is because I find his recording offers a resolution. The movements seems more cohesive under his vision and he manages to emphasize the light rather than the dark elements in this music.


----------



## mbhaub

Konsgaard said:


> I never really "got" the 6th until I heard Currentzis and this is because I find his recording offers a resolution. The movements seems more cohesive under his vision and he manages to emphasize the light rather than the dark elements in this music.


Just when I think the Golden Age of Conducting was long over, along comes someone who shows that there's still a glimmer of hope: someone willing to take chances and give his all, and that's Currentzis. His new Mahler is astonishing. It's thrilling and played spectacularly well. Just like his Tchaikovsky 6th, it's not going to be to everyone's taste. But in an era when so many conductors are so bland, so precise and controlled and unable to let loose, Currentzis is a breath of fresh air. A new Stokowski? I hope he does a Mahler 5th soon!


----------



## DrSardonicus

Heck148 said:


> I don't hear it that way....the S-A order provides more up and down, "bipolar" effect which I find most persuasive....A-S order simply lacks that emotional "rollercoaster" trip that so many great conductors have presented with great success using S-A order.
> maybe the piece works well with the Andante first, but I've yet to experience it....


I can see merit to both arguments, frankly. I'm seeing this live on Saturday and am quite curious to the order they go with.


----------



## jdec

I suspect that many of those who don't favor S-A here primarily listen to Barbirolli's version, which definitely does NOT work in that order since the 1st movement and the Scherzo are practically in the same tempo on that version. I definitely would go for A-S in this excellent Barbirolli's rendition.

On the other hand, Boulez's (VPO) version for example, works best to me in the S-A order, where he set a bit faster tempo for the Scherzo making it sound like a kind of abstract, parodied world of the preceding 1st movement. This is the version I listen to most often and why I still prefer the S-A order. Finishing this symphony with Andante/Finale is the hit for me ('best for last' if you know what I mean).


----------



## jdec

realdealblues said:


> *I guess I'll chime in and say I think both A-S and S-A work equally well depending on the overall performance and tempo decisions. *
> 
> I spent quite a while last night listening to 4 recordings of the 6th and mainly focusing between the Andante and Scherzo order. I listened to the entire work one way and then swapped them around and listened to the entire work again. I can see how the Andante following the 1st movement can give a bit of calm after all the high tension of the first movement. But I also feel the similarity between the beginning of the Scherzo and the march of the 1st movement feels like a natural continuation because of the similarity, and some guys treat the 2nd major theme of the Scherzo as gentle as the Andante which does relax a bit of the tension as well.
> 
> In the end, I found for me, both ways work, it just depends on the recording and the overall performance of each movement and how they transition from one to another. Some recordings I might like better if I were to flip the movements because the flow from one movement to another might seem more natural and improved. It's not something I've ever really thought about doing but perhaps I will spend some time with that this year. I've always just taken each recording as it was and judged it as such.


Exactly, that's what I mention that for example both Barbirolli's and Boulez's versions work well in their respective two inner movement orders.


----------



## DavidA

jdec said:


> I suspect that many of those who don't favor S-A here primarily listen to Barbirolli's version, which definitely does NOT work in that order since the 1st movement and the Scherzo are practically in the same tempo on that version. I definitely would go for A-S in this excellent Barbirolli's rendition.
> 
> On the other hand, Boulez's (VPO) version for example, works best to me in the S-A order, where he set a bit faster tempo for the Scherzo making it sound like a kind of abstract, parodied world of the preceding 1st movement. This is the version I listen to most often and why I still prefer the S-A order. Finishing this symphony with Andante/Finale is the hit for me ('best for last' if you know what I mean).


In his studio recording, Barbirolli is far slower than Mahler's tempo instruction.


----------



## CnC Bartok

DavidA said:


> In his studio recording, Barbirolli is far slower than Mahler's tempo instruction.


Yes, maybe, but bloody hell, it's good!

Just been listening to it,, first time in a while, A-S in the middle of course, and it works brilliantly. With his reading, it probably does need to be Andante first.

Doesn't mean all this wonderful S-A conceived recordings are wrong, though. Works either way if you want to make it work.

99.9% happier with S-A becomes only 90% happier!!!

I think I ought to listen to someone other than Mahler for a while, almost forgotten other composers DO exist.... too many Mahler 10's, DLvdE's and 6ths in varying movement order. David, you have a lot to answer for with your threads!! :tiphat:


----------



## realdealblues

DavidA said:


> In his studio recording, Barbirolli is far slower than Mahler's tempo instruction.


Barbirolli is far slower than Mahler's tempo indications in about everything he did and pretty much ignores any changes within movement that Mahler marked, that's part of the reason I can't listen to him anymore without feeling extremely agitated.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> In his studio recording, Barbirolli is far slower than Mahler's tempo instruction.


Wasn't it you who said that there is no such thing as a "correct" way to conduct Mahler?

I find the studio Barbirolli to be the most devastating, emotionally shattering performance of the work I know. And I do believe the scherzo is at the same basic tempo as the 1st movement, to the previous poster's point.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> Barbirolli is far slower than Mahler's tempo indications in about everything he did and pretty much ignores any changes within movement that Mahler marked, that's part of the reason I can't listen to him anymore without feeling extremely agitated.


"I curse the conductor who does not do all he can to improve my music!"

- Gustav Mahler


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> "I curse the conductor who does not do all he can to improve my music!"
> 
> - Gustav Mahler


Key word there is improve. I honestly don't think Mahler would have see it as an improvement but to each his own. And Mahler can be conducted a multitude of ways, however; there are certain effects that Mahler was clearly going for and when you disregard many of the changes he marks you lose the intended effect which weakens the work and completely loses his intentions.


----------



## CnC Bartok

jdec said:


> I suspect that many of those who don't favor S-A here primarily listen to Barbirolli's version, which definitely does NOT work in that order since the 1st movement and the Scherzo are practically in the same tempo on that version. I definitely would go for A-S in this excellent Barbirolli's rendition.
> 
> On the other hand, Boulez's (VPO) version for example, works best to me in the S-A order, where he set a bit faster tempo for the Scherzo making it sound like a kind of abstract, parodied world of the preceding 1st movement. This is the version I listen to most often and why I still prefer the S-A order. Finishing this symphony with Andante/Finale is the hit for me ('best for last' if you know what I mean).


Damned good series of posts, chimed in with exactly how I have been responding to Barbirolli! :tiphat:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> Barbirolli is far slower than Mahler's tempo indications in about everything he did and pretty much ignores any changes within movement that Mahler marked, that's part of the reason I can't listen to him anymore without feeling extremely agitated.


Well I guess I am an idiot because after surveying dozens of recordings for every Mahler symphony Barbirolli came out on top more times than not, an opinion I share with many others.

Was not Mahler himself known to do quite a bit of tinkering as a conductor?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wasn't it you who said that there is no such thing as a "correct" way to conduct Mahler?
> 
> I find the studio Barbirolli to be the most devastating, emotionally shattering performance of the work I know. And I do believe the scherzo is at the same basic tempo as the 1st movement, to the previous poster's point.


 Of course there is no one way to interpret Mahler. But the marking is Allegro energico, ma non troppo, and Barbirolli's studio performance doesn't come within a mile of it. It is interesting that he needs taped live performance it is quicker


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> "I curse the conductor who does not do all he can to improve my music!"
> 
> - Gustav Mahler


Exactly! Mahler wanted his music improved, something that does not happen by ignoring his markings


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well I guess I am an idiot because after surveying dozens of recordings for every Mahler symphony Barbirolli came out on top more times than not, an opinion I share with many others.
> 
> Was not Mahler himself known to do quite a bit of tinkering as a conductor?


You just prefer the Barbirolli version which is fine, but please realise that other people have different opinions to you .


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Exactly! Mahler wanted his music improved, something that does not happen by ignoring his markings


Huh? How else can it be improved other than by deviating from the written score? I think you miss the point of the quote.

Case in point:

When discussing Barbirolli's studio 6th, I talk of its being devastating and emotionally shattering. By contrast, you simply state it is not in accordance with Mahler's markings.

One of us is concerned with the music. One of us is concerned with pedantry.

Which approach do you think Mahler would most agree with himself?

You point out how Barbirolli performed the first movement at a completely different tempo just days earlier in concert. What does that tell you about Barbirolli? He was experimental. He was flexible. He was forever searching for the best way. He never stopped thinking.

These are all attributes of Mahler himself, and that is PRECISELY what made Barbirolli such a great Mahler conductor.


----------



## Larkenfield

Brahmsianhorn said:


> "I curse the conductor who does not do all he can to improve my music!"
> 
> - Gustav Mahler


Yes, that's true. He encouraged that, even to tinker with different ways of interpreting his scores-but not _tampering_ with his music _wholesale_, to mess with it and change his published score, the only way he ever performed this particular symphony in his lifetime... Barbirolli got it right from the beginning and his live Mahler 6 with the New Philharmonia is a terrific recording despite its somewhat veiled recorded sound ... His initial tempo is a little slower than usual compared to other recordings but I feel it still works... His March tempo eases more into the symphony and creates a terrific feeling of expectation. I think he was an inspired and insightful Mahler conductor. His 5th is also a personal favorite (but not his too-bleak 9th), especially for its beautifully serene Adagietto.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well I guess I am an idiot because after surveying dozens of recordings for every Mahler symphony Barbirolli came out on top more times than not, an opinion I share with many others.
> 
> Was not Mahler himself known to do quite a bit of tinkering as a conductor?


I'll phrase it this way, if you sit down with a score and follow Mahler's 6th Symphony with Barbirolli's studio recording and look at everything from the tempo markings to small details of dynamics, tempo shifts, etc. you'd be forgiven for wondering why the two are so vastly different.

If you like the way it sounds, good for you. A similar debate rages over Beethoven all the time, Beethoven's Beethoven vs. some conductor's Beethoven, the difference is we have less details from Beethoven. Mahler left tons of notes on how to best perform his works because he was both composer and conductor and sure taking a little liberty here and there is one thing, but disregarding half the score is another.

I'm open to all sorts of interpretations that differ from the composer. I love Glenn Gould who often totally re-imagined a work, but what Glenn was doing and what Barbirolli often did were two totally different things.

You like his Mahler, fine. Others like it, fine. I don't, that's fine too. I'm giving reasons why I don't like it based upon the score. You think it sounds more devastating, fine. You're listening with your ears, I'm listening with the score and my ears. and I'm not saying my way is superior or better, but it's different so I have a different viewpoint. Just because you did subjective listening doesn't make what you think is the greatest recording in the world is the correct one or in some way better than whatever my picks are. I'm not saying mine are superior, but I'm saying if you follow Mahler's score you don't come up with Barbirolli's recording and what you hear as earth shattering and devastating I find dull and lifeless.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Larkenfield said:


> Yes, that's true. He encouraged that. Even to tinker with different ways of doing it, but not to tamper with it _wholesale_ and changed his published score, the only way he ever performed in his lifetime. Barbirolli got it right from the beginning and his live Mahler 6 with the New Philharmonia was a terrific recording... And yes, his initial tempo was a little slower than usual but I feel it still works. His March tempo eases more into the symphony and create a terrific feeling of expectation. I think he was a great Mahler conductor (mostly):


I happen to prefer the studio version. The first movement in that recording is the most powerful I know.

Two things:

1) You have no way of knowing whether Mahler would have agreed.
2) If Mahler had not agreed, I doubt he would have simply stated it for the reason that Barbirolli "disobeyed" his instructions. He would have given musical reasons.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> You're listening with your ears, *I'm listening with the score and my ears.*


Which means you are applying constricted listening. You are listening for certain things and judging the result to be either in accordance with what you expect or not in accordance. I am not. I am listening with open ears.

I have often prefered two opposite interpretations of the same work because the different approaches were both compelling in their own way. I am proud of that fact.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Which means you are applying constricted listening. You are listening for certain things and judging the result to be either in accordance with what you expect or not in accordance. I am not. I am listening with open ears.
> 
> I have often prefered two opposite interpretations of the same work because the different approaches were both compelling in their own way. I am proud of that fact.


What a thing listening with the score for what might Mahler actually put. But if it doesn't happen then it's of no matter because it doesn't matter how we interpret Mahler scores apparently


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> What a thing listening with the school for what might Mahler actually put. But if it doesn't happen then it's of no matter because it doesn't matter how we interpret Mahler scores apparently


It does matter how we interpret Mahler scores. The results are either compelling and moving or they are not. That is the criteria I apply, not the simplistic nonsense of strict adherence to the printed score. The mistake you make is assuming that when one deviates from the score he is doing so willy-nilly, as opposed to doing it for a reason.

And Mahler himself was the LAST conductor to apply such pedantry! He was all about the endless search for truth, which is PRECISELY what that quote states.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It does matter how we interpret Mahler scores. The results are either compelling and moving or they are not. That is the criteria I apply, not the simplistic nonsense of strict adherence to the printed score. The mistake you make is assuming that when one deviates from the score he is doing so willy-nilly, as opposed to doing it for a reason.
> 
> And Mahler himself was the LAST conductor to apply such pedantry! He was all about the endless search for truth, which is PRECISELY what that quote states.


Ah I see! So actually taking notice of Mahler's marking of 'Allegro energico, ma non troppo' is just 'simplistic nonsense' and 'pedantry'. Glad we know that now!


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Mahler could be very descriptive in conveying what he wanted out of his music. One thinks of "Lustig im Tempo und keck im Ausdruck" or "Im Tempo eines gemächlichen Ländlers, etwas täppisch und sehr derb", to give two examples from the 3rd and 9th symphonies. When not 'framing' entire movements thus, there are a plethora of instructions sprinkled throughout his scores, as this handy glossary amply demonstrates:

http://www.orchestralibrary.com/reftables/mahler2gloss.html


----------



## CnC Bartok

DavidA said:


> Ah I see! So actually taking notice of Mahler's marking of 'Allegro energico, ma non troppo' is just 'simplistic nonsense' and 'pedantry'. Glad we know that now!


An absence of metronome markings (well, I can't find any in my Eulenberg mini score) doesn't help.....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Ah I see! So actually taking notice of Mahler's marking of 'Allegro energico, ma non troppo' is just 'simplistic nonsense' and 'pedantry'. Glad we know that now!


So what would you call Barbirolli's gripping, terrifying first movement? It's certainly not an adagio. You put too much emphasis on simply speed as opposed to the character of a performance.


----------



## NLAdriaan

I can recommend the last Kondrashin recording of the 6th with the German SWR Orchestra, which is once sensitive, then fiery, all as you can expect from him. A few months later kondrashin died in his Amsterdam hotel right after having conducted Mahler 1 in the concertgebouw. The recording of this very last concert is also available on CD, also highly recommended.

The 1981 German SWR recording has been reissued and remastered in 2018.

I also remember a live concert by Gergiev in his Rotterdam years, which was quite the contrary, also as you might expect. Hammerblows that reached your spine.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So what would you call Barbirolli's gripping, terrifying first movement? It's certainly not an adagio. You put too much emphasis on simply speed as opposed to the character of a performance.


It's certainly not 'Allegro energico, ma non troppo'

Afraid you ignore Mahler's intentions.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

DavidA said:


> It's certainly not 'Allegro energico, ma non troppo'


It's more like an "Andante con moto" than an Allegro, to my ears.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So what would you call Barbirolli's gripping, terrifying first movement? It's certainly not an adagio. You put too much emphasis on simply speed as opposed to the character of a performance.


Amazing that you keep calling it gripping and terrifying when it's clearly boring, and faceless...but I forget as you keep pointing out your listening is superior to everyone else because we are all restricted and you are the only one listening with open ears.

It's not an Adagio, it's an Andante if you took the time to count the BPM and absolutely none of my comments have said anything about strict adherence to the score. My argument is that Barbirolli weighs down the music so much that it is unable to develop. It completely loses the tragic nature of the score. Gielen is slow, Sanderling is slow, Chailly is slow, but all are able to develop the themes without issue. They are able to convey the hero before the tragedy which Barbirolli fails to do. You have to know what happy is before you can know what sad is. Even Tony Duggan whom you've brought up before called it fatally flawed and certainly not the best representation of how the work actually goes which is back to my point. If you want to hear the 6th Symphony in some way related to how Mahler wrote it, then this should not be your first choice.

If you want to hear a one off oddity because you believe it somehow sounds more gripping and earth shattering, knock yourself out. Celibidache thought just because he played things agonizingly slow that it would put everyone in a state of transcendentalism, but guess what, it doesn't work that way because not everyone feels the way you do.

In Mahler's 2nd Symphony he calls for horn calls off stage in the finale because it creates a desired effect. By your logic if you personally think that it sounds better on stage than it fits into Mahler's statement to improving his works which is ridiculous. Mahler believed in following artistic vision, buy he did not butcher scores thinking himself always greater than the composer who wrote it.

As a musician I have had to learn hundreds of things without having ever heard them before. I don't always have the luxury of hearing someone else record it first. I had to read the printed note and draw my own conclusions of how it should sound, how it should be phrased, etc. The score is a guide to point you in the right direction and everyone especially after years of living with something changes their view on it, that's why so many people re-record things. I am about as far from strict adherence to the score as you can get, but there is something to be said when you completely lose the composers vision and desired effect because you think you know better.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> It's more like an "Andante con moto" than an Allegro, to my ears.


How can the performance be described as Andante? The character of it is nothing like Andante.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> How can the performance be described as Andante? The character of it is nothing like Andante.


Andante has to do with speed not character. 'Andante - at a walking pace (76-108 bpm)'


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> Amazing that you keep calling it gripping and terrifying when it's clearly boring, and faceless...but I forget as you keep pointing out your listening is superior to everyone else because we are all restricted and you are the only one listening with open ears.
> 
> It's not an Adagio, it's an Andante if you took the time to count the BPM and absolutely none of my comments have said anything about strict adherence to the score. My argument is that Barbirolli weighs down the music so much that it is unable to develop. It completely loses the tragic nature of the score. Gielen is slow, Sanderling is slow, Chailly is slow, but all are able to develop the themes without issue. They are able to convey the hero before the tragedy which Barbirolli fails to do. You have to know what happy is before you can know what sad is. Even Tony Duggan whom you've brought up before called it fatally flawed and certainly not the best representation of how the work actually goes which is back to my point. If you want to hear the 6th Symphony in some way related to how Mahler wrote it, then this should not be your first choice.
> 
> If you want to hear a one off oddity because you believe it somehow sounds more gripping and earth shattering, knock yourself out. Celibidache thought just because he played things agonizingly slow that it would put everyone in a state of transcendentalism, but guess what, it doesn't work that way because not everyone feels the way you do.
> 
> In Mahler's 2nd Symphony he calls for horn calls off stage in the finale because it creates a desired effect. By your logic if you personally think that it sounds better on stage than it fits into Mahler's statement to improving his works which is ridiculous. Mahler believed in following artistic vision, buy he did not butcher scores thinking himself always greater than the composer who wrote it.
> 
> As a musician I have had to learn hundreds of things without having ever heard them before. I don't always have the luxury of hearing someone else record it first. I had to read the printed note and draw my own conclusions of how it should sound, how it should be phrased, etc. The score is a guide to point you in the right direction and everyone especially after years of living with something changes their view on it, that's why so many people re-record things. I am about as far from strict adherence to the score as you can get, but there is something to be said when you completely lose the composers vision and desired effect because you think you know better.


I have *always* admitted it when mine is a minority opinion. I read all the reviews and listen to other people's opinions. Tony Duggan does not say the Barbirolli's account is faceless and boring. To the contrary he says admits the impressive impact of it but says it goes overboard, that it is too unrelenting. Simply a question of taste. I like the way it goes overboard.

And how hypocritical for you to paint me as claiming to have a superior opinion when it is you stating that the recording is "*clearly* boring, and faceless." Your statement doesn't leave much room for disagreement, does it? But do carry on.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Andante has to do with speed not character. 'Andante - at a walking pace (76-108 bpm)'


In my opinion the character matters as much as the speed. Andante is not forceful.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Dude, I have *always* admitted it when mine is a minority opinion. I read all the reviews and listen to other people's opinions. Tony Duggan does not say the Barbirolli's account is faceless and boring. To the contrary he says admits the impressive impact of it but says it goes overboard, that it is too unrelenting. Simply a question of taste. I like the way it goes overboard.
> 
> And how hypocritical for you to paint me as claiming to have a superior opinion when it is you stating that the recording is "*clearly* boring, and faceless." Your statement doesn't leave much room for disagreement, does it? But do carry on.


I said Duggan said it was was "fatally flawed and certainly not the best representation of how the work actually goes".

The boring and faceless was sarcasm...every single time you refer to the 1st movement you refer to it as "gripping and terrifying or devastating and earth shattering" when I and many others find it "anything but". I realize sarcasm doesn't come across as well when writing but thought you would understand the joke...so I admit that is my mistake.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> In my opinion the character matters as much as the speed. Andante is not forceful.


Allegro is characterized by "fast, quickly, and bright" which is the total opposite of Barbirolli's first movement. Those are general descriptions but they also designate BPM tempos.


----------



## realdealblues

_Larghissimo_ - very, very slow (24 bpm and under)
_Adagissimo_ - very slowly
_Grave_ - very slow (25-45 bpm)
_Largo_ - broadly (40-60 bpm)
_Lento_ - slowly (45-60 bpm)
_Larghetto_ - rather broadly (60-66 bpm)
_Adagio_ - slowly with great expression[SUP][8][/SUP] (66-76 bpm)
_Adagietto_ - slower than _andante_ (72-76 bpm) or slightly faster than _adagio_ (70-80 bpm)
_Andante_ - at a walking pace (76-108 bpm)
_Andantino_ - slightly faster than _andante_ (although, in some cases, it can be taken to mean slightly slower than _andante_) (80-108 bpm)
_Marcia moderato_ - moderately, in the manner of a march[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] (83-85 bpm)
_Andante moderato_ - between _andante_ and _moderato_ (thus the name) (92-112 bpm)
_Moderato_ - at a moderate speed (108-120 bpm)
_Allegretto_ - by the mid 19th century, moderately fast (112-120 bpm); see paragraph above for earlier usage
_Allegro moderato_ - close to, but not quite _allegro_ (116-120 bpm)
_Allegro_ - fast, quickly, and bright (120-156 bpm) (_molto allegro_ is slightly faster than _allegro_, but always in its range)
_Vivace_ - lively and fast (156-176 bpm)
_Vivacissimo_ - very fast and lively (172-176 bpm)
_Allegrissimo_ or _Allegro vivace_ - very fast (172-176 bpm)
_Presto_ - very, very fast (168-200 bpm)
_Prestissimo_ - even faster than _presto_ (200 bpm and over)


----------



## realdealblues

Additional terms that may be helpful:


_A piacere_ - the performer may use his or her own discretion with regard to tempo and rhythm; literally "at pleasure" 
_Con moto_ - Italian for "with movement"; can be combined with a tempo indication, e.g., _Allegro con moto_ 
_Assai_ - (very) much 
_A tempo_ - resume previous tempo 
_L'istesso_, _L'istesso tempo_, or _Lo stesso tempo_ - at the same speed; _L'istesso_ is used when the actual speed of the music has not changed, despite apparent signals to the contrary, such as changes in time signature or note length (half notes in [SUP]*4/4 *[/SUP]could change to whole notes in [SUP]*2/2*[/SUP], and they would all have the same duration) 
_Ma non tanto_ - but not so much; used in the same way and has the same effect as _Ma non troppo_ (see immediately below) but to a lesser degree 
_Ma non troppo_ - but not too much; used to modify a basic tempo to indicate that the basic tempo should be reined in to a degree; for example, _Adagio ma non troppo_ to mean ″Slow, but not too slow″, _Allegro ma non troppo_ to mean ″Fast, but not too fast″ 
_Molto_ - very 
_Poco_ - a little 
_Subito_ - suddenly 
_Tempo comodo_ - at a comfortable (normal) speed 
_Tempo di..._ - the speed of a ... (such as _Tempo di valzer_ (speed of a waltz, . ≈ 60 bpm), _Tempo di marcia_ (speed of a march,  ≈ 120 bpm)) 
_Tempo giusto_ - at a consistent speed, at the 'right' speed, in strict tempo 
_Tempo semplice_ - simple, regular speed, plainly 
_Tempo primo_ - resume the original (first) tempo


----------



## realdealblues

Mahler's first movement is titled:
Allegro energico, ma non troppo = Fast energetic, but not too fast


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> I said Duggan said it was was "fatally flawed and certainly not the best representation of how the work actually goes".


What is important to note is that Duggan and I do indeed hear the same thing. It is simply a matter of taste.

I like the grim tragedy dripping from Barbirolli's reading. Duggan does not.

I do not try to dissuade people from loving a recording and hope others are the same towards me. I simply state my own truth as I see it.

If a chap is head over heels in love with someone I consider loathesom, my reaction is "not my cup of tea but more power to you."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Just perusing the Amazon reviews of Barbirolli's 6th proves I am not alone in my opinion. If Barbirolli is wrong, I don't want to be right!


"When Barbirolli starts Mahler 6 with that trudging gait, you might think you're going to get so bogged down you'll never never come out. But this is as grim and relentless a take on this grim and relentless symphony as you'll find. I think it's amazing."

"Be warned-- people who love this recording are crazy nuts about it. People who don't like it probably haven't listened past the first two bars. The tempo scares people off. Just keep going !!"

"Barbirolli comes closer than anyone in making the tragedy, even horror, of this symphony sound real. Just a few seconds of the very martial opening movement will convince you that this is like no other performance."

"Some people may think that there is too much of tragedy right from the beginning and the starting tempo is a little draggy compared to most other versions. But I don't feel that way at all. In contrast, I think Barbirolli's expression and tempo is just absolutely right. There is a real sense of tragedy and our MAN in the music is determined in facing the fate. Put it in short: this performance is the most convincing and satisfactory to me."

"I would rank this as not only the greatest recording of Mahler's 6th, but one of the greatest classical recordings of all time--equal in quality to Toscanini's Beethoven symphonies, Landowska's Well-Tempered Clavier, and Furtwangler's Tristan. By choosing digified tempi and having one of the world's greatest orchestras at his disposal, Barbirolli extracts every ounce of beauty and passion from this symphony, which has a reputation as a stern and unforgiving work. And it is! But there are depths of beauty that can be found only in such a context."

"I wouldn't begin to want to add to the over-the-top adulation already heaped on this recording of the Mahler 6th by Barbirolli. I just want to go on record as feeling that when it was issued in the U. S. circa 1967, and had been panned by High Fidelity magazine, this was one of most articulate, beautifully-paced Mahler performances that I knew at that time."

"Superlatives are superflous here. Adjectives are hopeless.
I have simply never heard another performance of this work that is so jaw droppingly overwhelming.
If this recording doesn't have a profound effect on you, well, you must be dead!!!"

"The reviewers were right: Barbirolli's tempo is "just right," neither rushed nor dragging. The percussion effects are the best I've heard, adding even more power to Mahler's Sixth. Consider buying this for yourself, to hear all the energy andlife that Mahler put into his sixth symphony."

"From the first notes of the Mahler, you know this is the recording of a lifetime. It made my palms sweat and my heart race."

"I have heard a bunch of Mahler 6 recordings and live a few times and this is just an amazing interpretation. The speed of the first movement and the inversion of the inner movements are pretty unique to this recording and I cannot even listen to other recordings now."

"This performance is very majestic, not so flamboyant as Bernstein, but this reading is powerful and impressive. Real Mahlerians should have this recording, I think."

"This is my favorite of all my Mahler recordings, and possibly my favorite orchestral recording of all time. Yes, there are problems with the interpretation. Yes, not all the details and colors are realized as fully as in other recordings. But this is beside the point. Simply put, in my entire life I have never heard an orchestra get this heavy, or play with this level of intensity. I always thought Mahler was the Heavy Metal of his time, and this recording leaves no doubt about why that is. In every bar, you can hear string players crushing the bows into their strings, and brass players blasting their hearts out. It's a wild, brash, and decidedly 'immature' performace on behalf of Mr. Barbirolli and the Philharmonia, and thank God for that, because it's one of most exciting things I've ever heard in my life."


----------



## Becca

Give it up folks, you aren't going to convince anyone because you are mostly dealing with personal opinions about things where the other person doesn't want to be convinced.

"... look at a few of the more contentious threads (i.e. the longer ones). To put it simply and graphically, they remind me of nothing more than some rams bashing heads with each other to determine dominance. The threads are less reasoned argument trying to come to some mutual understanding and more of attempts to force opinions on each other with the winner being the last post standing. "


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Just perusing the Amazon reviews of Barbirolli's 6th proves I am not alone in my opinion. If Barbirolli is wrong, I don't want to be right!


Then you don't want to hear Mahler, you want to hear Barbirolli. Thus ends the discussion...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Becca said:


> The threads are less reasoned argument trying to come to some mutual understanding and more of attempts to force opinions on each other *with the winner being the last post standing.* "





realdealblues said:


> Then you don't want to hear Mahler, you want to hear Barbirolli. *Thus ends the discussion*...


Last post standing


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Last post standing


Exactly the response and mentality I expected and the reason why so many good posters who were here for years have left...might be that time...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> Exactly the response and mentality I expected and the reason why so many good posters who were here for years have left...might be that time...


You did say the discussion was over, right? Or were you making an ironic joke?


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You did say the discussion was over, right? Or were you making an ironic joke?


Yes, I said the discussion on Mahler's 6th is over because you can't have an intelligent discussion with kids who know everything there is to know about music and proper listening and yet don't know anything about musical terminology and how it relates to tempos or feelings in scores and about how those items might relate to an overall effect the composer had in mind.

Discussion about childish attempts to be the last post standing is another matter...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> Yes, I said the discussion on Mahler's 6th is over because you can't have an intelligent discussion with kids who know everything there is to know about music and proper listening and yet don't know anything about musical terminology and how it relates to tempos or feelings in scores and about how those items might relate to an overall effect the composer had in mind.
> 
> Discussion about childish attempts to be the last post standing is another matter...


My point was that your "This ends the discussion" post was a clear example of what Becca was talking about.

I'm glad you feel superior and that you "won" this debate. I have other reasons for being on this forum.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My point was that your "This ends the discussion" post was a clear example of what Becca was talking about.
> 
> I'm glad you feel superior and that you "won" this debate. I have other reasons for being on this forum.


Your comment was the clear example of what Becca was talking about, not mine. My point was there never was a debate, I never tried to convince you of anything. I made a comment giving what I see as a valid reason why I don't like an interpretation based upon Mahler's score and wishes to achieve a desired effect and you proceed to tell us all how we don't know how to listen to music.

So far all I have seen you do in almost every post is interject that what you like is better than everyone else and then when someone makes a point, you completely miss it and then proceed with attacks and act like you have superior knowledge all the while playing the victim, but whatever...keep on claiming to seek truth when you refuse to see or speak any. I tried, but I will go ahead and make these my last comments to you, not because I want to win anything but because I will join several other members who no longer wish to discuss things with you because you have proven you are unwilling to actually discuss anything.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> Your comment was the clear example of what Becca was talking about, not mine.


My comment "last post standing" was referencing your comment. That is why I put your comment in bold. Clearly you did not understand that. YOU were demonstrating what Becca was talking about with those words. That was my point.

I am sorry you cannot handle opinions different than your own. Your last post stands as clear evidence that you are superior to me in every way, so there is nothing left to discuss. I am an idiot who makes idiotic points and refuses to submit to the wisdom of others. I will be silenced now, as is your will. I do not wish to upset you by stating an opinion different from yours.

I hereby dub thee King of Musical Wisdom, never to be doubted or contradicted, as per your wishes.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I do not try to dissuade people from loving a recording and hope others are the same towards me. I simply state my own truth as I see it.
> 
> If a chap is head over heels in love with someone I consider loathesom, my reaction is "not my cup of tea but more power to you."


My quote from a few posts ago. Is this an example of acting like I have superior knowledge?

Let's be very clear about what happened in this thread. I stated an opinion. Realdealblues stated a contrary opinion. Realdealblues became frustrated that I would not change my opinion (i.e. submit to his way of thinking) and proceeded in his last post to strike me with vitriolic insults.

Be better. It is a discussion over classical music, nothing more, nothing less.

EDIT: I will also add that this is the entire problem with "objectivists." They believe there is only one right answer. And if you contradict that one right answer then you are being insolent. So yes, Realdealblues was not trying to convince me of anything. In his mind there was no room for debate to begin with. You are either on the side of what is "right" or you are not. I think Mahler would disagree.


----------



## DavidA

It always amuses me to see two reviews of the same recording and wonder whether they are actually listening to the same one!
Here are a couple of reviews from Barbirolli's live 6th with the BPO.
'However inspired Barbirolli's interpretation-and there are some compelling moments here and there, especially in the finale-the execution is dismal.'

https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-10248/

'with the Berlin Philharmonic on superb form.'

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2004/feb/13/classicalmusicandopera.shopping1

Note this is not talking about something subjective like interpretation - it's talking about the actual playing of the orchestra.

I wonder who is right? Any opinions?


----------



## Larkenfield

DavidA said:


> It always amuses me to see two reviews of the same recording and wonder whether they are actually listening to the same one!
> Here are a couple of reviews from Barbirolli's live 6th with the BPO.
> 'However inspired Barbirolli's interpretation-and there are some compelling moments here and there, especially in the finale-the execution is dismal.'
> 
> https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-10248/
> 
> 'with the Berlin Philharmonic on superb form.'
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/music/2004/feb/13/classicalmusicandopera.shopping1
> 
> Note this is not talking about something subjective like interpretation - it's talking about the actual playing of the orchestra.
> 
> I wonder who is right? Any opinions?


Barbirolli was sometimes accused of not following Mahler's scores and his tempo markings. But his performance of the 5th, especially of his beautifully serene recording of the Adagietto, has remained a personal favorite because I believe he very much understood the composer's loves, inner life, and soul... I've heard Barbirolli's live Prom performance of the 6th and greatly enjoyed it. I like it better than his studio album... and he recorded the middle two movements according to Mahler's published score, though EMI reversed them at the time on the studio album because of the infamous Radz edition reversal-to Barbirolli's great annoyance... I consider Barbirolli a true Mahlerphile whether he followed Mahler's scores down to every detail. He interpreted the music in a highly personal but effective and meaningful way. I rather enjoyed that the BPO wasn't playing as if within the hand of a controlling, iron grip and could somewhat relax... The worst that I've read about Barbirolli can be found in a condescending article by Dr. David Wright, who I believe usually missed the point on just about everyone, but anyone can find it if they want to. I'm not a fan of his narrow theological and condescending moral judgments of such composers as Schubert, Debussy, Chopin, and Scriabin.


----------



## flamencosketches

Working my way through the 9 (10?) Mahler symphonies in chronological order, the one I am currently attempting to understand is the 6th... Mahler's "Tragic" symphony.

The recording I am familiar with is Leonard Bernstein, NYPO. I think the symphony is no less than a masterpiece, but the music is just devastating, crushing, and unrelenting. An hour and a half of pure sadism on behalf of the performers. It reminds me of my own life long experiences with mental illness, which I believe the music reflects beautifully. 

However, this is not something I like to subject myself to every day. Yet I see so many here and elsewhere refer to the 6th as Mahler's best symphony, and as their personal favorite. Are all of these people emotional masochists, or are they hearing something that I'm not? 

Anyway, the reason I'm posting here is to ask for some guidance. Reading through this thread, I see pages and pages of debate regarding Mahler's will regarding how the symphony should be performed, particularly the Scherzo-Andante debate. Personally, I think the Scherzo-Andante order works really well, for reasons that Heck and others articulated. (I am unbothered about Mahler's instructions for how the symphony should be performed; I like his quote about how conductors should do whatever is in their power to improve his music). 

That being said, perhaps the message and overall feeling of the music totally changes when performed in the "correct" order...? Additionally, Bernstein's Mahler is notorious for its heart-on-sleeve emotionality. Long story short, I'm looking for supplemental listening.

If anyone can recommend to me a recording that is (a) somewhat less dark and heavy in interpretation than Bernstein's, yet without strictly avoiding the Tragic nature of the music, and (b) performed in the Andante-Scherzo order... I would greatly appreciate it!


----------



## chesapeake bay

I found this performance a while ago and was pretty impressed.


----------



## flamencosketches

chesapeake bay said:


> I found this performance a while ago and was pretty impressed.


That has to be the longest Mahler 6th on record, 93 minutes?! That's almost as long as Bernstein's Mahler 3rd.


----------



## Becca

I have probably mentioned them earlier in the thread but I would recommend both Barbirolli's Proms performance on Testament (not the EMI studio which is more heavy going in the first movement) and the Thomas Sanderling recording. Both of these use the A/S order. While I have heard them, I avoid both Bernstein and Solti because they come across as unrelenting, albeit in different ways. The andante should be a period of repose in the middle of the symphony (even graceful repose) and for me, it seems to work better when done as Mahler intended.

Incidentally, regarding the order, it is true Mahler believed that a conductor should be given flexibility, nowhere is there any evidence that he extended that to reordering any of the symphonies, quite the contrary, the fact that he was so explicit about the order he wanted would seem to contradict that idea. It would all have been a non-issue had it not been for Alma.


----------



## flamencosketches

Are we not to give poor Alma any credit? She was a composer in her own right. Surely SHE replaced them for a reason. Can't we just call the S-A ordering "Alma Mahler's 6th" and be done with it? 

In any case, I think I may have to avoid Barbirolli for now – the vitriolic back-and-forth his interpretation has provoked in this thread has left a bad taste in my mouth. 

I've never heard anything of Thomas Sanderling, though his father was a pretty great conductor.


----------



## Kiki

flamencosketches said:


> ... If anyone can recommend to me a recording that is (a) somewhat less dark and heavy in interpretation than Bernstein's, yet without strictly avoiding the Tragic nature of the music, and (b) performed in the Andante-Scherzo order... I would greatly appreciate it!


Played in the A-S order and is more subtle/sensitive than Bernstein/NYPO?

Perhaps you'd like to investigate Abbado/Berlin 2004 (DG) or Iván Fischer/Budapest 2005 (Channel Classics). 

Personally I'd strongly recommend Rattle/Berlin 2018 (BP Recordings) but that's hardly subtle/sensitive; it's more like dark/powerful but without the emotional overflow.


----------



## Becca

flamencosketches said:


> In any case, I think I may have to avoid Barbirolli for now - the vitriolic back-and-forth his interpretation has provoked in this thread has left a bad taste in my mouth.
> .


Most of it relates to his studio recording and the first movement. His Proms performance from a few days earlier is quite a bit different.


----------



## flamencosketches

Kiki said:


> Played in the A-S order and is more subtle/sensitive than Bernstein/NYPO?
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to investigate Abbado/Berlin 2004 (DG) or Iván Fischer/Budapest 2005 (Channel Classics).
> 
> Personally I'd strongly recommend Rattle/Berlin 2018 (BP Recordings) but that's hardly subtle/sensitive; it's more like dark/powerful but without the emotional overflow.


Excellent, thanks for that. Thank you, too, Becca. I shall have to give all of these recordings a shot, one at a time at least, before ever returning to Bernstein's account.

I think Abbado/Berlin will be next up. I like what I've heard of his Mahler and am trying to explore more recent recordings. I like Ivan Fischer, but I'm not sure how well he'd hold up in a Mahler symphony, speaking personally.


----------



## MrMeatScience

I can vouch for the Sanderling recording as well. It was the first Mahler 6 I ever sank my teeth into, and it still satisfies me today, although there are others I enjoy more. I also really like MTT's with San Francisco, although it uses S-A. That recording was made just a few days after the 9/11 attacks in the US, which maybe accounts for some of the energy (sorry, I know you wanted lighter ones!).


----------



## flamencosketches

Sanderling with the St. Petersburg PO, or is there another one? Not terribly easy to find, is it?


----------



## Larkenfield

flamencosketches said:


> Sanderling with the St. Petersburg PO, or is there another one? Not terribly easy to find, is it?







However, it does not follow the only A-S order that Mahler ever publicly performed this marvelous symphony in.

And well, it's not Barbirolli's fault that some people are arguing about his great Proms performance. IMO, he was a great Mahler conductor with deep insight into the music and played the middle two movements according to Mahler's published wishes.


----------



## flamencosketches

Ah indeed. As I mentioned before, the S-A thing is not at all a dealbreaker for me, but as of right now, I'm only looking for recordings that are the other way around to see if I can better stomach this symphony in that way. Saving this one for later.


----------



## Larkenfield

flamencosketches said:


> Are we not to give poor Alma any credit? She was a composer in her own right. Surely SHE replaced them for a reason. Can't we just call the S-A ordering "Alma Mahler's 6th" and be done with it?
> 
> In any case, I think I may have to avoid Barbirolli for now - the vitriolic back-and-forth his interpretation has provoked in this thread has left a bad taste in my mouth.
> 
> I've never heard anything of Thomas Sanderling, though his father was a pretty great conductor.


No. She doesn't deserve any credit. She changed the order years after her husband's death, and if one looks into the performance history of this great symphony, one can see that Mahler himself premiered and only performed it in the A-S order, not to mention that other conductors did too, till the end of his life. He never changed his mind. So no, she deserves no credit for her meddling because she created the crisis and not her husband. This matter has thoroughly been gone into and documented on a number of Mahler 6th threads. Gustav Mahler never performed it S-A and his second and third published scores printed during his lifetime have the order A-S. He didn't premier it S-A and didn't perform it S-A and couldn't have been more clear about what he wanted permanently. Barbirolli got it right and his live Proms performance is a great one though he took the first movement a little bit slower than what some people like.


----------



## flamencosketches

Oddly, that doesn't bother me. Like I said, I am convinced that she did it for a reason. Perhaps during their nightly pillow talk, he would always lament how badly he wanted to switch the order of the movements back to Scherzo-Andante, but never had the nerve to. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Larkenfield said:


> No. She doesn't deserve any credit. She changed the order years after her husband's death, and if one looks into the performance history of this great symphony, one can see that Mahler himself premiered and only performed it in the A-S order, not to mention that other conductors did too, till the end of his life. He never changed his mind. So no, she deserves no credit for her meddling because she created the crisis and not her husband. This matter has thoroughly been gone into and documented on a number of Mahler 6th threads. Gustav Mahler never performed it S-A and his second and third published scores printed during his lifetime have the order A-S. He didn't premier it S-A and didn't perform it S-A and couldn't have been more clear about what he wanted permanently. Barbirolli got it right and his live Proms performance is a great one though he took the first movement a little bit slower than what some people like.


If we are talking CDit doesn't matter on the slightest as you can programme the CD to the order you want


----------



## Larkenfield

[Repost] Performance history of the 6th during Mahler's lifetime:

'Three weeks before the first performance, Mahler had the Symphony read through in Vienna under his direction, at which time he irrevocably decided that the correct middle-movement order should be Andante-Scherzo. Mahler conducted the world premiere in Essen on 27 May 1906, with the middle movement order of A-S, after having instructed Kahnt to insert an erratum slip in the unsold copies of the scores and in Specht's booklet, detailing the correct middle movement order, and to republish the scores and booklet with the corrected middle-movement order, which Kahnt did in November 1906. ... From that point on, therefore, there would seem to be no question regarding the order of the movements, the more so as the remaining five complete performances of the Symphony in Mahler's lifetime were given with the order of A-S. Chronologically, these performances were:'

*October 1906, Oskar Fried conducting, Berlin (Mahler attended the rehearsals and performance)
*8 November 1906, Mahler conducting, Munich
*14 November 1906, Bernard Stavenhagen (a pupil of Liszt) conducting, Munich (the second performance in the city in a week)
*January 1907, Mahler conducting, Vienna (the Philharmonic Orchestra)
*March 1907, Hans Winderstein conducting, Leipzig
*April 1907, Ernst von Schuch conducting, Dresden (middle movements only, in the order Andante-Scherzo).

He never recanted or reversed his A-S score and had plenty of opportunities to do so during the remaining 5 years of his life.


----------



## NLAdriaan

For a relative light 6th, I can recommend Boulez and Chailly on CD. 
For the best Mahler 6 by Abbado, just follow this link:


----------



## Kiki

Recently read a few "stories" written in the notes of Charles Adler's 3-CD set of Mahler 3, 6 and 10 (Adagio and Purgatorio) about the order of the inner movements.

--

First, the well-known one, that Mahler had published it at first in the S-A order, then conducted it in A-S at the premiere in 1906, and A-S was published subsequently.

When did Mahler instructed his publisher to change the order to A-S? Presumably in 1906 soon after the premiere?

--

The second story is that, at the last performance (1907) of three that he conducted, there is "some evidence" that Mahler reverted back to S-A, even though A-S was printed in the programme. The author suggested that it was a "last-minute experiment", but he emphasized that it did not prove Mahler wanted S-A from then on, as he could have experimented and rejected it.

What I find the most interesting is that, if this story is creditable, it suggests that Mahler was not sure at the last performance that he conducted, and that's why he "experimented". Whether he "accepted" or "rejected" S-A after the experiment, we have no idea, but rather it only suggests that he had doubts after the 1906 premiere.

--

The third story is de la Grange's account in his Mahler biography. Two weeks after the last performance that Mahler conducted in 1907, he revised the score that had been in Mengleberg's procession, and when he returned it to Mengelberg, the order remained A-S; but Mengelberg wrote on the front page saying that, "according to Mahler" the order should be S-A. The author suggested that Mahler could have forgotten to switch the order and therefore told Mengelberg afterwards it should be S-A.

If Mengelberg's words (and de la Grange's) are to be believed, I don't think this proves Mahler wanted S-A definitively in 1907. If it were definitive and therefore needed a change in the score, he could not have forgotten to make such an important change. Rather, I think it suggests that, Mahler kept changing his mind about the order, or he still wasn't sure after the last performance that he conducted in 1907.

--

The last story is the Alma telegram to Mendelberg stating the S-A order in 1919.

All I can say is that, this last story only suggests that Alma wanted S-A for some unspecified reason.

--

BTW Adler recorded A-S in his recording, which was recorded in 1952, so he simply played the order stated in the score that he had. (The 1963 critical edition had not come out yet with its unsupported change to S-A.)

The notes suggested that the listener could programme the tracks in whatever order desired. I don't buy this idea, as I believe conductors will play it differently for different orders; and therefore I rather take whatever the conductors want to give me.


----------



## Larkenfield

Isn't it enough that Mahler never reversed the order to S-A in the remaining five years of his life when he had plenty of opportunities to do so if he had doubts or was supposedly unsure? He doesn't appear to be unsure at all or have any doubts at all after the 6th's initial premiere and he instructed his publisher to make the correction in the second and third published editions as A-S. So Adler is correct in his 1952 recording. The change to S-A that Radz ratified without any justification at all could only be due to Alma's note to Mengelberg years after Mahler's last A-S published score. Without her meddling, there would've been no controversy about the middle two movements. The actual performance history during Mahler's lifetime is hardly unclear. But some continue to try to find a justification for S-A because that's how they heard the symphony first: the Alma Mahler preference, and now it's what they're used to whether it's a reflection of Mahler's published score or not. What it comes down to is that _she_ was unable to accept his final decision about the order. I think if listeners heard both they would understand why Mahler preferred it A-S. The symphony needs the relief of the Andante after the percussive and turbulent agitation of the first movement. There is not sufficient contrast between the agitation of the first and second movements with the Scherzo as the second movement and that's the likely reason why Mahler preferred it in the A-S ordering. The symphony gives a much different impression with that ordering and I believe a more favorable one in a symphony that's considered related to the tragedy. The psychological relief of the more peaceful and serene Andante comes earlier and the further turbulence of the Scherzo comes later as far as their timing is concerned, and that's a huge difference in emphasis that others are willing to accept or not. But as far as Mahler's 2nd and 3rd published scores are concerned, he had five years to change it back to S-A and never did. It was an irrevocable change and I believe he made the right decision.


----------



## Kiki

What I find fascinating is what could have been going through in Mahler's mind. I've asked this question before: why did Mahler change his mind? No one seems to know, naturally, I hate to add. All we know is the fact that he changed the order to A-S in the published score and therefore A-S is definitive.

What the notes from the Adler set are suggesting is that, if the de la Grange story and the final performance story are credible, Mahler could be having doubts after the premiere; but obviously such doubts were not strong enough to lead him to overturn the A-S change, otherwise he would have done so. I find that insight fascinating.


----------



## Becca

I'm not sure why the A/S issue is that much different from his decision to drop the Blumine movement from the 1st symphony. In a word - experience. The only substantive difference is that nobody has claimed that he wanted to add it back (not that it has stopped a few from doing so!)

On the subject of changing the playing order of CDs, sure you can do it but I am sure that any competent conductor adjusts his interpretation of the 1st movement as a function of what is to come afterwards so changing the order gives a distorted idea of the overall interpretation.


----------



## mbhaub

Becca said:


> ...I am sure that any competent conductor adjusts his interpretation of the 1st movement as a function of what is to come afterwards so changing the order gives a distorted idea of the overall interpretation.


Exactly right. It also changes how the Andante is played. I've studied this issue for decades and have heard it on and off records both A/S and S/A. It works either way, but I still prefer the latter. In the A/S order, you have two movements essentially in major keys, followed by two in minor keys. At least the S/A alternates.


----------



## Heck148

Becca said:


> On the subject of changing the playing order of CDs, sure you can do it but I am sure that any competent conductor adjusts his interpretation of the 1st movement as a function of what is to come afterwards so changing the order gives a distorted idea of the overall interpretation.


yes, good point....I've thought the same thing...simply changing the order on playback is not going to mesh with the conductor's overall concept...


----------



## Heck148

mbhaub said:


> Exactly right. It also changes how the Andante is played. I've studied this issue for decades and have heard it on and off records both A/S and S/A. It works either way, but I still prefer the latter. In the A/S order, you have two movements essentially in major keys, followed by two in minor keys. At least the S/A alternates.


Agreed - it does work both ways, but I prefer S-A...I couple years back I heard Boston play it with Nelsons - he played it S-A...it was a very fine performance....very powerful..


----------



## flamencosketches

Becca said:


> On the subject of changing the playing order of CDs, sure you can do it but I am sure that any competent conductor adjusts his interpretation of the 1st movement as a function of what is to come afterwards so changing the order gives a distorted idea of the overall interpretation.


Couldn't agree more. I would never change the ordering of the tracks on any classical record...

... I think I'm going to listen to the Abbado/Berlin recording of the Mahler 6th in the morning, or that's the plan anyway. Still have yet to hear the symphony in Andante-Scherzo order.


----------



## Enthusiast

Becca said:


> I'm not sure why the A/S issue is that much different from his decision to drop the Blumine movement from the 1st symphony. In a word - experience. The only substantive difference is that nobody has claimed that he wanted to add it back (not that it has stopped a few from doing so!)


There are many works by other composers (Bruckner obviously but there are others) in various versions and conductors tend to choose the one that either works for them or that they are convinced best capture the composer's intentions. A conductor's choice for the Mahler 6 A/S question is legitimate to me and I enjoy versions of each. We know that Barbirolli's preference (A and then S) was reversed by his producer in his studio recording but I don't think there are any other examples of a conductor's choice being undone.


----------



## Becca

Enthusiast said:


> There are many works by other composers (Bruckner obviously but there are others) in various versions and *conductors tend to choose the one that either works for them or that they are convinced best capture the composer's intentions*. A conductor's choice for the Mahler 6 A/S question is legitimate to me and I enjoy versions of each. We know that Barbirolli's preference (A and then S) was reversed by his producer in his studio recording but I don't think there are any other examples of a conductor's choice being undone.


But Bruckner never explicitly said that it should be done THIS way and went to the point of having the publisher include a note to that effect. Mahler did.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I think we (you and I) have been here before, Becca. Once an artwork is in the public domain it is what we make it. All performers ignore or change composer's stated intentions to some extent. If it works it works. Personally, I probably prefer A/S but there are a good few performances that I love that do it the other way. I feel I would lose - and I certainly don't think I would benefit - if I adopted a rigid position about A/S. In any case, the history of Mahler's expressed (and apparently expressed) views on this subject does indicate some uncertainty on his side.


----------



## Becca

No doubt we have, and may well again in the future. But to get back to my first point, why is it that the 6th is the only one where conductors feel free to shuffle the movement order? I'm sure that a similar case can be made for other symphonies by Mahler, Bruckner and others, where arguments could be made regarding improved ordering with respect to tempi/keys etc., but nobody does.


----------



## Larkenfield

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I think we (you and I) have been here before, Becca. Once an artwork is in the public domain it is what we make it. All performers ignore or change composer's stated intentions to some extent. If it works it works. Personally, I probably prefer A/S but there are a good few performances that I love that do it the other way. I feel I would lose - and I certainly don't think I would benefit - if I adopted a rigid position about A/S. In any case, the history of Mahler's expressed (and apparently expressed) views on this subject does indicate some uncertainty on his side.


And where exactly was Mahler's "uncertainty" expressed after it was premiered and in his second and third published scores and for five years afterward until he died? There's no ambivalence and uncertainty. Learn the history of this symphony and why it was changed to S-A 13 years later by a certain unauthorized individual after those published scores. A work such as this is not just "what we make it" when his intentions were made perfectly clear while he was alive. Some of you just fly by the seat of your pants and make things up thinking that anyone has a right to do so. At least understand why there has been conjecture and how it developed... The only reason I mention it is in defense of Mahler who only played this symphony publicly in one way, one order, and the way it was played for 13 years after its official premiere - including for eight years after his death -until there was interference with his published and final wishes... He didn't have to have anyone tamper with his score in order to get it played like, for example, most of Bruckner's symphonies. There was no uncertainty with Mahler after he heard this symphony played live in a rehearsal for the premier and decided that the second and third movements needed to be permanently and irrevocably reversed, and undoubtedly for good reasons. Everything since has been pure hubris speculation and conjecture.


----------



## mbhaub

Becca said:


> ...why is it that the 6th is the only one where conductors feel free to shuffle the movement order?


I can't think of any good reason why anyone would change the order of the movements of a symphony. The composer has a plan and that is fulfilled in playing the work in the order written. But it has happened. There was some conductor who did swap the 3rd and 4th movements thinking the audience would be happier leaving with the exciting strains of the march in their heads rather than the dismal finale. Off the top of my head I can't recall who it was and now, dang it, I'll have to look it up.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> And where exactly was Mahler's "uncertainty" expressed after it was premiered and in his second and third published scores and for five years afterward until he died? There's no ambivalence and uncertainty. Learn the history of this symphony and why it was changed to S-A 13 years later by a certain unauthorized individual after those published scores. A work such as this is not just "what we make it" when his intentions were made perfectly clear while he was alive. Some of you just fly by the seat of your pants and make things up thinking that anyone has a right to do so. At least understand why there has been conjecture and how it developed... The only reason I mention it is in defense of Mahler who only played this symphony publicly in one way, one order, and the way it was played for 13 years after its official premiere - including for eight years after his death -until there was interference with his published and final wishes... He didn't have to have anyone tamper with his score in order to get it played like, for example, most of Bruckner's symphonies. There was no uncertainty with Mahler after he heard this symphony played live in a rehearsal for the premier and decided that the second and third movements needed to be permanently and irrevocably reversed, and undoubtedly for good reasons. Everything since has been pure hubris speculation and conjecture.


The work is for us what it has become. And many of the really great performances of this work have it as S/A. Sacrifice those if you want. I won't.

What I just cannot understand is why some people become so passionate (and even rude on some occasions) about this issue.


----------



## brunumb

What is significant about this case is that Mahler conceived and composed the symphony in S/A order and it was actually first published in that order. It is not surprising then that it works that way. For whatever reason he later decided to change it. Mahler was a somewhat superstitious person as evidenced by his reluctance to assign the number 9 to his ninth symphonic composition, so it is possible that there was no truly rational reason for him to change the order of the movements. We sometimes forget that although people create works of art, they do not necessarily make the best decisions all of the time.


----------



## WildThing

brunumb said:


> What is significant about this case is that Mahler conceived and composed the symphony in S/A order and it was actually first published in that order.


Like Becca said, no more significant than Mahler conceiving the first symphony with the Blumine movement and later dropping it.


----------



## Larkenfield

brunumb said:


> What is significant about this case is that Mahler conceived and composed the symphony in S/A order and it was actually first published in that order. It is not surprising then that it works that way. For whatever reason he later decided to change it. Mahler was a somewhat superstitious person as evidenced by his reluctance to assign the number 9 to his ninth symphonic composition, so it is possible that there was no truly rational reason for him to change the order of the movements. We sometimes forget that although people create works of art, they do not necessarily make the best decisions all of the time.


 Had Alma Mahler not interfered with the ordering in 1919, there would have been no controversy or conjecture whatsoever. People gave her an authority that she didn't have after the symphony had already been played 13 years according to Mahler's wishes. The symphony may appear to have been conceived S-A, but after he _heard_ it actually _played_ in rehearsal in preparation of its premiere, there was no doubt in his mind what he wanted and he never equivocated. The controversy was entirely created by Alma Mahler and some still believe her because she happened to be his wife and they believe that gives her authority. The only justification I can possibly imagine is that Mahler was so crazy in love with her that he probably would have forgiven her for her meddling with the ordering because she preferred it. But that's the only reason because once Mahler made the change that genuinely brought more contrast between the movements, instead of the start of the Scherzo in the second position sounding like a continuation of the first movement, there was no doubt or wavering. His decision was permanent and the symphony was played A-S during his lifetime and for eight years after until his wife decided to interfere. This is hardly a case where the composer didn't know what was best for himself.

These premiere performances were all A-S:

*World premiere: May 27, 1906, Saalbau Essen, conducted by the composer
*Dutch première: September 16, 1916, Amsterdam, with the Concertgebouw Orchestra conducted by Willem Mengelberg
*American premiere: December 11, 1947, New York City, conducted by Dimitri Mitropoulos
*Recording premiere: F. Charles Adler conducting the Vienna Symphony, 1952

After the premiere in Essen on May 27, 1906, Mahler revised the score during the summer of that year and the early part of 1907, eliminating one of the hammer blows but keeping the A-S order. There was no conjecture or doubt at the time or during his lifetime. The interference and controversy started eight years after his death.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ This issue seems to matter a lot to some of us. I wonder, Larkenfield (and others), do you avoid all the recordings with S/A or do you put up with them? You could be missing quite a number of amazing performances. Somewhere in this thread there is agreement that changing the order that a CD plays the movements is not satisfactory (because the conductor would have played the movements differently if s/he had wanted to do A/S) - so that is no answer.


----------



## WildThing

I find that switching the order of the movements from S/A to A/S when listening to recordings is more than satisfactory for me. The conductors _may_ have played the music differently if they had chosen the A/S ordering, but S/A recordings still hold up as compelling performances when the order is switched. Having listened to multiple recordings both ways there is no doubt in my mind that I wouldn't have known the difference if I hadn't done the reordering myself. Besides, any potential changes to interpretation that might have affected the details and nuances in these self contained movements are minor in comparison to the effect and change of perspective of the overall arch of the symphony with the preferred A/S sequence.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Just received this:









Two very different Sixths, will report back soon, if anyone's interested?


----------



## EdwardBast

Enthusiast said:


> ^ This issue seems to matter a lot to some of us. I wonder, Larkenfield (and others), do you avoid all the recordings with S/A or do you put up with them? You could be missing quite a number of amazing performances. Somewhere in this thread there is agreement that changing the order that a CD plays the movements is not satisfactory (because the conductor would have played the movements differently if s/he had wanted to do A/S) - so that is no answer.


I avoid recordings in the S-A order because I believe it doesn't work that way, and I find it difficult to understand how others don't hear it the way I do and Mahler did.


----------



## Larkenfield

WildThing said:


> I find that switching the order of the movements from S/A to A/S when listening to recordings is more than satisfactory for me. The conductors _may_ have played the music differently if they had chosen the A/S ordering, but S/A recordings still hold up as compelling performances when the order is switched. Having listened to multiple recordings both ways there is no doubt in my mind that I wouldn't have known the difference if I hadn't done the reordering myself. Besides, any potential changes to interpretation that might have affected the details and nuances in these self contained movements are minor in comparison to the effect and change of perspective of the overall arch of the symphony with the preferred A/S sequence.


Same here. Any recording I have that's S-A, I simply reverse the order and play it that way, like with George Szell's great performance of the 6th. It's easy to re-order any recording the many of them don't need it.


----------



## Larkenfield

WildThing said:


> I find that switching the order of the movements from S/A to A/S when listening to recordings is more than satisfactory for me. The conductors _may_ have played the music differently if they had chosen the A/S ordering, but S/A recordings still hold up as compelling performances when the order is switched. Having listened to multiple recordings both ways there is no doubt in my mind that I wouldn't have known the difference if I hadn't done the reordering myself. Besides, any potential changes to interpretation that might have affected the details and nuances in these self contained movements are minor in comparison to the effect and change of perspective of the overall arch of the symphony with the preferred A/S sequence.


Same here. Any recording I have that's S-A, I simply reverse the order in iTunes and play it that way, like with George Szell's great performance of the 6th. Claudio Abbado and Simon Rattle have always played it A-S that I know of. To me, it makes a tremendous difference: you have different transitions: think of it: the end of the first movement now transitions into the beginning of the Andante, the end of Andante now transitions into the beginning of the Scherzo, and the end of the Scherzo transitions into the last movement, for greater contrast of mood between them, and I think it works very well. Those are major changes in the effects of the symphony as a whole, so it was no small matter to change the ordering, not to mention the expense of re-publishing the score, but after hearing it in rehearsal for its premiere, Mahler decided that he liked it much better and there was never any wavering or uncertainty about his decision during his lifetime. I think more people should try it and hear what Mahler heard by making that major change in the middle two movements, if they've never heard it that way. I believe the symphony is more balanced and effective and certainly Mahler felt that it was better.


----------



## Heck148

Larkenfield said:


> ....Claudio Abbado and Simon Rattle have always played it A-S that I know of.


No, Abbado's excellent 2/79 recording with Chicago/DG is S-A order.

I've tried listening to it both ways, but I have to favor the Scherzo-Andante sequence - for me, it just works better...the first mvt is down, up, down, but ends on a positive note with the Alma theme - then is crushed by the brutal scherzo.....good "vibes" rise again in the lovely Andante, only to be totally overwhelmed by the tragic and crushing Finale....that sequence works for me...composers make choices all the time after they have heard their works performed, and rehearsed....for me, I think maybe Mahler got it wrong with the Andante-Scherzo order...perhaps he should have stuck with his original idea[??]

To me, it makes a tremendous difference: you have different transitions: think of it: the end of the first movement now transitions into the beginning of the Andante, the end of Andante now transitions into the beginning of the Scherzo, and the end of the Scherzo transitions into the last movement, for greater contrast of mood between them, and I think it works very well. Those are major changes in the effects of the symphony as a whole, so it was no small matter to change the ordering, not to mention the expense of re-publishing the score, but after hearing it in rehearsal for its premiere, Mahler decided that he liked it much better and there was never any wavering or uncertainty about his decision during his lifetime. I think more people should try it and hear what Mahler heard by making that major change in the middle two movements, if they've never heard it that way. I believe the symphony is more balanced and effective and certainly Mahler felt that it was better.[/QUOTE]


----------



## WildThing

We can second guess composers all day long if we are so inclined. When I listen to Mahler's 6th it's no different than putting on any other symphony: I'm interested in hearing the work in the way the composer intended it to be heard and to judge it on its merits accordingly. Of course everyone is free to listen to any multi-movement musical work in the sequence that appeals most to them, regardless of what the composer thought most effective. In the case of Dvorak's 9th, one might even think the second movement would work better as an Adagio like Dvorak originally conceived it until the conductor who premiered the piece convinced Dvorak in rehearsal that it could be better when taken at a slower tempo. Maybe he got it wrong! 

But there's no need to try to justify personal preferences and to talk of ambiguity or uncertainty on Mahler’s behalf when all the current scholarship says otherwise.


----------



## Kiki

CnC Bartok said:


> Just received this:
> 
> View attachment 122540
> 
> 
> Two very different Sixths, will report back soon, if anyone's interested?


Any thoughts so far?

I'm shocked by how different they are. Polar opposites, I'd say.


----------



## CnC Bartok

^^^ Both are superbly played, but there's something that tells me the orchestra had "improved" over 40 years!!

Gielen does S-A in the earlier recording, A-S in the final one. My personal preference is for the former order, whatever the incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, but I think I prefer the slower performance, particularly as he brings more passion out of the Andante. The 1971 recording is possibly too fast, even more so with the first movement repeat.

Neither has become a favourite on one hearing.


----------



## Kiki

^^

And Herr Gielen had slowed down by 20 mins in 40 years.

Interestingly, I can see that his Sixth had been slowing down more and more through the years...


1971 (SWR Music)1:14:081984 Live (Altus)1:19:281999 (Hänssler)1:25:062013 Live (SWR Music)1:36:54

I think the 1971 recording maintains the momentum throughout the piece very well and very consistently. Perhaps the release of energy in the Andante could be a bit more thorough, and overall it may sound a bit monotonous.

The 2013 live recording could not be more different. I was really shocked. It seems every note and every passage lives in its moment. I cannot come up with a better description, but I do find it quite special. Not my favourite either. Personally I'd like something that sounds more manic.


----------



## CnC Bartok

^^^^ I'd go for something more bleak than manic! Possibly my favourite recording is Boulez......or Szell (both single-disc performances!?)

.....that said, Karajan's Andante is a very special moment...in the 2013 Gielen approaches that.


----------



## Guest

CnC Bartok said:


> ^^^^ I'd go for something more bleak than manic! Possibly my favourite recording is Boulez......or Szell (both single-disc performances!?)
> 
> .....that said, Karajan's Andante is a very special moment...in the 2013 Gielen approaches that.


Agree that Karajan's Andante is very special. I also like Karajan's first movement, which presents a mood which is less militaristic, more world-weary, than the typical performance. Maybe not quite what Mahler intended, but I find it an interesting contrast.


----------



## DrSardonicus

Does anybody have a FLAC source for the Sanderling? 

I favour the Jansons live with LSO, Solti CSO and have the Tilson-Thomas on order...


----------



## DrSardonicus

DrSardonicus said:


> Does anybody have a FLAC source for the Sanderling?
> 
> I favour the Jansons live with LSO, Solti CSO and have the Tilson-Thomas on order...


Well I have answered my own question: Sanderling is available on Quoboz in a variety of lossless formats - I will burn my own discs! The Tilson-Thomas is fabulous.


----------



## DavidA

Larkenfield said:


> Same here. Any recording I have that's S-A, I simply reverse the order and play it that way, like with George Szell's great performance of the 6th. It's easy to re-order any recording the many of them don't need it.


 I never quite know why there is such heated debate on this subject. Mahler himself was not certain having published in a certain order and then played in a different order. The answer is quite simple - preference. With CD which ever order you prefer program the CD player accordingly


----------



## CnC Bartok

DavidA said:


> I never quite know why there is such heated debate on this subject. Mahler himself was not certain having published in a certain order and then played in a different order. The answer is quite simple - preference. With CD which ever order you prefer program the CD player accordingly


Agreed! But.......

Don't forget the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Mahler himself preferred (not a strong word, I know, and true it's not "insisted") the A-S order.
I would have thought that the order in which the conductor conceives his interpretation/performance would have an effect on each movement, as well as on the preceding and following movements.
You can't re-programme a live concert, only a recording!

Myself, I am still very much more comfortable with the S-A order of movements, it's what I am used to, and it's what I prefer. I do have a slight feeling of discomfort that I am wrong, though.

First-world problems, eh?!


----------



## Larkenfield

DavidA said:


> I never quite know why there is such heated debate on this subject. Mahler himself was not certain having published in a certain order and then played in a different order. The answer is quite simple - preference. With CD which ever order you prefer program the CD player accordingly


From Mahler's point of view it was not a "preference". The performance history conducted by Mahler himself was only in one order: A-S. During his lifetime that was the only order he used and his first published edition was never performed, including at the symphony's premiere, and it was adhered to. The evidence was irrevocably in that order while he was alive. The order was changed years later by Alma Mahler after her husband's death who had no authority to do so. _She_ preferred it S-A. But listeners are welcome to rationalize the unauthorized change any way they'd like though it has nothing whatsoever to do with Mahler's wishes and his 2nd and 3rd officially published scores and the only order that Mahler performed this great symphony. The Andante-Scherzo order was never changed during the 5 remaining years of his life, so he didn't consider it a "preference." It was an irrevocable change that he never went back on because it changes the internal balance of the symphony, adding contrast between the movements, and a different order in a change of moods internally. Those who prefer it S-A have usually heard it first that way and are simply used to it that way even though it was not what Mahler intended before its official premiere.

These premiere performances were all A-S:

*World premiere: May 27, 1906, Saalbau Essen, conducted by the composer
*Dutch première: September 16, 1916, Amsterdam, with the Concertgebouw Orchestra conducted by Willem Mengelberg
*American premiere: December 11, 1947, New York City, conducted by Dimitri Mitropoulos
*Recording premiere: F. Charles Adler conducting the Vienna Symphony, 1952

After the premiere in Essen on May 27, 1906, Mahler revised the score during the summer of that year and the early part of 1907, eliminating one of the hammer blows but keeping the A-S order. There was no conjecture or doubt at the time or during his lifetime. The interference and controversy started eight years after his death.

The only reason I mention it is out of respect for Mahler's wishes and the only way he conducted it, period, and listeners might try hearing it that way to understand why he permanently changed it during the rehearsal for the symphony's premiere.


----------



## Resurrexit

CnC Bartok said:


> Don't forget the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Mahler himself preferred (not a strong word, I know, and true it's not "insisted")


Where did Mahler ever "insist" anything regarding his symphonies? How does a composer go about insisting, besides conducting and publishing the score in the form he wants it?



Larkenfield said:


> The order was changed years later by Alma Mahler after her husband's death who had no authority to do so. _She_ preferred it S-A.


You are spot on in your post, "preference" doesn't come into play here anymore than in any of Mahler's other symphonies. But I'm not so sure that Alma is the villain. I'm not even sure that she preferred the S-A order. Its unclear why she told that to Mengelberg after he came across a copy of the first edition of the score, but she later contradicted herself. She had no real authority on the matter anyways. As you point out, the symphony continued to be performed in the correct A-S sequence, according to the final published score, up until the 1950s.

What happened then was kind of a perfect storm, as right before Mahler's music experienced a renaissance and a surge in interest in recording it, Edwin Ratz released a "critical edition" of the score with the S-A order. In doing so he completely fabricated evidence that Mahler had intended to revert back to his original conception. And most conductors took it for granted and never questioned it. Thus, most of the symphony's early and most famous recordings were recorded with the wrong movement order, and most listeners first heard and fell in love with the symphony through those recordings.


----------



## Heck148

I still think it works better S-A...better dramatic flow...recently heard Nelsons/BSO play it, excellent performance, very convincing presentation: S-A.


----------



## DrSardonicus

Consider my mind changed on the movement order. I don't think anyone can doubt what Mahler himself wanted: A-S, but in my view the symphony, having got to know it much better, 'works' better with S-A. From a pacing, key signature and 'feel' perspective. But hey, Mahler was keen for conductors to make it their own, so I suspect he'd be happy enough either way. 

Incidentally, I've become fond of the 'idea' of the 3rd hammer blow, especially as it happens a few bars after the point at which you'd expect, making its impact all the move devastating. But it seems to feature in few recording, can anyone help me out with a list of those which feature the third hammer?


----------



## Merl

DrSardonicus said:


> Consider my mind changed on the movement order. I don't think anyone can doubt what Mahler himself wanted: A-S, but in my view the symphony, having got to know it much better, 'works' better with S-A. From a pacing, key signature and 'feel' perspective. But hey, Mahler was keen for conductors to make it their own, so I suspect he'd be happy enough either way.
> 
> Incidentally, I've become fond of the 'idea' of the 3rd hammer blow, especially as it happens a few bars after the point at which you'd expect, making its impact all the move devastating. But it seems to feature in few recording, can anyone help me out with a list of those which feature the third hammer?


Have a look at the link below. Any recording with 3 hammer blows is marked with an asterix*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._6_(Mahler)#Selected_discography


----------



## EdwardBast

DrSardonicus said:


> But hey, Mahler was keen for conductors to make it their own, so I suspect he'd be happy enough either way.


After going to the trouble of having a new edition printed, appending any extant copies in the wrong order, and conducting every performance in A-S order, he would undoubtedly be appalled that busybodies and incompetent scholars countermanded his wishes.


----------



## MrMeatScience

EdwardBast said:


> After going to the trouble of having a new edition printed, appending any extant copies in the wrong order, and conducting every performance in A-S order, he would undoubtedly be appalled that busybodies and incompetent scholars countermanded his wishes.


I'm inclined to agree, I think this would have been a bridge too far for him. He was very pleased when conductors would go against the printed word in service of the music, provided that it was a sound artistic decision. One case I'm thinking of took place in 1903, when conductor Julius Buths added a second five-minute interval after the fourth movement of the Second Symphony, an insight which impressed Mahler, but I doubt he would have approved of anything as significant as changing the movement order. There's little doubt what he thought the Sixth's order should be -- but that doesn't mean that conductors today *have* to follow it, unless their goal is attempting authenticity to the composer's concept (as opposed to authenticity to the performance tradition for the symphony).


----------



## mbhaub

MrMeatScience said:


> I'm inclined to agree, I think this would have been a bridge too far for him. He was very pleased when conductors would go against the printed word in service of the music, provided that it was a sound artistic decision. One case I'm thinking of took place in 1903, when conductor Julius Buths added a second five-minute interval after the fourth movement of the Second Symphony, an insight which impressed Mahler, but I doubt he would have approved of anything as significant as changing the movement order. There's little doubt what he thought the Sixth's order should be -- but that doesn't mean that conductors today *have* to follow it, unless their goal is attempting authenticity to the composer's concept (as opposed to authenticity to the performance tradition for the symphony).


After the fourth movement? After the Urlicht? That makes no sense at all; at the end of 4, the directions are clear: continue on to the 5th movement _without interruption_.


----------



## CnC Bartok

mbhaub said:


> After the fourth movement? After the Urlicht? That makes no sense at all; at the end of 4, the directions are clear: continue on to the 5th movement _without interruption_.
> View attachment 127379


Indeed, I always assumed, or expected 4 to 5 to be near as dammit attacca......


----------



## MrMeatScience

mbhaub said:


> After the fourth movement? After the Urlicht? That makes no sense at all; at the end of 4, the directions are clear: continue on to the 5th movement _without interruption_.
> View attachment 127379


It's what he said; he apparently thought it had the potential to be jarring and praised Buths' initiative. I don't listen to it with a break there, but you can find a write-up of the occasion in the massive Henry-Louis de la Grange biography, the second volume.


----------



## flamencosketches

Barbirolli's live Mahler 6 with the New Philharmonia on Testament has been recommended to me by Becca and others here. I am curious about it, being that I like what I've heard of Barbirolli's Mahler. But I'm hoping someone can answer something for me quickly...:

https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7981304--mahler-symphony-no-6-in-a-minor-tragic

The audio samples here, are they reflective of (or at least pretty close to) the actual sound of the CD? I'm asking because it sounds pretty rough to my ears. Not terrible, but not as good as I was hoping for a 1967 recording.


----------



## Becca

^^ Yes it is ... remember that this was a live recording done during the Proms in the Royal Albert Hall, not exactly an acoustical marvel, so is quite respectable given that. It is certainly not something that I notice after the first minute or so.


----------



## Granate

Flamenco, I pretty much recommend the Berliner Philharmoniker performance for the Barbirolli 6 Live. The one I have, pretty much same performance than Proms but fuller mono sound.

Another Mahler 6 I've been hooked on has been the Mitropoulos in Cologne. I hope ICA releases a new version from the Original tapes since it fits on a single CD.


----------



## flamencosketches

Becca said:


> ^^ Yes it is ... remember that this was a live recording done during the Proms in the Royal Albert Hall, not exactly an acoustical marvel, so is quite respectable given that. It is certainly not something that I notice after the first minute or so.


Thanks, Becca. I've definitely not disqualified it from the running. I'm still considering it (along with Mitropoulos/New York) as potentially my next Mahler 6.

It's amazing what a big difference in tempo there is in the first movement between the studio and the live considering it's the same conductor and same orchestra and recorded only weeks (days?) apart.

@Granate, have you also heard the '55 Mitropoulos/NY? That is the one I've been looking at. Curious how it compares to the one you mention. Mind you, I don't have the stomach for ancient sound that some of y'all have.


----------



## Becca

Granate said:


> Flamenco, I pretty much recommend the Berliner Philharmoniker performance for the Barbirolli 6 Live. The one I have, pretty much same performance than Proms but fuller mono sound.


I don't  The stereo sound on the New Philharmonia is not great but isn't that bad and is definitely better then the BPO mono, and you really need the stereo for this symphony.


----------



## wkasimer

Granate said:


> Flamenco, I pretty much recommend the Berliner Philharmoniker performance for the Barbirolli 6 Live. The one I have, pretty much same performance than Proms but fuller mono sound.


Last time I checked, both of the live Barbirolli's 6ths were available from Berkshire Record Outlet.


----------



## Knorf

I used to be among the Scherzo-Andante crowd, preferring it in that order. I imprinted on the Bernstein/NYPO LPs and of course he always did it S-A.

But I changed my mind. Mahler was right to make the order A-S, and it's not true that he ever reconsidered that decision, having made it in rehearsals before the symphony was premiered. That much is incontrovertible.

Others have explained this well enough, so I don't need to rehash those posts. I just wanted to mention that reasonable people can change their minds on matters such as this. 

My short list of favorite Mahler 6s, in no particular order:

Bernstein/Wiener Philharmoniker (the DG CD release I prefer over the video from the 70s.)
Bernstein/New York Philharmonic. 
Abbado/Berliner Philharmoniker.
Boulez/Wiener Philharmoniker.
Fischer/Budapest Festival Orchestra.


----------



## Granate

flamencosketches said:


> have you also heard the '55 Mitropoulos/NY? That is the one I've been looking at. Curious how it compares to the one you mention. Mind you, I don't have the stomach for ancient sound that some of y'all have.


I've listened to it recently and It's quite good. But I would keep the dynamics of the Koln No.6 instead. I had also visited the Koln No.3 and I was finally amazed. I can generally think of very few mono Mahler performances to recommend.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I have not heard the famous Mitropoulos in full, which I really need to do. Despite the rough sound, I have heard fawning accolades for it. Barbirolli/Philharmonia in the studio is absolutely merciless, unrelenting, crushing...perhaps too much so for a symphony that is already that way. As Tony Duggan says, starting it off at that tempo means that the tragedy has already hit, and that makes for a big flaw in the narrative. But is sure is a monumental performance, one I would never want to be without. I would also like to hear the live one from a few days later, but let's be honest...I don't see how anyone could listen to this symphony in large quantities. I actually feel physically exhausted by the time I finish the histrionic convulsions of the finale. For me, this is the first _real_ piece of 20th century music, and a good performance needs to balance things properly so it tells a story. I used to like the Solti because it was so epic and loud, but it really shouldn't be that way. I get tired of hearing a bunch of blaring trumpets and crashing gongs every 3 minutes - it has to be smoothly integrated. One "dark horse" candidate I want to mention is the recent recording from Vanska/MN. My home orchestra so perhaps I'm biased, but this is a performance that is worthy to be up there with the greats IMO. A moderate first movement tempo that isn't as trudging as Barbirolli but still has plenty of weight, a downright gorgeous Andante, and pristine sound quality. Vanska balances the score so the narrative seems inexorable, but still provides plenty of drama. As for the order of the middle movements, my position is simple. I recognize the indisputable fact that Mahler wanted it A-S. But, the fact of the matter is...I don't like it that way. Sorry, Gustav. For me, the last bars of the Andante with the heavenly celesta fading away, and the introduction to the finale with the splash of color in the harp and celesta jolting us back to life are tailor-made to flow into each other. The symphony is going to have two merciless, percussive movements next to each other no matter what - but I would rather hear the unbearably sublime Andante before the spastic finale rather than adding the grotesque 10-minute scherzo on top of it. That's honestly just too much for me. I really don't think Mahler, the great experimenter who praised conductors for deviating from his instructions, would care.


----------



## Knorf

Yes, that Barbirolli/Philharmonia Mahler 6 is really something. It's as bleak and terrifying an interpretation of this tragic symphony anyone could ask for.

But it doesn't quite rise to my short list, because I agree that the tempo choices at times (mainly in the first movement) are incorrect for ideal dramatic trajectory and maximal emotional impact—the sun doesn't shine through quite as often as it should—and for the lack of exposition repeat in the first movement. 

But I'm very glad I heard it! I learned much about this symphony from this recording.

I'm giving the Sixth with Boulez and Vienna another listen right now. This really is an extraordinary performance. In particular, I'm reminded of my surprise at how good the Andante is! It is gorgeous and heartfelt. It refutes the cliché that Boulez was a clinical, heartless conductor. Anyone would love this performance, if they set aside their prejudices and clichéd narratives, perhaps in a blind listening. It's simply magical. And Boulez does the lurid horror of the Scherzo and the yearning but ultimately despairing Finale as well as or better than anyone. He does not pull his punches with this music! Highly recommended.


----------



## Becca

Knorf said:


> Yes, that Barbirolli/Philharmonia Mahler 6 is really something. It's as bleak and terrifying an interpretation of this tragic symphony anyone could ask for.
> 
> But it doesn't quite rise to my short list, because I agree that the tempo choices at times (mainly in the first movement) are incorrect for ideal dramatic trajectory and maximal emotional impact-the sun doesn't shine through quite as often as it should-and for the lack of exposition repeat in the first movement.


Which did you hear, the studio or the live proms performance. While they were done only a few days apart, the 1st movement of the live performance is (from memory) well over 1 minute faster than the studio. Barbirolli starts off at the same tempo as in the studio, but he doesn't stay there.


----------



## Knorf

The studio performance.


----------



## flamencosketches

Becca said:


> Which did you hear, the studio or the live proms performance. While they were done only a few days apart, the 1st movement of the live performance is (from memory) well over 1 minute faster than the studio. Barbirolli starts off at the same tempo as in the studio, but he doesn't stay there.


When I listened to the two earlier it seemed that he even started out quite a bit faster on the live recording.

Re: A-S, S-A, I agree with ACB. It is incontrovertible that Mahler's instructions are Andante-Scherzo, and that is the one and only correct way to perform the symphony. But I don't like it that way either. Scherzo-Andante just makes so much more sense and sounds better to my ears.


----------



## Knorf

I, for one, would never try to dispute an informed and honest opinion.


----------



## flamencosketches

Knorf said:


> I, for one, would never try to dispute an informed and honest opinion.


At the same time, I can't say I don't wonder whether I'll ever change my mind like your experience. It's entirely possible.


----------



## Knorf

Boulez recorded Mahler 6 in the order S-A, and usually I just leave it as it was recorded when I listen. Today, however, I swapped the order to A-S myself, as I listened through the whole symphony.

I do think I get I why Mahler changed it.

But, good grief, it's not _that_ big of a deal! Right? Aside from messing up an attacca transition, although one can do that, too, you can swap movements around all you like when listening, and who cares? I listen to movements of symphonies out of order all the time, or even skip movements sometimes. Don't we all?


----------



## flamencosketches

^I don't believe in it :lol: If I'm going to listen to a symphony, I'll pretty much listen straight through start to finish, in order. For Mahler's 6th, I listen in the order that the conductor presented it as. Even though I prefer Scherzo-Andante I'm not going to reorder the tracks to hear it that way. I'll listen to it however the conductor is presenting it because I'm sure they have a reason for presenting it that way. The exception would be if I'm only going to listen to one movement out of the symphony, which I'll do occasionally with huge symphonies. 

In any case, no, you're right, it's not a big deal at all.


----------



## mbhaub

Knorf said:


> Boulez recorded Mahler 6 in the order S-A, and usually I just leave it as it was recorded when I listen. Today, however, I swapped the order to A-S myself, as I listened through the whole symphony.
> 
> I do think I get I why Mahler changed it.


When I was getting to know the Mahler symphonies, the accepted order was always S/A. Reading the biographies it became clear that Mahler himself had serious doubts and questions about the correct order (talk about mountains out of molehills) and the few times he did he used A/S didn't really register. Then along came some recordings that are A/S. I can't explain it, and I sure don't understand it, but when a conductor takes it A/S rather than S/A it does, in some indescribable way make a difference. Playing a cd AS when then the conductor believed it should be SA for some reason doesn't feel right. I can't explain it. I can study the arguments for both versions and like politician change my mind rapidly, going with the last argument I heard, or read. But having heard it played live both ways, and having heard many recordings, most in SA but some AS, I've come this this conclusion: it doesn't matter. How the finale is approached and the emotional impact changes, but by the time your enthralled in that cataclysmic movement, how you entered it just doesn't matter. It's just too bad Mahler didn't live long enough to have conducted the work more and maybe left no doubt.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> Boulez recorded Mahler 6 in the order S-A, and usually I just leave it as it was recorded when I listen. Today, however, I swapped the order to A-S myself, as I listened through the whole symphony.
> 
> I do think I get I why Mahler changed it.
> 
> But, good grief, it's not _that_ big of a deal! Right? Aside from messing up an attacca transition, although one can do that, too, you can swap movements around all you like when listening, and who cares? I listen to movements of symphonies out of order all the time, or even skip movements sometimes. Don't we all?


Good posting....I learned the work S-A, and I think many of those conductors make a convincing case for it...I'm not as sold on the A-S order, but I certainly don't rule it out...and, yes, I listen to symphonies 1 or 2 mvts at a time, or mvts out of order...swap them around, definitely...whatever floats your boat...


----------



## EdwardBast

flamencosketches said:


> ^I don't believe in it :lol: If I'm going to listen to a symphony, I'll pretty much listen straight through start to finish, in order. For Mahler's 6th, I listen in the order that the conductor presented it as. Even though I prefer Scherzo-Andante I'm not going to reorder the tracks to hear it that way. I'll listen to it however the conductor is presenting it because I'm sure they have a reason for presenting it that way. The exception would be if I'm only going to listen to one movement out of the symphony, which I'll do occasionally with huge symphonies.
> 
> In any case, no, you're right, it's not a big deal at all.


No, it's a big deal. You need to listen until you understand why Mahler's way is right.


----------



## flamencosketches

EdwardBast said:


> No, it's a big deal. You need to listen until you understand why Mahler's way is right.


How did I know somebody was going to say that.


----------



## Knorf

On the bright side, it gives you another reason to listen to Mahler's Sixth more...


----------



## flamencosketches

Knorf said:


> On the bright side, it gives you another reason to listen to Mahler's Sixth more...


I haven't been in the mood for the 6th or any of the middle symphonies lately; the 2nd, 8th, 9th, & Das Lied von der Erde, yes. But I'll be revisiting the 6th before too long.


----------



## wkasimer

Knorf said:


> Boulez recorded Mahler 6 in the order S-A, and usually I just leave it as it was recorded when I listen. Today, however, I swapped the order to A-S myself, as I listened through the whole symphony.


Just be sure that's how it was actually performed and recorded. If I remember correctly, when EMI issued the Barbirolli 6th on LP, they switched the order of the two middle movements, to Barbirolli's annoyance. The CD issues have corrected that.


----------



## CnC Bartok

mbhaub said:


> When I was getting to know the Mahler symphonies, the accepted order was always S/A. Reading the biographies it became clear that Mahler himself had serious doubts and questions about the correct order (talk about mountains out of molehills) and the few times he did he used A/S didn't really register. Then along came some recordings that are A/S. I can't explain it, and I sure don't understand it, but when a conductor takes it A/S rather than S/A it does, in some indescribable way make a difference. Playing a cd AS when then the conductor believed it should be SA for some reason doesn't feel right. I can't explain it. I can study the arguments for both versions and like politician change my mind rapidly, going with the last argument I heard, or read. But having heard it played live both ways, and having heard many recordings, most in SA but some AS, I've come this this conclusion: it doesn't matter. How the finale is approached and the emotional impact changes, but by the time your enthralled in that cataclysmic movement, how you entered it just doesn't matter. It's just too bad Mahler didn't live long enough to have conducted the work more and maybe left no doubt.


I can't explain it either, but I know exactly what you mean.


----------



## perdido34

Zander's recording of Mahler 6 with the Philharmonia is superb, and so is the recorded sound (especially in multichannel). It's the only one of his Mahler recordings that I consider a "keeper."


----------



## Resurrexit

mbhaub said:


> Playing a cd AS when then the conductor believed it should be SA for some reason doesn't feel right. I can't explain it.


I on the other hand don't have any qualms with switching the order. I understand the aversion to swapping the order of the movements from a live recording, but with stereo recordings where different portions were recorded at different times, several takes have been spliced together, and post-production editing has taken place, any sort of cohesive "performance" is essentially an illusion. All I'm doing by switching the order of the tracks from SA to AS is adding an extra layer of self illusion.


----------



## Guest

Did anyone hear Andris Nelsons and the Boston SO last week? It was a repeat of a Prom from 2015.

I was disappointed. Brass too loud and, IMO, rather erratic. Climaxes in the Andante inconclusive. No cow bells!

Oh, and movement sequence in the wrong order! :devil:


----------



## NLAdriaan

MacLeod said:


> Did anyone hear Andris Nelsons and the Boston SO last week? It was a repeat of a Prom from 2015.
> 
> I was disappointed. Brass too loud and, IMO, rather erratic. Climaxes in the Andante inconclusive. No cow bells!
> 
> Oh, and movement sequence in the wrong order! :devil:


I didn't hear it, but it sounds like it would have been a waste of time. You can watch a very good Mahler 6 on Youtube with Abbado in Lucerne anytime.

The sequence of movements of Mahler 6 is highly arbitrary and personal, your 'wrong' is another's 'right'. On both sides of the isle you will find respectable advocates. And Mahler himself probably wouldn't care, as he altered his work all the time and also suggested others (like Bruno Walter) to keep doing so.


----------



## Heck148

MacLeod said:


> Did anyone hear Andris Nelsons and the Boston SO last week? It was a repeat of a Prom from 2015.
> I was disappointed. Brass too loud and, IMO, rather erratic. Climaxes in the Andante inconclusive. No cow bells!
> Oh, and movement sequence in the wrong order! :devil:


I believe I heard the Nelsons/BSO M6 from that series....I don't know if it was that specific performance, but I heard the Saturday evening performance of the series...
It was very excellent!! terrific job - Nelsons led a fine performance, the orchestra sounded very good...some very splendid playing. Nelsons made a lot of subtle tempo changes, tempo ebbing and flowing. The orchestra followed him very well, a couple of little skids, but nothing very noticeable. Great concert!!


----------



## Guest

NLAdriaan said:


> I didn't hear it, but it sounds like it would have been a waste of time. You can watch a very good Mahler 6 on Youtube with Abbado in Lucerne anytime.
> 
> The sequence of movements of Mahler 6 is highly arbitrary and personal, your 'wrong' is another's 'right'. On both sides of the isle you will find respectable advocates. And Mahler himself probably wouldn't care, as he altered his work all the time and also suggested others (like Bruno Walter) to keep doing so.


Yes, I've heard the Abbado one - it's very good. As for the 'right/wrong' thing, my devil emoji should have helped make clear I was well aware of the 'controversy' on this issue.



Heck148 said:


> I believe I heard the Nelsons/BSO M6 from that series....I don't know if it was that specific performance, but I heard the Saturday evening performance of the series...
> It was very excellent!! terrific job - Nelsons led a fine performance, the orchestra sounded very good...some very splendid playing. Nelsons made a lot of subtle tempo changes, tempo ebbing and flowing. The orchestra followed him very well, a couple of little skids, but nothing very noticeable. Great concert!!


Well, nowt so queer as folk, eh!


----------



## starthrower

starthrower said:


> I've got Lenny's DG disc spinning now and this one sounds really good! I guess I just don't care for the 5th that much, but the 6th symphony is just fantastic!


Update since Jan 2019:

I'll have to eat my words because I've been listening to several recordings of the 5th all summer and I love it.


----------



## howlingfantods

i prefer s-a but i probably listened to the work hundreds of times in s-a order before i even knew about the controversy, so it may very well be an imprinting thing. 

but to me, it feels like a programmatic symphony, albeit a not entirely narrative one. but it feels like the action flows better s-a, to go from the funeral march of the allegro to the funeral dance of the scherzo--the protagonist is attending the funeral of someone he loved and then the hideous wake. the andante is the long period where life goes on for the protagonist and he forgets his grief. and then the finale is the impending doom of the protagonist himself. 

to me, having the life-goes-on section between the funeral march and the funeral dance feels disjointed, and when i experimented by swapping the order, i found it all pretty unconvincing. but of course the imprinting.... i actually took an almost two decade break from mahler since i overdid it so much in the late 90s and early 00s with him, and the 6th was my favorite and most often played. it may have been thousands of times i've listened to the work in s-a order before i knew about the controversy.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

For me, S-A works for the following reasons:

- The momentary sense of light and joy we feel we have achieved at the end of the first movement, with the Alma theme reigning victorious momentarily before the crushing machinery and ruthless barbarism of the march theme comes back to squelch it.
- The heavenly final moments of the Andante, with the celesta leading us into what seems to be Elysian fields before the disturbing opening of the finale with the harp and celesta which I’ve always thought of a dream sequence. It seems designed to be a perfect segue.
- I simply can’t abide 45 minutes straight at the end of the work of those relentless percussive histrionics. I’d rather have that at the start with the Andante as a respite before the massive finale. The symphony is going to be “loaded” way or another no matter what, so I choose the second way.
- Having the Andante second means that the memory of the sublime is far too much in the past by the time that we are in the clutches of the finale. The visions of nature, beauty, and love should still be lingering in our minds as the drama of the finale unfolds, and if the scherzo is third there is no sense of contrast.

Yes, evidence points to the fact that Mahler wanted it A-S, but sorry - I simply don’t like it that way. Mahler once applauded a conductor for daring to go against his wishes and said that he “cursed the conductor that does not do all he can to improve my music," so I have a feeling he wouldn’t be angry at anyone who does it S-A.


----------



## BoHed

Allegro Con Brio said:


> For me, S-A works for the following reasons:
> 
> - The momentary sense of light and joy we feel we have achieved at the end of the first movement, with the Alma theme reigning victorious momentarily before the crushing machinery and ruthless barbarism of the march theme comes back to squelch it.
> - The heavenly final moments of the Andante, with the celesta leading us into what seems to be Elysian fields before the disturbing opening of the finale with the harp and celesta which I've always thought of a dream sequence. It seems designed to be a perfect segue.
> - I simply can't abide 45 minutes straight at the end of the work of those relentless percussive histrionics. I'd rather have that at the start with the Andante as a respite before the massive finale. The symphony is going to be "loaded" way or another no matter what, so I choose the second way.
> - Having the Andante second means that the memory of the sublime is far too much in the past by the time that we are in the clutches of the finale. The visions of nature, beauty, and love should still be lingering in our minds as the drama of the finale unfolds, and if the scherzo is third there is no sense of contrast.
> 
> Yes, evidence points to the fact that Mahler wanted it A-S, but sorry - I simply don't like it that way. Mahler once applauded a conductor for daring to go against his wishes and said that he "cursed the conductor that does not do all he can to improve my music," so I have a feeling he wouldn't be angry at anyone who does it S-A.


Maybe he wouldn't. But then again, maybe he would. There is no way for us to know, other than what he decided for himself when instructed his publisher and, most importantly, when he conducted the work himself... As mentioned he never performed it any other way than A/S.
I always find that it would be interesting to listening to a S/A version in which the scherzo follows the fist movement without any paus. So that it becomes an integrated part of the first movement, rendering the whole work a three movement symphony.
Anyway... I do love Mariss Jansons' recording with LSO... (A/S...)


----------



## Gargamel

Mahler 6 never did anything else than bored me to death, and my opinion still hasn't changed concerning the first three movements. But as I heard the finale movement, it's belligerent character suprisingly connected with the current state of the world and (not that I would take sides in politics) democracy. Surprising, as the work is 117 years old!


----------



## Kiki

Berliner Philharmoniker / Kirill Petrenko / 2020 Jan (BP Recordings)

Love this Mahler 6! The performance is wild, powerful, heroic and devastating. While I was listening to it I was always eagerly anticipating what he had up his sleeve next. It was a really immersive experience, especially in the finale, with that awesome tuba, those mightily "dull" hammerschlagen. And it was a delightful surprise to hear a not only glorious but also vivid and transparent recording (yes, we're talking the Berliner Philharmonie, and I just said "transparent", no typo!)

My previous favourite was Rattle's 2013 Berlin recording. It is dark and muscular. But admittedly Rattle has always been an acquired taste for me. Haven't done any comparison with the K. Petrenko yet, but I got a feeling that the K. Petrenko will probably become my new favourite.

I'm now really looking forward to hearing K. Petrenko's Mahler 7 with the BRSO! If he also goes wild like this, it would be a winner!


----------



## CnC Bartok

Kiki said:


> Berliner Philharmoniker / Kirill Petrenko / 2020 Jan (BP Recordings)
> 
> Love this Mahler 6! The performance is wild, powerful, heroic and devastating. While I was listening to it I was always eagerly anticipating what he had up his sleeve next. It was a really immersive experience, especially in the finale, with that awesome tuba, those mightily "dull" hammerschlagen. And it was a delightful surprise to hear a not only glorious but also vivid and transparent recording (yes, we're talking the Berliner Philharmonie, and I just said "transparent", no typo!)
> 
> My previous favourite was Rattle's 2013 Berlin recording. It is dark and muscular. But admittedly Rattle has always been an acquired taste for me. Haven't done any comparison with the K. Petrenko yet, but I got a feeling that the K. Petrenko will probably become my new favourite.
> 
> I'm now really looking forward to hearing K. Petrenko's Mahler 7 with the BRSO! If he also goes wild like this, it would be a winner!


I have just downloaded this, you tend to have decent taste! :angel: Can you tell me the recording date, as I saved money by downloading each movement separately from Amazon! :devil:


----------



## Kiki

^

Recorded at the Philharmonie Berlin
Symphony No. 6: 25 January 2020

Both Prestoclassical and Highresaudio provide the booklet. Free download (refresh the page if the booklet does not show up) -> https://www.highresaudio.com/en/alb...rmoniker-kirill-petrenko-mahler-symphony-no-6

It seems to be the full booklet of the Berliner Philharmoniker's Mahler set.

What do you think of this Mahler 6?


----------



## elgar's ghost

I still prefer Tennstedt's live 6th over most, but still annoyed that the engineers couldn't edit out the intrusive BRAVO! which some showboating prat felt compelled to bellow out before the lest vestiges of the music had totally melted away. What a pity this idiot wasn't tracked down and named and shamed like the ignoramus who called Dylan 'Judas' at his Manchester Free Trade Hall gig in 1966.


----------



## Merl

You have me intrigued, Kiki. I must hear this now. Like CnC, I trust your generally excellent taste. :tiphat:

Edit: just listening on Spotify. Oooooh, really nice first movement! Love those balances. Doesn't sound like the BPO, btw. Off to listen to the rest unless I fall asleep.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Kiki said:


> Berliner Philharmoniker / Kirill Petrenko / 2020 Jan (BP Recordings)
> 
> Love this Mahler 6! The performance is wild, powerful, heroic and devastating. While I was listening to it I was always eagerly anticipating what he had up his sleeve next. It was a really immersive experience, especially in the finale, with that awesome tuba, those mightily "dull" hammerschlagen. And it was a delightful surprise to hear a not only glorious but also vivid and transparent recording (yes, we're talking the Berliner Philharmonie, and I just said "transparent", no typo!)
> 
> My previous favourite was Rattle's 2013 Berlin recording. It is dark and muscular. But admittedly Rattle has always been an acquired taste for me. Haven't done any comparison with the K. Petrenko yet, but I got a feeling that the K. Petrenko will probably become my new favourite.
> 
> I'm now really looking forward to hearing K. Petrenko's Mahler 7 with the BRSO! If he also goes wild like this, it would be a winner!


I bought it at the beginning of the year on a 24/96 Hi-Res download.. It's a very good performance, but for some reason the inner movements are the wrong way round - easily solved by programming the scherzo ahead of the andante.


----------



## Merl

HenryPenfold said:


> I bought it at the beginning of the year on a 24/96 Hi-Res download.. It's a very good performance, but for some reason the inner movements are the wrong way round - easily solved by programming the scherzo ahead of the andante.


As I said at the start of this thread, I've always preferred it in the A-S order of performance. It was what Mahler wanted till Alma stuck her big nose in. It sounds more natural to me.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Merl said:


> As I said at the start of this thread, I've always preferred it in the A-S order of performance. It was what Mahler wanted till Alma stuck her big nose in. It sounds more natural to me.


Three cheers are never enough for Alma! :lol:


----------



## Kiki

HenryPenfold said:


> Three cheers are never enough for Alma! :lol:


I like your attitude.

I like S-A, even though A-S is the "correct" order.



elgars ghost said:


> I still prefer Tennstedt's live 6th over most, but still annoyed that the engineers couldn't edit out the intrusive BRAVO! which some showboating prat felt compelled to bellow out before the lest vestiges of the music had totally melted away. What a pity this idiot wasn't tracked down and named and shamed like the ignoramus who called Dylan 'Judas' at his Manchester Free Trade Hall gig in 1966.


"Bravo"? That must be the ive 1983 on LPO's label. Cute, isn't it? Oh boy, that guy must be craving for attention.

That guy wasn't there in the live 1991 on EMI eight years later. I wonder where he'd gone.

I like both accounts. Intense stuff they both are. I even like the slower 1991 a bit more. (Can't believe I said that.)


----------



## elgar's ghost

Kiki said:


> I like both accounts. Intense stuff they both are. I even like the slower 1991 a bit more. (Can't believe I said that.)


Thanks for the reminder - I'd forgotten about the later live recording (which I haven't heard).


----------



## HenryPenfold

Kiki said:


> I like S-A, even though A-S is the "correct" order.


Are we sure about that?


----------



## thejewk

:lol:

Yes, let's all talk about A-S a bit more. I'm sure we'll all settle the matter and leave happy after about another 200 pages or so.

As for the recording, sounds interesting and I'll add it to my list. Is this a part of the BPO Mahler set that just recently came out?


----------



## Parley

thejewk said:


> :lol:
> 
> *Yes, let's all talk about A-S a bit more. I'm sure we'll all settle the matter and leave happy after about another 200 pages or so.
> *
> As for the recording, sounds interesting and I'll add it to my list. Is this a part of the BPO Mahler set that just recently came out?


"...when Willem Mengelberg in 1919 asked Alma about the correct order of the middle movements of the Sixth Symphony, Alma telegrammed back 'First Scherzo, then Andante'. She knew the history of the work: that Mahler composed it with the Scherzo second and the Andante third and that it had been published before the premiere with the middle movements in that order, but that at the rehearsals Mahler had decided to change the movements round, and at two subsequent performances during the next seven months he kept to this revised order. He did not conduct the Symphony again after January 1907. So was Alma's telegram merely an expression of her selfish wish to control her husband's music? It could have been, though there are other possibilities. We do not know whether, at some point before his death in 1911, Mahler had changed his mind again and told Alma. But even if he had not, Alma was a competent musician, a composer who, quite possibly, recognized that the original order was musically more convincing than the revision." (David Matthews)

For the complete article see https://www.david-matthews.co.uk/writings/article.asp?articleid=76


----------



## thejewk

Just to clarify, I was being sarcastic, and do not wish to engage with the topic in the slightest. The discussion of a new recording of the work, however, is actually quite useful.


----------



## EdwardBast

HenryPenfold said:


> Are we sure about that?


Yes. And so was Mahler.


----------



## HenryPenfold

EdwardBast said:


> Yes. And so was Mahler.


He was?

............


----------



## mparta

HenryPenfold said:


> I bought it at the beginning of the year on a 24/96 Hi-Res download.. It's a very good performance, but for some reason the inner movements are the wrong way round - easily solved by programming the scherzo ahead of the andante.


I hate you all.

I was supposed to hear this at the Baden-Baden Easter festival, cancelled for It-which-must-not-be-named.


----------



## Becca

I think very highly of Petrenko but I have to say that his M6, while beautifully played, leaves me unmoved.


----------



## Kiki

HenryPenfold said:


> Are we sure about that?


I feel that S-A unfolds the drama of the whole symphony in a more convincing way than A-S, therefore I like it more.

On the other hand, the generally accepted fact is that the last instruction about the order that Mahler gave his publisher was A-S, therefore A-S is the "correct" order. I'm not sure when this happened. I assume around or soon after the premiere in 1906.

However, there are other stories that suggest that Mahler was still in two minds (or plainly changed his mind back to S-A) as late as 1907 after the last performance of the 6th that he conducted, be it Mengelberg's S-A "according to Mahler" inscription, or the alleged S-A experiment that Mahler did in that last performance. (Post #156)

It is difficult to say how credible these stories are; but they certainly don't sound as authoritative as Mahler's instruction to his publisher. However, if they are credible, it means that Mahler had been having doubts after the instruction but he wasn't absolutely certain that he wanted to revert the order back to S-A in the published score, otherwise he would have done so.

Or maybe he didn't care, if I may speculate, given that he was known to appreciate artistic freedom in performances.

The other story that I think is actually irrelevant to this issue is Alma's telegram to Mengelberg in 1919. It simply reveals that Alma wanted S-A. I happen to agree with her. I like S-A more.


----------



## Kiki

Becca said:


> I think very highly of Petrenko but I have to say that his M6, while beautifully played, leaves me unmoved.


I can imagine if you put this in a blindcomp, and I went about it like I've been taking drugs, and you just said one word in reply, "Interesting."  I kind of feel funny about it. :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast

HenryPenfold said:


> He was?
> 
> ............


Yes. All the evidence is in the thread. ^ ^ ^


----------



## Subutai

Kiki said:


> I'm now really looking forward to hearing K. Petrenko's Mahler 7 with the BRSO! If he also goes wild like this, it would be a winner!


Seriously, I think you should miss Currentzis Mahler 6 at your peril. I'm no expert but admire him for thinking outside the box. Critics be damned!


----------



## Knorf

The clearest, most definitive evidence we have supports that Mahler himself wanted the order to be Andante then Scherzo. That's the fact of it. 

Otherwise there's a lot of speculation. 

It's so odd to me that no one tinkers with Mahler's order in his other symphonies, or other symphonies by other composers. Are we sure Brahms Symphony No. 4 is definitely better with the order Andante then Allegro, rather than Allegro then Andante? No, we don't even question it. (Just a random example.) Why do we question it here with Mahler 6? Because Alma said so, an established unreliable source. Without her, we wouldn't question it.


----------



## Forster

Parley said:


> "[...] Mahler composed it with the Scherzo second and the Andante third and that it had been published before the premiere with the middle movements in that order, but that at the rehearsals *Mahler had decided to change the movements round, and at two subsequent performances during the next seven months he kept to this revised order. *He did not conduct the Symphony again after January 1907. So was Alma's telegram merely an expression of her selfish wish to control her husband's music? It could have been, though there are other possibilities. We do not know whether, at some point before his death in 1911, Mahler had changed his mind again and told Alma. But even if he had not, Alma was a competent musician, a composer who, quite possibly, recognized that the original order was musically more convincing than the revision." (David Matthews)
> 
> For the complete article see https://www.david-matthews.co.uk/writings/article.asp?articleid=76


So, in this quote, there is clear evidence of Mahler's final decision: A-S. The rest is speculation, and the absurd idea that we should accept Alma's account as the final word.

A-S for me.


----------



## mbhaub

Here we go again.
The reason no one changes the order of inner movements of Brahms 4 is because they play it the way he wrote it, performed it and there was never a question about that. With the Mahler 6th, it's not quite so simple. According to de la Grange: for the Essen premiere, the October Berlin and the November Munich concerts he did it SA. In the Vienna 1907 performance he switched to AS. We know from letters he wrote and from people around him at the first performance that he was quite torn about the order, just as he was about the third and final hammer blow, which he eventually deleted. Alma may have mucked things up by declaring SA as the proper order. It's too bad that neither Walter nor Klemperer liked the 6th very much; had they taken it up early - when Mahler was still alive - this controversy might have been settled long ago. Like most people, I grew up with SA. The theoretical analysis of why that is "correct" makes a lot of sense. Then came the AS versions and as time went on, I've changed my mind - AS works well, and going from the abyss at the end of the Scherzo right into the depths of the finale seems perfect.


----------



## Knorf

I stand by my summary.

ETA: as is stands, the evidence is very solid that Mahler definitively changed the original order of the inner movements—which was hardly unheard of in music history, but in general people respect final versions—and I think you're exaggerating the degree to which Mahler was "torn" about it: only briefly, and not again after the change was made.


----------



## Kiki

Subutai said:


> Seriously, I think you should miss Currentzis Mahler 6 at your peril. I'm no expert but admire him for thinking outside the box. Critics be damned!


Not sure if I fully understand that. In fact I am a big admirer of Currentzis, and I like his highly musical Mahler 6 very much. Never mind the critics. Their value is decreasing everyday in the internet age.


----------



## mbhaub

Knorf said:


> and I think you're exaggerating the degree to which Mahler was "torn" about it: only briefly, and not again after the change was made.


Read de la Grange vol. 3 and you'll have a tough time saying "torn" isn't the correct term.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Subutai said:


> Seriously, I think you should miss Currentzis Mahler 6 at your peril. I'm no expert but admire him for thinking outside the box. Critics be damned!


Totally agreed

..................


----------



## HenryPenfold

Knorf said:


> The clearest, most definitive evidence we have supports that Mahler himself wanted the order to be Andante then Scherzo. That's the fact of it.
> 
> Otherwise there's a lot of speculation.
> 
> It's so odd to me that no one tinkers with Mahler's order in his other symphonies, or other symphonies by other composers. Are we sure Brahms Symphony No. 4 is definitely better with the order Andante then Allegro, rather than Allegro then Andante? No, we don't even question it. (Just a random example.) Why do we question it here with Mahler 6? Because Alma said so, an established unreliable source. Without her, we wouldn't question it.


Perhaps it's confirmation bias, but I follow the speculation because it suggests a more satisfactory musical experience: we simply haven't yet arrived at that andante after just the first movement, and the shattering opening of the finale is lost when it follows on from the scherzo. God bless Alma!!


----------



## EdwardBast

HenryPenfold said:


> Perhaps it's confirmation bias, but I follow the speculation because it suggests a more satisfactory musical experience: we simply haven't yet arrived at that andante after just the first movement, and the shattering opening of the finale is lost when it follows on from the scherzo. God bless Alma!!


The Andante is a respite won by the end of the first movement. It's not arrival, it's a more positive alternative that's later reversed by the scherzo. It's just tedious and expressively incoherent to start the pounding of the scherzo again immediately following the end of the first movement.

Yes, it's confirmation bias. If you can't at least imagine why Mahler thought the A-S order was better, you haven't tried hard enough and perhaps you should show more respect for the composer's opinion.


----------



## HenryPenfold

*Re Post 267 - Enthusiast*



> The Andante is a respite won by the end of the first movement.


Oh no it's not! Maybe for lightweights it is!



> It's not arrival, it's a more positive alternative that's later reversed by the scherzo


No, we have to go again before the andante, we're in for the long-haul - this is a 'big' piece of music. But I like the idea of the scherzo being a reversal of the emotional momentum. Need to think more about that one.



> It's just tedious and expressively incoherent to start the pounding of the scherzo again immediately following the end of the first movement.


In your opinion. The immediate 'pounding' of the scherzo straight after the first movement is ineffably 'right'. Incoherent? Why?



> Yes, it's confirmation bias. If you can't at least imagine why Mahler thought the A-S order was better, you haven't tried hard enough and perhaps you should show more respect for the composer's opinion.


We all respect Mahler, don't worry about that sonny-Jim! But if he thinks A-S, he's simply wrong.


----------



## tdc

The symphony can work either way, I think. That said the first version I heard was Chailly who does S-A, and one of the things I immediately liked about the work was that scherzo after the first movement, because it felt rather unexpected, therefore exciting. Typically one would expect the intensity to let up a little after a first movement like that, but S-A takes it up a notch instead. When the intensity is ramped up that high the andante going into the finale seems to work to balance it out. It works for me anyway.


----------



## Becca

HenryPenfold said:


> We all respect Mahler, don't worry about that sonny-Jim! But if he thinks A-S, he's simply wrong.


I think that the composer's opinion from when he was rehearsing the symphony for the first time carries more weight that any number of professional and amateur critics.


----------



## Heck148

tdc said:


> .... Typically one would expect the intensity to let up a little after a first movement like that, but S-A takes it up a notch instead. When the intensity is ramped up that high the andante going into the finale seems to work to balance it out. It works for me anyway.


That's how I hear it as well...the S-A order creates an up/down emotional swing that is most effective.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Becca said:


> I think that the composer's opinion from when he was rehearsing the symphony for the first time carries more weight that any number of professional and amateur critics.


Well, yes - I wouldn't argue with that. But then once the music is 'out there', it's not the composer's anymore, save for the modern concept of intellectual property .... but that's a whole different conversation.


----------



## HenryPenfold

If I'm honest, it's probably got more to do with how I first heard it. I went years before I heard it A-S and it just felt wrong.

Similarly, Bruckner 9. No matter how erudite and intellectually convincing the arguments for a fourth movement 'completion', for me it will only ever be a 3 movement symphony, ending on the adagio that asks so many questions and doesn't even hint at an answer .....


----------



## Knorf

mbhaub said:


> Read de la Grange vol. 3 and you'll have a tough time saying "torn" isn't the correct term.


Fun that you seem to assume no one besides you reads this stuff or might see it differently. Mahler was very emotional about Sixth as a whole, torn up over ever note. The movement order stuff struck me as pretty mundane for that context.

My point really is that with this "torn over the movement order" stuff, there actually is no wiggle room to undo Mahler's final decision, which he did not revisit or have insecurity about once it was decided.

I, like most people, heard Scherzo-Andante first and imprinted on that order (thanks, Leonard Bernstein). Most people can't let go of that.

I have, because Mahler himself is the authority I care about, and his final decision was Andante-Scherzo.

Really, the _only_ reason there was confusion and lingering controversy is because of Alma, because people used to think she was a reliable source concerning Mahler. She's not.


----------



## mbhaub

Many times on TC I've read comments by people who claim Mahler always conducted it in the order AS. De la Grange, a most thorough and intrepid biographer, made the claim that for at least the first three performances Mahler went SA. But oddly, some critics reviewing the new work seemed to imply the order was AS. de la Grange, to his credit, acknowledges this confusing state. Then along comes two other worthy biographers: Cooke and Fischer. Cooke, in his short introduction to the symphonies says Mahler always went AS as does Fischer. Redlich in his intro to the the Eulenberg edition tried to give SA Mahler's imprimatur. Unfortunately for him, his sources were roundly discredited. I have no doubt Mahler finally decided AS for one really good reason: in this, his most classical symphony, the Andante usually did follow the opening Allegro. I wish someone could produce hard copies of those original performances - that would be interesting.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I suppose it's a tribute to how great the symphony itself is if the question about its inner movements has still not been properly resolved after well over a century.


----------



## MrMeatScience

mbhaub said:


> Many times on TC I've read comments by people who claim Mahler always conducted it in the order AS. De la Grange, a most thorough and intrepid biographer, made the claim that for at least the first three performances Mahler went SA. But oddly, some critics reviewing the new work seemed to imply the order was AS. de la Grange, to his credit, acknowledges this confusing state. Then along comes two other worthy biographers: Cooke and Fischer. Cooke, in his short introduction to the symphonies says Mahler always went AS as does Fischer. Redlich in his intro to the the Eulenberg edition tried to give SA Mahler's imprimatur. Unfortunately for him, his sources were roundly discredited. I have no doubt Mahler finally decided AS for one really good reason: in this, his most classical symphony, the Andante usually did follow the opening Allegro. I wish someone could produce hard copies of those original performances - that would be interesting.


Doesn't La Grange say just the opposite? We know the order of Mahler's original conception was SA. On page 412 La Grange comments that Mahler "reversed the order" between last rehearsal and premiere, i.e. it becomes AS. Footnote 63 on this page says more about the order, but it seems very much like a typo to me.

"63. For the premiere, the Oct. performance in Berlin and the Nov. performance in Munich, the _Andante followed the Scherzo._ In Vienna in Jan. 1907 Mahler apparently _reverted to the original order_ of the movements." (emphasis mine)

This is clearly self-contradictory, and just a slip-up on La Grange's/the editor's part. If we go to chapter 7 where he discusses the Viennese premiere in 1907 (page 537) we see that footnote 63 is yet more misleading. The confusion here stems from Heinrich Reinhardt's over-complicated joke about Mahler's indecision. This one review alone suggests that the order was SA, whereas every single other (barring the Wiener Allgemeine Zeitung) review proceeds 1-A-S-4. These sorts of errors are unfortunately all too common, especially in Mahler criticism. Many critics had already made their minds up and wrote reviews irrespective of the actual music (especially the antisemitic papers, like the Deutsche Zeitung). Sometimes they didn't even attend, and wrote reviews just based on the printed score, which acknowledged Mahler's decision to change to AS only in the form of an errata slip issued on his request. I would suggest that Reinhardt's review is an unfunny dig at Mahler, and that Lafite's review for the WAZ was probably strongly informed by the score, which was available and in print under Kahnt from 1906. Thus all performances in Mahler's lifetime would seem to be AS. Alma introduces some confusion a decade later, and Erwin Ratz seals the deal for modern performances with his really indefensible choice in the first critical edition.

I'm a musicologist who mostly writes about Mahler. I love La Grange's work as much as the next person -- it's invaluable for Mahler scholars and a real Herculean effort -- but there are lots of little errors, which are inevitable in a project of that scale.


----------



## EdwardBast

elgars ghost said:


> I suppose it's a tribute to how great the symphony itself is if the question about its inner movements has still not been properly resolved after well over a century.


It _has_ been resolved. It's just that people misled about the order in their early encounters with the symphony can't let go of their initial impressions. This is understandable to some extent. What I can't understand is their unwillingness to hear and understand it in the authorized order now that Mahler's wishes have become abundantly clear. The reaction I would expect from anyone who claims to like Mahler and who therefore, presumably, respects his musical judgment, would be: "Oh wow, I should listen to it in the other order until I understand why Mahler wanted it this way and why he decided it worked better this way rather than in the S-A order. The resistance to reality and new experience is bewildering.


----------



## Enthusiast

EdwardBast said:


> It _has_ been resolved. It's just that people misled about the order in their early encounters with the symphony can't let go of their initial impressions. This is understandable to some extent. What I can't understand is their unwillingness to hear and understand it in the authorized order now that Mahler's wishes have become abundantly clear. The reaction I would expect from anyone who claims to like Mahler and who therefore, presumably, respects his musical judgment, would be: "Oh wow, I should listen to it in the other order until I understand why Mahler wanted it this way and why he decided it worked better this way rather than in the S-A order. The resistance to reality and new experience is bewildering.


I am not sure why but this can become an emotional issue on TC, with advocates of one position - particularly the view that it should be A-S - seeming to look down angrily and from a great height on those who support the other position. And yet, still, most conductors choose to go with S-A. Is this because they were "misled in their early encounters" and "can't let go" of their initial impression? I suspect that most noted conductors think more deeply than that about the question.

I see no logical connection between loving Mahler's music and accepting his every decision about it. Interpreters often make changes to a work they are performing - just as theatre directors routinely cut works to a shape that fits their conception of the play - and, although this rarely goes to the extent of changing the order of movements, we also sometimes know and enjoy earlier or later version of a work is explicitly being performed.

So why do most conductors choose S-A against Mahler's wishes? The case of Mahler 6 _is _a bit tricky. We now know that Mahler _changed his mind_ (i.e. both versions have a history) and that suggests that he had found the question a difficult one, too. I personally find that neither solution is ideal. IMO, having the scherzo before the andante can sound messy, through having one march-like movement following on immediately from another, and presents conductors with a problem to solve. But the Mahler-blessed alternative gives conductors a similar or even bigger problem as the transition from scherzo to finale is not ideal and works less well than having the scherzo leading into the finale. Most conductors still go with the order that we now know Mahler opted against. We can't just dismiss these regularly made choices by eminent musicians as artistically wrong.


----------



## Heck148

I've listened to it both ways...i think S-A works better, for me.....if Mahler eventually chose the A-S order, he certainly had his reasons....which deserve respect...but i think he may be wrong, or more accurately <not entirely correct>
Many eminent Mahler interpreters have made powerful and cogent presentations of the S-A format, that are very effective, to me, more musically and dramatically effective than the A-S order.
In any case, it's a great symphony, whichever way it's presented.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I openly admit belonging to the ones not being able to shake the "early impressions". But I think it is not entirely rationalization of this habit to think that scherzo - andante works better in some ways. The scherzo being a "grotesque gloss" on the first movement has precedents in Beethoven's 9th (and the sonata op.106) and we also have a better balance with 1+scherzo - andante - finale giving two large sections in a similar tragic mood with the andante as comparably brief solace in between. Scherzo in 3rd position seems a bit "lost" to me. And the transition to the finale is awkward.
I wonder how Alma and Ratz could have been so sure? to establish the order against Mahler's intentions.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I openly admit belonging to the ones not being able to shake the "early impressions". But I think it is not entirely rationalization of this habit to think that scherzo - andante works better in some ways. The scherzo being a "grotesque gloss" on the first movement has precedents in Beethoven's 9th (and the sonata op.106) and we also have a better balance with 1+scherzo - andante - finale giving two large sections in a similar tragic mood with the andante as comparably brief solace in between. Scherzo in 3rd position seems a bit "lost" to me. And the transition to the finale is awkward.
I wonder how Alma and Ratz could have been so sure? to establish the order against Mahler's intentions.


----------



## EdwardBast

Enthusiast said:


> I am not sure why but this can become an emotional issue on TC, with advocates of one position - particularly the view that it should be A-S - seeming to look down angrily and from a great height on those who support the other position. And yet, still, most conductors choose to go with S-A. Is this because they were "misled in their early encounters" and "can't let go" of their initial impression? I suspect that most noted conductors think more deeply than that about the question.


That's funny. I'm not the least bit emotional or angry about the issue, unless you count bewilderment. It's also funny seeing people tie themselves in knots explaining why the absolutely clear decision of Mahler, made _before the first performance_ no less, needs to be countermanded.



Kreisler jr said:


> I openly admit belonging to the ones not being able to shake the "early impressions". But I think it is not entirely rationalization of this habit to think that scherzo - andante works better in some ways. The scherzo being a "grotesque gloss" on the first movement has precedents in Beethoven's 9th (and the sonata op.106) and we also have a better balance with 1+scherzo - andante - finale giving two large sections in a similar tragic mood with the andante as comparably brief solace in between. Scherzo in 3rd position seems a bit "lost" to me. And the transition to the finale is awkward.
> I wonder how Alma and Ratz could have been so sure? to establish the order against Mahler's intentions.


The first movement ends with the forceful assertion of the second theme, giving it the last word in its opposition to and struggle with the principal material. This is why the respite of the Andante makes dramatic sense following it. The assertion of the second theme is what wins the respite. It's a causal relationship. On the other hand, putting Scherzo first - canceling the first movement's conclusion by immediately reasserting variants of the opposing elements - is ham-handed and dramatically incoherent. It renders the end of the first movement meaningless and aborts the longer dramatic arc that's fulfilled when the scherzo returns to threaten all that was established in the Andante. It's allowing the Andante to flourish before the threat of returning darkness and violence that makes the drama work.


----------



## Knorf

EdwardBast said:


> That's funny. I'm not the least bit emotional or angry about the issue, unless you count bewilderment. It's also funny seeing people tie themselves in knots explaining why the absolutely clear decision of Mahler, made _before the first performance_ no less, needs to be countermanded.


Same here. And I was definitely once devoted to the Scherzo-Andante order, too...


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> It _has_ been resolved. It's just that people misled about the order in their early encounters with the symphony can't let go of their initial impressions. This is understandable to some extent. What I can't understand is their unwillingness to hear and understand it in the authorized order now that Mahler's wishes have become abundantly clear. The reaction I would expect from anyone who claims to like Mahler and who therefore, presumably, respects his musical judgment, would be: "Oh wow, I should listen to it in the other order until I understand why Mahler wanted it this way and why he decided it worked better this way rather than in the S-A order. The resistance to reality and new experience is bewildering.


I think the reason is that, as brilliant as composers are, music appreciation still is largely subjective. No two people will share exactly the same tastes. In addition to this many pieces will work in more than one way, and often times composers themselves struggle with questions regarding structure, repeats and so forth. Ultimately the final decisions on these questions can become rather arbitrary with each choice having its own strength. Some will prefer it one way, others will prefer it the other. 
Composers themselves often change their minds on such questions.

As much as I respect composers I see no need to force my tastes to conform to theirs in all matters. Doing that I think is not natural. To suggest forcing one to listen to something in some perceived 'right' way doesn't make sense to me. It seems to suggest that a composer can reach some standard of objectivity in works that does not exist, and in fact cannot exist given the amount of differences that already exist in interpretive choices.

A work of art like a musical composition has so many influences even from people before the composer to combine in its creation, mixed with the fact that it requires additional forces to perform it, and a listener. It is a complicated question and the fact is it is not honest to listen to a symphony and think it is the creation of one human being whose ideas around it are infallible.

If you are so concerned with the composers wishes, do you only listen to piano music performed by the composer themselves where those recordings exist? Or orchestral music conducted by the composers themselves? (Or interpretations that are virtually the same? Can a composer even recreate the music in their head precisely?)

If not you too are making choices based on your own preferences not necessarily the composers wishes.


----------



## Heck148

One strong reason for me to favor the S-A order is that I've heard some powerfully effective performances of that format [ Solti, Abbado, Nelsons (live)]
I've not heard any A-S performances that could match those for emotional and dramatic "wallop". they haven't, so far, measured up.....I've switched the order on my recorded performances, but it just isn't the same..

Maybe Mahler was wrong?? I cannot erase, or ignore the powerful effect I've experienced from the S-A order...it seems "right" to me....nobody has yet sold me, convinced me, that the A-S order works better....just my opinion, of course.


----------



## Enthusiast

EdwardBast said:


> That's funny. I'm not the least bit emotional or angry about the issue, unless you count bewilderment. It's also funny seeing people tie themselves in knots explaining why the absolutely clear decision of Mahler, made _before the first performance_ no less, needs to be countermanded.


Thank you. I wasn't suggesting that _you _were emotional and angry about it but was noting that it has historically been a heated issue on this forum - and wondering why.

Nor do I tie myself in knots. Personally, I can enjoy performances both ways. I think Mahler's final choice is probably what we should go with but also that it is not a big deal to me and, anyway, there aren't too many recordings that do. I don't greatly like reprogramming what a conductor has recorded as, whichever option a conductor chooses will influence what the conductor does with the two movements - so I listen to what individual conductors choose to do.


----------



## Bruckner Anton

My favorites are Karajan DG and Haitink Philips, both with BPO. Reasons: to-the-point and not overly exaggerated interpretation. Top-notch flawless orchetral performance and excellent sound quality. 

Bernstein did a lot to popularize Mahler, but it seems to me that he sometimes did not follow the composer's indication written on the score. One example in the 6th: last movement, there is a chorale like theme in the introduction (which is further developed in the recap) where Mahler indicated that it sould not be played at a slowing down tempo. Most conductors did strictly according to his instruction, but not Bernstein.

Barbirolli's 6 on EMI is generally a monumental recording. The sound is bearable. What I found less convincing about the interpretation is that it is a bit lack of flow. One example, last movement recap: the order of the themes in the exposition is changed and this section of music generally requires continuity. Barbirolli did a big pause at the joint section just before the first theme is recaped. For me, the pause just sound a bit too long and it breaks the flow of the entire section.

Many historical recordings suffer from not only bad sound quality but poor orchestral playing as well. I am not going to list them one by one.


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> I think the reason is that, as brilliant as composers are, music appreciation still is largely subjective. No two people will share exactly the same tastes. In addition to this many pieces will work in more than one way, and often times composers themselves struggle with questions regarding structure, repeats and so forth. Ultimately the final decisions on these questions can become rather arbitrary with each choice having its own strength. Some will prefer it one way, others will prefer it the other.
> Composers themselves often change their minds on such questions.
> 
> As much as I respect composers I see no need to force my tastes to conform to theirs in all matters. Doing that I think is not natural. To suggest forcing one to listen to something in some perceived 'right' way doesn't make sense to me. It seems to suggest that a composer can reach some standard of objectivity in works that does not exist, and in fact cannot exist given the amount of differences that already exist in interpretive choices.
> 
> A work of art like a musical composition has so many influences even from people before the composer to combine in its creation, mixed with the fact that it requires additional forces to perform it, and a listener. It is a complicated question and the fact is it is not honest to listen to a symphony and think it is the creation of one human being whose ideas around it are infallible.
> 
> *If you are so concerned with the composers wishes, do you only listen to piano music performed by the composer themselves where those recordings exist? Or orchestral music conducted by the composers themselves? (Or interpretations that are virtually the same? Can a composer even recreate the music in their head precisely?)
> 
> If not you too are making choices based on your own preferences not necessarily the composers wishes.*


The above is a pack of rationalizations, most of which have been addressed numerous times in this thread. So I'll just take the bold portion:

No, of course I don't listen exclusively to piano music performed by its composers. Why? Because no composer I've heard of expressed a wish that anyone do so. And because the composers might not be particularly good pianists. And because composers universally acknowledge that there are many possible good interpretations and they and others will like to hear them. But yours is a nonsensical argument in any case because no one thinks reordering the movements of major works is a matter for personal interpretation.

As for your conclusion: The choices I make are exactly in agreement with composers' wishes, since they all have wanted their works to be widely performed, interpreted by others, and heard in various interpretations. Jeez man, that's the essence of a performing art - at least on my planet.

Now show me the list of composers who endorsed having their symphonies reordered at the whim of misinformed conductors.


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> The above is a pack of rationalizations, most of which have been addressed numerous times in this thread. So I'll just take the bold portion:
> 
> No, of course I don't listen exclusively to piano music performed by its composers. Why? Because no composer I've heard of expressed a wish that anyone do so. And because the composers might not be particularly good pianists. And because composers universally acknowledge that there are many possible good interpretations and they and others will like to hear them. But yours is a nonsensical argument in any case because no one thinks reordering the movements of major works is a matter for personal interpretation.
> 
> As for your conclusion: The choices I make are exactly in agreement with composers' wishes, since they all have wanted their works to be widely performed, interpreted by others, and heard in various interpretations. Jeez man, that's the essence of a performing art - at least on my planet.
> 
> Now show me the list of composers who endorsed having their symphonies reordered at the whim of misinformed conductors.


In Beethoven's day sometimes they used to sandwich in movements from other works (for example a violin soloist performs something) in between movements of a symphony. Sometimes individual movements were performed. The obsession with 'correct' ways of performing something is more of a modern phenomena I think. It is not grounded in historical performance practice.

Your argument is nonsense, because no one is suggesting reordering something on 'a whim' but pointing out that the ordering of this particular symphony was done _by the composer _in more than one way, it was a decision he was struggling with, and had changed his mind on previously. That is not a whim, that is a controversy. None of us were there when the alleged final decision was made, further who is to say that decision would have been 'final' had he lived longer? Perspectives change, revisions get made. It is a grey area, and you are not the final authority on it. Many professional conductors perform it S-A. Do you think they just made that decision 'on a whim'?


----------



## Knorf

And around and around it goes. Mahler's final decision was Andante-Scherzo, made before the premiere, retained in all subsequent revisions, and there's zero reliable evidence that he ever reconsidered the order again. But some people just can't let the Scherzo-Andante order go, for no other reason beyond that's how they first heard it and imprinted on it, so it seems right to them.

And that's the argument. Bored now.

ETA: it really doesn't matter that much to me personally. If I were conducting Mahler 6, I'd definitely go with the order Andante-Scherzo, since it's very clearly what Mahler decided he wanted. But I'm hardly, like, going to walk out of a concert, turn down a gig, or throw my CDs out on the street because the conductor used a different order...


----------



## tdc

Knorf said:


> And around and around it goes. Mahler's final decision was Andante-Scherzo, made before the premiere, retained in all subsequent revisions, and there's zero reliable evidence that he ever reconsidered the order again. But some people just can't let the Scherzo-Andante order go, for no other reason beyond that's how they first heard it and imprinted on it, so it seems right to them.
> 
> And that's the argument. Bored now.
> 
> ETA: it really doesn't matter that much to me perosnally. If I were conducting Mahler 6, I'd definitely go with the order Andante-Scherzo, since it's very clearly what Mahler decided he wanted. But I'm hardly, like, going to walk out of a concert, turn down a gig, or throw my CDs out on the street because the conductor used a different order...


But it was a decision he was unsure of, suggesting it could go either way. Also if there was something inherently flawed about S-A, don't you think that some among the plethora of conductors that recorded it that way would have noticed something was off and questioned it?

It seems to work well that way, after all I have imprinted on other works and then afterwards preferred subsequent versions.

Ultimately I think the function of music is to provide pleasure for the listener, not to be used to hold up composers as infallible gods, whose visions we must adhere to. Performers are co-creators.

When it comes to issues like these I'm a pluralist. I like having performers around who try and be as faithful to composers wishes as possible and also those who have other approaches. In the end it is the listeners that will decide what approach is the most effective.


----------



## Knorf

tdc said:


> But it was a decision he was unsure of, suggesting it could go either way.


I'd like to see a citation for this. From what I have read and studied, once the order was settled Antante-Scherzo, he retained it for the premiere performance and through the several subsequent revisions and performances.

As for conductors, the issue there is 1) that almost none have any serious chops in terms of musicology scholarship and 2) it took some time before people realized that Alma was very far from being a reliable source. Early champions of the Sixth took her word for it and didn't question it. Those that followed, just like many posters here, heard it Scherzo-Andante first, and imprinted on that order as "correct," despite scholarship to the contrary.

Interesting note: Claudio Abbado, for one, came around and recorded it using Mahler's order with the Berliner Philharmoniker, after having previously used Scherzo-Andante. (Also, Barbirolli was an early advocate for the Sixth, and conducted it Andante-Scherzo, but at least one CD release changed it.)

You can insist on Scherzo-Andante for whatever reason you like, but what you can't then do is say you're following Mahler's order.

ETA: how grateful I am that no one polls the audience on what their preferred order might be for movements of a symphony, whether this one or any other, nor likely ever will.

Clearly most of those insisting on the order Scherzo-Andante here are at least being honest in saying they think Mahler was just wrong. But I wonder: how would it have been if the first version those people heard and imprinted on had been Andante-Scherzo?


----------



## tdc

Knorf said:


> I'd like to see a citation for this. From what I have read and studied, once the order was settled Antante-Scherzo, he retained it for the premiere performance and through the several subsequent revisions and performances.
> 
> As for conductors, the issue there is 1) that almost none have any serious chops in terms of musicology scholarship and 2) it took some time before people realized that Alma was very far from being a reliable source. Early champions of the Sixth took her word for it and didn't question it. Those that followed, just like many posters here, heard it Scherzo-Andante first, and imprinted on that order as "correct," despite scholarship to the contrary.
> 
> Interesting note: Claudio Abbado, for one, came around and recorded it using Mahler's order with the Berliner Philharmoniker, after having previously used Scherzo-Andante. (Also, Barbirolli was an early advocate for the Sixth, and conducted it Andante-Scherzo, but at least one CD release changed it.)
> 
> You can insist on Scherzo-Andante for whatever reason you like, but what you can't then do is say you're following Mahler's order.
> 
> ETA: how grateful I am that no one polls the audience on what their preferred order might be for movements of a symphony, whether this one or any other, nor likely ever will.
> 
> Clearly most of those insisting on the order Scherzo-Andante here are at least being honest in saying they think Mahler was just wrong. But I wonder: how would it have been if the first version those people heard and imprinted on had been Andante-Scherzo?


My understanding was that he was toying with the idea of having the scherzo first? Isn't that one of the main reasons why there is controversy in the first place?

Perhaps I got my facts wrong.

I will assume you and EdBast are correct. As I said before I think the symphony works both ways but I prefer S-A, and I think it is for reasons beyond just imprinting.

Finally, I will just add, that in my own personal beliefs higher forces sometimes play a role. Call it serendipity or whatever you want. Something mysterious happened with Mozart's Requiem and Bruckner's 9th. Maybe it also happened with Mahler 6th, I'm not sure.

I still love the S-A.


----------



## Knorf

Once more with feeling: Mahler changed the first published order _from_ Scherzo-Andante _to_ Andante-Scherzo before the premiere. It was premiered that way, and the Andante-Scherzo order was retained through all subsequent revisions⁠-of which there were several⁠-and all performances that Mahler conducted. There is no _reliable_ source supporting that Mahler considered reversing the decision, only Alma's telegrammed comment to Mengelberg in 1919 and heaps upon heaps of speculation. Before Alma confused everything, Mengelberg used Andante-Scherzo.

Ultimately, I foresee no resolution. Conductors will choose one or the other as they wish, restore the third hammer blow or not with or without the revisions to the orchestration, and there will never be consensus. Listeners will argue endlessly. Scholars will disagree. Critics will criticize.

In the end, without an actual Resurrection (I myself am not expecting one), we'll never know for sure whether Mahler would have allowed for the original published order as acceptable. Certainly I will not speculate as to whether he would have or not.


----------



## Knorf

Bruckner Anton said:


> Bernstein did a lot to popularize Mahler, but it seems to me that he sometimes did not follow the composer's indication written on the score. One example in the 6th: last movement, there is a chorale like theme in the introduction (which is further developed in the recap) where Mahler indicated that it sould not be played at a slowing down tempo. Most conductors did strictly according to his instruction, but not Bernstein.


The worst thing Bernstein did, in my opinion, was that he restored the third hammer blow but retained the revised orchestration Mahler made to support its removal. There's really no good justification for that.


----------



## Knorf

For anyone wishing to learn more about about all of the comments concerning why Gustav Mahler's wife Alma cannot be relied upon as a source, the Wikipedia article about her is fairly good, and in any case is properly footnoted, so one can track down the source material easily.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_Problem

"Unfortunately, as scholarship has investigated the picture she sought to paint of Mahler and her relationship with him, her accounts have increasingly been revealed as unreliable, false, and misleading, and evidence of deliberate manipulation and falsification."

Indeed.

Read further, and it becomes clear Alma was _the_ ultimate source of the Sixth Symphony's inner movement order "controversy." Not some higher power. Not Gustav himself once he settled on the order just before the premiere. Alma.

"The long-running dispute over the 'proper' order of the symphony's two middle movements - Scherzo/Andante or Andante/Scherzo - appears to be a problem for which Alma is entirely responsible."

Yep.


----------



## tdc

Knorf said:


> Once more with feeling: Mahler changed the first published order _from_ Scherzo-Andante _to_ Andante-Scherzo before the premiere. It was premiered that way, and the Andante-Scherzo order was retained through all subsequent revisions⁠-of which there were several⁠-and all performances that Mahler conducted. There is no _reliable_ source supporting that Mahler considered reversing the decision, only Alma's telegrammed comment to Mengelberg in 1919 and heaps upon heaps of speculation. Before Alma confused everything, Mengelberg used Andante-Scherzo.
> 
> Ultimately, I foresee no resolution. Conductors will choose one or the other as they wish, restore the third hammer blow or not with or without the revisions to the orchestration, and there will never be consensus. Listeners will argue endlessly. Scholars will disagree. Critics will criticize.
> 
> In the end, without an actual Resurrection (I myself am not expecting one), we'll never know for sure whether Mahler would have allowed for the original published order as acceptable. Certainly I will not speculate as to whether he would have or not.


Thank you for clearing this up. So what I said did have some truth, that at one time Mahler had it S-A and then changed his mind. That indicates that it was Mahler's initial idea to perform the work that way. Although the evidence admittedly leans towards A-S, it is not a rock solid case in my view. I understand why there is controversy. If the _only_ evidence was Alma's comment, then it would be a different matter.


----------



## mbhaub

Just to stir things up a bit: there is still at least one unresolved issue about the 6th: what sound exactly did Mahler want for those two - or three - hammer blows in the finale? Trying to capture the sound on CD is difficult at best, the transients are enormous. On some recordings it sounds like a big, flabby bass drum. Some sound like a peal of lightning, the dropping of a guillotine blade, or a cardboard box being smashed. The best I ever heard live was in Tucson of all places: a large wooden box made of heavy 8x12s, open on the bottom, mounted with a slight tilt and hit with a sledge hammer - frightening sound that startled the audience and the players. 

So if you have multiple recordings (and you should!) which ones capture those hammer blows the best? The worst?


----------



## Knorf

mbhaub said:


> So if you have multiple recordings (and you should!) which ones capture those hammer blows the best? The worst?


Interesting question. When I've performed Mahler 6, or heard it live, the hammer has typically been a large wooden box, probably on a hollow platform, smacked as hard as possible with a huge, wooden maul.










That's Cynthia Yeh, the mighty principal percussionist of the Chicago Symphony. She once played a share drum role so gorgeously it made my wife tear up. But that's another story...

In my opinion, the wooden hammer hitting the huge wooden box can often still sound too sharp, too hard-edged. One version I heard that I like that solved this was hitting (with the huge maul) a very large and thick phonebook sitting on the huge box. That was closest in my imagination to "the stroke of an axe, but non-metallic": dull and powerful and very loud. Louisville Symphony, I think? Others have used thin rubber pads to help dull the edge of the sound without losing the volume.

Certainly it's usually a better effect live in a concert hall than in a recording, barring high resolution recordings and a very good sound playback system.

There are many videos on You Tube discussing or showing the Mahler hammer (used as well in Berg's Three Pieces, Op. 6). One is Daniel Druckman, son of the composer Jacob Druckman and principal of the NYPO. They're pretty interesting.

I don't know that I can name my favorite from available recordings; I usually don't focus on the hammer, and the last movement is gigantic.

One thing I can say: all of the mythology about Mahler being superstitious about the three hammer blows, being prophetic or whatever, and removing the last one as a result of superstition, is unmitigated Alma crap, without any supporting evidence. It is clear from the evidence that Mahler removed the third hammer blow for musical reasons, not superstitious ones. You cannot trust Alma, I'm afraid.


----------



## Kiki

Honestly I do not remember what kind of hammerschlag each recording has. However, more often than not, performances on records tend to have those hammerschlagen *blended in* too well into the orchestra. They don't sound distinct enough, or they resonate for too long with too little damping, or they sound too beautiful/glorious like other instruments in the modern orchestra.

Having said that, I do remember hearing a short, loud, dull and wooden sound on records, but these were rare encounters. Maybe I should start doing a survey after the Euro / Copa America to figure them out. Ummm. :lol:


----------



## vincula

This rendition could be labelled as _Mahler 6 TURBO EDITION_! I did a bit of listening back to back with the one on my Gary Bertini box and it's like listening to two different works. Let's have a closer look.

*Symphony no 6 in A minor*

I. _Alegro energico, man non tropo_. Bertini takes 24´04s while Kondrashin clocks at staggering 17'02s _Ma non tropo_? LOL!

II. _Scherzo: Wuchtig_. Bertini 13´33s and Kondrashin 12´09s

III. _Andante moderato_. Bertini 16´16s and Kondrashin 13´26s!

IV. _Finale: Sostenuto - Allegro moderato_. Here the mighty Russian goes berserk . Bertini invests all 29'22s while Quick Kirill clocks at a merely 25´25s. That's 4 minutes on the throttle, baby. Il signore Moderato doesn't drink vodka like we do.

One advantage's that you only need one CD for Kondrashin's no.6 (just 68'24s!) while Bertini needs 83'15s, closer to many other renditions.

Poor chap died of a heart attack two months after this recording. You've been warned! It is INTENSE and live up to its "Tragic" monicker.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Kiki

vincula said:


> View attachment 157181
> 
> 
> This rendition could be labelled as _Mahler 6 TURBO EDITION_! I did a bit of listening back to back with the one on my Gary Bertini box and it's like listening to two different works. Let's have a closer look.
> 
> *Symphony no 6 in A minor*
> 
> I. _Alegro energico, man non tropo_. Bertini takes 24´04s while Kondrashin clocks at staggering 17'02s _Ma non tropo_? LOL!
> 
> II. _Scherzo: Wuchtig_. Bertini 13´33s and Kondrashin 12´09s
> 
> III. _Andante moderato_. Bertini 16´16s and Kondrashin 13´26s!
> 
> IV. _Finale: Sostenuto - Allegro moderato_. Here the mighty Russian goes berserk . Bertini invests all 29'22s while Quick Kirill clocks at a merely 25´25s. That's 4 minutes on the throttle, baby. Il signore Moderato doesn't drink vodka like we do.
> 
> One advantage's that you only need one CD for Kondrashin's no.6 (just 68'24s!) while Bertini needs 83'15s, closer to many other renditions.
> 
> Poor chap died of a heart attack two months after this recording. You've been warned! It is INTENSE and live up to its "Tragic" monicker.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincula


This is a mental M6 that I enjoy very much. It isn't pedal to the metal all the way, as he did slow down (a bit) in some passages to let the music (and us) breath. His Leningrad M6 is even faster by nearly 3 mins. Absolutely crazy, but I can't resist it either. :lol:


----------



## JohnP

In no particular order:

T. Sanderling
Herbig
Jansons LSO
Gielen

I'm drawn to this work again and again, even though it's a harrowing experience. These guys "harrow" me best.


----------



## Heck148

JohnP said:


> In no particular order:
> 
> T. Sanderling
> Herbig
> Jansons LSO
> Gielen
> 
> I'm drawn to this work again and again, even though it's a harrowing experience. These guys "harrow" me best.


Try Solti/CSO - amazing - brutal....all hope is crushed....


----------



## fbjim

I just played the Gielen recording. The first hammer blow in the finale managed to make an LP box of "Death in Venice" by Benjamin Britten fall off the top of the speaker and nearly damage my turntable. That was an experience.


----------



## MarkW

Hammerschlag: Michael Steinberg wrote that the best he ever heard was at a Zander/Boston Philharmonic concert in which the percussionist slammed a wooden timpani crate with a length of plumbers pipe (I assume iron).


----------



## Enthusiast

vincula said:


> View attachment 157181
> 
> 
> This rendition could be labelled as _Mahler 6 TURBO EDITION_! I did a bit of listening back to back with the one on my Gary Bertini box and it's like listening to two different works. Let's have a closer look.
> 
> *Symphony no 6 in A minor*
> 
> I. _Alegro energico, man non tropo_. Bertini takes 24´04s while Kondrashin clocks at staggering 17'02s _Ma non tropo_? LOL!
> 
> II. _Scherzo: Wuchtig_. Bertini 13´33s and Kondrashin 12´09s
> 
> III. _Andante moderato_. Bertini 16´16s and Kondrashin 13´26s!
> 
> IV. _Finale: Sostenuto - Allegro moderato_. Here the mighty Russian goes berserk . Bertini invests all 29'22s while Quick Kirill clocks at a merely 25´25s. That's 4 minutes on the throttle, baby. Il signore Moderato doesn't drink vodka like we do.
> 
> One advantage's that you only need one CD for Kondrashin's no.6 (just 68'24s!) while Bertini needs 83'15s, closer to many other renditions.
> 
> Poor chap died of a heart attack two months after this recording. You've been warned! It is INTENSE and live up to its "Tragic" monicker.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincula


Kondrashin's Leningrad recording has even shorter times for the movements so that Baden-Baden recording was not a one off or a cause of his heart attack - indeed he may have mellowed.


----------



## Kreisler jr

There is the first movement repeat to be considered and there are several sections in different tempi in the finale, so overall playing times are not that clearly informative about fast/slow, but Kondrashin is very fast in the 6th (and quite fast in the 7th as well).

admittedly, I am a bit annoyed when people focus too much on the hammer blow(s). Like the glissandi (or not) in the Waldstein Coda or the percussion at the climax of Bruckner 7th, ii, I find these brief moments not that important to make or break a performance of these pieces.


----------



## amfortas

Kreisler jr said:


> Admittedly, I am a bit annoyed when people focus too much on the hammer blow(s). Like the glissandi (or not) in the Waldstein Coda or the percussion at the climax of Bruckner 7th, ii, I find these brief moments not that important to make or break a performance of these pieces.


That's only because you're not the guy with the hammer.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I grant the guy with hammer (to whom every problem looks like a nail?) to be obsessed with it to his heart's delight. 

It is listeners who focus on such rather trivial details (instead of the historically correct but artistically wrong order of andante-scherzo or vice versa ) who annoy me.


----------



## fbjim

Well, it nearly broke my turntable tone-arm, so it's clearly the most important part of the piece. 



(I wasn't aware of the order issue until recently - what's a good recording that uses A-S?)


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Barbirolli's was issued with S-A but against his wishes. He conceived the piece as A-S but the recording company felt that was wrong. Jansons' LSO live recording uses A-S as does Abbado with the Berlin Philharmonic (but not with the Chicago Symphony).


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> Well, it nearly broke my turntable tone-arm, so it's clearly the most important part of the piece.
> 
> (I wasn't aware of the order issue until recently - what's a good recording that uses A-S?)


I have Jansons/LSO and I like it. JohnP likes it too.


----------



## Becca

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Barbirolli's was issued with S-A but against his wishes. He conceived the piece as A-S but the recording company felt that was wrong.


His recording has subsequently been issued in his desired A-S format, the same order as his live Proms performance (on Testament) done a few days prior to the studio recording.


----------



## joen_cph

*Fastest ever* is/was Scherchen in Leipzig. Total less than 54 minutes. He made some some cuts in the work too.

I. Allegro Energico, Ma Non Troppo	14:03
II. Scherzo. Wuchtig	12:35
III. Andante Moderato	6:27
IV. Finale: Allegro Moderato	20:41


----------



## SearsPoncho

Bernstein/Vienna Philharmonic (live) from the 80's. Incendiary, jaw-dropping performance. The last movement actually sounds as if the orchestra is playing for their lives. Spoiler alert: They lose. Devastating ending.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I like this analysis because it mirrors my own feelings and that is why I like S-A. One point important to me. With the Scherzo-Finale movement combination it is just to much pounding away. 45 minutes of pounding away. It’s just too much. IMHO,all that pounding makes it unlistenable. So it’s obvious that I prefer First movement-S-A-Finale.


----------



## Forster

FrankinUsa said:


> I like this analysis because it mirrors my own feelings and that is why I like S-A. One point important to me. With the Scherzo-Finale movement combination it is just to much pounding away. 45 minutes of pounding away. It's just too much. IMHO,all that pounding makes it unlistenable. So it's obvious that I prefer First movement-S-A-Finale.


Alternatively, you get a lot of pounding away with S-A. Since the argument about which order Mahler himself preferred won't go away, we seem to be left with only personal preference. I prefer A-S, and feel no need to justify my choice.


----------



## amfortas

Forster said:


> Alternatively, you get a lot of pounding away with S-A. Since the argument about which order Mahler himself preferred won't go away, we seem to be left with only personal preference. I prefer A-S, and feel no need to justify my choice.


To avoid the pounding away entirely, I prefer First Movement-A-S-A-Finale (note the repeated Andante). Very few conductors take this approach, though.


----------



## Kiki

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 that it is hard to believe they came from the same conductor.

Starting with #6. The 2012 live Gewandhaus performance is razor-sharp and it sends a shiver up the spine; while the 1989 Concertgebouw performance sells an emotional journey in a first person view angle.

On the other hand, the lack of a sense of compassion in the Gewandhaus performance may be a problem for some; while in the Concertgebouw performance, the lingering on details may be viewed as a sightseeing tour.

Honestly, whether something is a plus or a minus, depends entirely on what one wants.

In the past, I would have preferred the more orthodox Concertgebouw performance. Nowadays I prefer the chillier Gewandhaus performance. Having said that, both are worthy keepers IMO.


----------



## RobertJTh

I listened to the much praised Zinman/Zürich recording today, and I've got mixed feelings about it.

Great attention to detail and textures goes hand in hand with flowing motion and a healthy forward drive... but sometimes I think focusing on textures and motion makes his performance a bit one-dimensional in places. Take the finale for example: there's hardly any contrast between light and dark, positive and negative, everything sounds equally intense. While I think that for instance the first hammer blow is way more effective when the music that precedes it is played with a lighter tough, more relaxed and positive in mood, like it builds up to a glorious victory. Zinman makes it sound so dark and frenzied that instead of Positive => Negative we get Negative <=> Negative.


----------



## Heck148

RobertJTh said:


> .....While I think that for instance the first hammer blow is way more effective when the music that precedes it is played with a lighter tough, more relaxed and positive in mood, like it builds up to a glorious victory. Zinman makes it sound so dark and frenzied that instead of Positive => Negative we get Negative <=> Negative.


I agree - the stark effectiveness in Mahler 6/IV comes from the contrast - the music builds to euphoric heights, positive, passionate, only to be brutally crushed, time and again....the contrast is vital...to me, nobody brings this off as well as Solti...the music is enraptured, passionate, glowing, even....then CRASH!! everything falls apart....the brutality is crushing...again and again...


----------



## Waehnen

Listening to the Salonen/Philharmonia version of the 6th. Salonen is no-nonsense and always communicates the harmonies and textures with precision and a vision. And he always finds the interesting and the musical points. Salonen has all the capacity needed not to get overwhelmed by the vastness at some point and as a result then ”march through Mahler”. (That happens a lot in my experience.)


----------



## Waehnen

MarkW said:


> Whatever you believe the "right" answer to be, trying to convince an S/A person that the "correct" order is A/S is not worth the effort (like trying to convince a Red Sox fan that the only team worth following is the Yankees -- or a Democrat that Trump is a great President). It's not a discussion worth too much persuing.


My personal opinion on the matter is this.

Mahler originally intended the S-A -order which technically reminds the relationship of the first two movements of symphony no. 5. Yet after the first performances he felt that the first movement + scherzo together were tougher in result than perceived while composing.

So he changed to A-S. Which of course transmits the problem of "too much tough stuff" to the S-Finale part.

If one plays everything but the Andante as tough march, one is in trouble anyway. So no matter whether it is S-A or A-S, the scherzo needs to be much lighter than the first movement or the finale. Otherwise this symphony is too much to bear. A great conductor also brings softness to the 1st movement and the finale.

I am of the opinion that Mahler would have been fine with both solutions, S-A and A-S. My personal preference would be S-A because it was the original plan and the excessive aggressive impact can be toned down with fine balancing conducting. So no need to change the order of the movements "in panic". Don't fix it if it is not broke, just re-evaluate the emphasis.


----------



## Kreisler jr

It's probably because I got to know the piece with scherzo first, that I prefer it. But I think it just works better. So we have first movement + scherzo as a darkly ironic "comment" balancing out the finale with the andante as "island of rest" in the middle. On position 3 the scherzo seems kind of superfluous, "lost", not necessary because dwarfed by the imminent finale. And there are the predecessors of pieces with weighty finales and slow movements that therefore? swap the scherzo to an earlier position, Beethoven's 9th (as well as other late pieces such as sonatas 106, 109, 110) and Bruckner's 8th.


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> It's probably because I got to know the piece with scherzo first, that I prefer it. But I think it just works better. So we have first movement + scherzo as a darkly ironic "comment" balancing out the finale with the andante as "island of rest" in the middle. On position 3 the scherzo seems kind of superfluous, "lost", not necessary because dwarfed by the imminent finale. And there are the predecessors of pieces with weighty finales and slow movements that therefore? swap the scherzo to an earlier position, Beethoven's 9th (as well as other late pieces such as sonatas 106, 109, 110) and Bruckner's 8th.


My subjective musical intuition concludes precisely what you have written! Although there is no right or wrong here! Fine conducting can make the symphony work even the other way around but it will have an effect on where the emphasis on the music is put.


----------



## Kreisler jr

The problem is that the historical evidence nowadays seems to point very strongly towards andante-scherzo as Mahler's intention, despite the decades of different tradition.


----------



## EdwardBast

Kreisler jr said:


> The problem is that the historical evidence nowadays seems to point very strongly towards andante-scherzo as Mahler's intention, despite the decades of different tradition.


No, it doesn't just point very strongly, it's unequivocal. It's a done deal.


----------



## Kreisler jr

It is still (more than) a bit surprising that almost 100 years of conducting tradition mostly had it the other way round, if it was a done deal...


----------



## Heck148

Kreisler jr said:


> It is still (more than) a bit surprising that almost 100 years of conducting tradition mostly had it the other way round, if it was a done deal...


Perhaps because the S-A order works better?? and many great conductors have made convincing case for it?? Maybe Mahler should have stuck to his original idea??


----------



## Waehnen

Heck148 said:


> Perhaps because the S-A order works better?? and many great conductors have made convincing case for it?? Maybe Mahler should have stuck to his original idea??


I am with Heck and Kreisler on this one. But only based on musical intuition -- and not stating everyone else is wrong.


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> I am with Heck and Kreisler on this one. But only based on musical intuition -- and not stating everyone else is wrong.


You know we are kicking the hornet's nest , right??!! :devil::lol:


----------



## EdwardBast

Kreisler jr said:


> It is still (more than) a bit surprising that almost 100 years of conducting tradition mostly had it the other way round, if it was a done deal...


Done deal means done now, not done in 1920, 1960, 1980, or 2000. We know why they had it the wrong way around-bad and misinformed actors pushing their own views and agendas in spite of Mahler's perfectly clear wishes, intentions, and actions. All of the evidence in favor of S-A has long since been discredited.

We also know why some people can't give up their preference for S-A: because they got used to it from early exposure and can't or are unwilling to hear it the way Mahler intended.



Heck148 said:


> Perhaps because the S-A order works better?? and many great conductors have made convincing case for it?? Maybe Mahler should have stuck to his original idea??


It doesn't. They haven't. He didn't. All the rest is rationalization.


----------



## Forster

Heck148 said:


> Perhaps because the S-A order works better?? and many great conductors have made convincing case for it?? Maybe Mahler should have stuck to his original idea??


Maybe it doesn't work better? Who's to say?


----------



## Philidor

EdwardBast said:


> [ ... ] We also know why some people can't give up their preference for S-A: because they got used to it from early exposure and can't or are unwilling to hear it the way Mahler intended.


"The way Mahler intended" ... at which time of his life?

Why not to hear the version that Mahler intended when the symphony was printed - S-A?


----------



## Forster

Philidor said:


> "The way Mahler intended" ... at which time of his life?
> 
> Why not to hear the version that Mahler intended when the symphony was printed - S-A?





> Even after it was first performed, Mahler continued to make large-scale changes to the piece. He switched the order of the inner two movements, and felt so strongly about this modification that he asked for erratum slips to be placed in unsold published versions of the piece detailing the new order.


https://www.clevelandorchestra.com/discover/archives/stories/mahlers-sixth/

But then, you knew this already.


----------



## Forster

Of course, what Mahler intended and which order of the two movements is the best are not necessarily the same thing. Where I have a problem is with the claim that of course Mahler really intended the order which others have declared is the best (S-A)


----------



## Philidor

Forster said:


> Of course, what Mahler intended and which order of the two movements is the best are not necessarily the same thing. Where I have a problem is with the claim that of course Mahler really intended the order which others have declared is the best (S-A)


I fully agree that there can be a difference between Mahler's intentions and today's opinions.

But I am in doubt whether there is something like "the" intention of Mahler. We know that Mahler had different intentions at different times.

In some other context he stated that he wants to revise his scores every five years. So, if he changed the order from S-A to A-S in 1906, nobody knows what he would have done in 1911 or 1916.

But this is not the point imho. For me it is enough to know that there was a time in his life when he felt that S-A was correct.

Had Mahler died shortly after printing, everyone would celebrate this order as the only true and sensible one for his (then) last symphony. "Just look at the score ... you clearly see, what Mahler wanted" or similar.


----------



## Becca

Never underestimate the ability of the human mind to rationalize.

(Not only did Mahler instruct the publisher to add the erratum, he only ever performed it as A/S - what more do you need to know?)


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Of course, what Mahler intended and which order of the two movements is the best are not necessarily the same thing. Where I have a problem is with the claim that of course Mahler really intended the order which others have declared is the best (S-A)


We all probably know the history of the controversy, but I will repeat it here:

Mahler originally, and for at least two years, as well as publishing the work, placed the Scherzo before the Andante movement. This order seems to make makes sense when we consider the keys of each movement: both I and II (Scherzo) are in A minor, III (Andante) is in E-flat and the last movement begins in C Minor, closely related to E-flat, which is very distant from A Minor. But, then during rehearsals for the premier, Mahler changed his mind about the order and instructed his publisher to issue a second version to reflect this change.

So, it can be said that Maher intended or at least considered two different orders, leading to much confusion.

However, the performance history shows that many conductors, including some who had a close relationship with Mahler, prefer the original order and until today there appear to be more recordings with the S-A order as opposed to the reverse. So in reality we have dual-version tradition. There are strong cases for each version.

I prefer the S-A order since I think the pacing is better with the Scherzo before the Andante, as well as hearing the key progression making more sense.

I am happy with each conductor deciding for himself which version to use and feel no need to argue for or against either.


----------



## Becca

SanAntone said:


> Mahler originally, and for at least two years, as well as publishing the work, placed the Scherzo before the Andante movement.


Partially correct but misleading. There was indeed two years from finishing composing it until the premiere BUT he changed the order while rehearsing the premiere, i.e. the first time he actually heard it, and never performed it any other way than A/S. It was only 9 years after Mahler's death that Alma Mahler claimed that S/A was the order.


----------



## SanAntone

Becca said:


> Partially correct but misleading. There was indeed two years from finishing composing it until the premiere BUT he changed the order while rehearsing the premiere, i.e. the first time he actually heard it, and never performed it any other way than A/S. It was only 9 years after Mahler's death that Alma Mahler claimed that S/A was the order.


I was not misleading since I also included the fact that Mahler changed his mind during rehearsals, something you failed to include in your excerpt of my post.

But those arguments have been proven to be unconvincing for many conductors, especially the Alma Mahler note. Anton Webern conducted the S-A version, and he was very close to Mahler, and held him in high esteem. It is unlikely that Webern would have done something that he knew to be against Mahler's wishes.

On a strictly musical level the S-A makes more sense. Not only from the key sequence, but there are internal thematic relationships between the Allegro and the Scherzo, as well as the overall structure mirrors Beethoven's plan in his 7th symphony.

As I said, there are strong cases for each version - and the history of performance and recordings shows that neither has taken precedence and the only rational answer is to continue to have two versions available to conductors.


----------



## RobertJTh

My first encounter with what we now know is the authentic order (A-S) was Abbado's Luzerne video, and I remember it being a revelation, after two decades or more of knowing and loving the symphony in the wrong order. Then I listened to Barbirolli's recording, and everything fell into place. It was like a near masterpiece found the final puzzle piece to promote it to absolute perfection.

SanAntone's tonal analysis makes sense, but I think contrast is more important here than direct relationship between keys. In fact, I always found the scherzo unconvincing in 2nd place, it being in the same key as the first movement, and in some performances even (proportionally) played in the same tempo. It just works as a weak, superfluous variation on the first movement. Furthermore there's the issue of the andante being followed by the slow introduction of the finale, robbing the latter of its impact.

Both problems were instantly solved by switching the order of the middle movements, which Mahler must have realized.
The original order makes the work split in two halves, with the scherzo being a variation on the first movement, and the andante an introduction to the finale. The reversed order unites the work, makes it an ongoing quest instead of two barely connected half symphonies. The Andante reflects on the first movement, offering great contrast, the scherzo makes much more sense as a link between the andante and the finale.

It's been said already that Mahler felt very strongly about the validity of the change, he instructed his publisher to add errata notes to the score, which was unheard of. All of his performances used the A-S order.

I don't agree with people claiming there's still room for the discredited order, and that conductors and the audience have the freedom to chose whatever version they want. Sure, everyone has the freedom to go against a composer's wishes. Why not perform Bruckner's 7th with the scherzo before the Adagio? I actually believe that order makes sense as it results in a much better balanced piece. But there's no evidence at all that Bruckner ever considered this being an option, so everyone always plays the symphony in the standard order (well, everyone except for Colin Davis, once...) And rightly so.

So... can anyone explain to me why we prefer to respect Bruckner, and disrespect Mahler?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Becca said:


> Never underestimate the ability of the human mind to rationalize.


Yea, lol. This sounds so "right" to me:


hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, this removes the element Elder and some others are so offended and disturbed by ("Nobody up to that time had thought of starting a symphony with a noble slow movement, as he does in this piece..."):


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> It doesn't. They haven't. He didn't. All the rest is rationalization.


sorry - It does, they have, he should have...

A-S loses the dramatic flow - imo - of course...


----------



## HenryPenfold

The first movement is awesomely powerful and ends in a white-hot radiance, almost abruptly. With the urgent follow-on of the scherzo in sinister a-minor, the tension is virtually unbearable and is maintained for another quarter of an hour, until it disintegrates and fades out. 

One is exhausted but the ensuing andante slowly grows into another different, but equivalent emotional ride and there is something ineffably right about this contrasting episode. It offers a more balanced reprieve from the menace of the first two driving, compelling movements than S-A would. 

It sets up the over 30 minutes of the finale with a feel of inevitability, rather that another, disjointed contrast, as would be the case with S-A-S-F. 

Mahler's original compositional decisions were spot on and his instincts correct - he was wrong to omit the third hammer blow, especially when one considers his pitiable reason. He was also wrong to switch the order of the inner movements too (even composers aren't always right).

If you don't find the foregoing convincing, I would understand that; but what is convincing is the performances of Karajan, Tennstedt, Bernstein and more recently Pappano.


----------



## Becca

EdwardBast said:


> Done deal means done now, not done in 1920, 1960, 1980, or 2000. We know why they had it the wrong way around-bad and misinformed actors pushing their own views and agendas in spite of Mahler's perfectly clear wishes, intentions, and actions. All of the evidence in favor of S-A has long since been discredited.
> 
> We also know why some people can't give up their preference for S-A: because they got used to it from early exposure and can't or are unwilling to hear it the way Mahler intended.
> 
> It doesn't. They haven't. He didn't. All the rest is rationalization.


The moral of the story is to never argue religion, politics or Mahler's 6th :tiphat:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> Of course, what Mahler intended and which order of the two movements is the best are not necessarily the same thing.


You're of course free to freak up any composition by anyone as you like, to the way you would like to hear it. You just have to admit/acknowledge and indicate what and how you freak up. How composers intended their works to be performed is not a matter of subjectivity. You may subjectively think all you like, that their works sound best in the way you alter their works against their wishes, but the fact remains you're making changes to their work. So if you're performing/playing the work with the movements ordered in the way you like, you must indicate; <"Mahler symphony No.6 in A minor (movements ordered as Forster wants them to be)">.
It doesn't matter how many people except Scriabin have thought his Op.11 No.2 prelude sounds horrible in the tempo he indicated (Allegretto). If it's Scriabin's composition, it's Scriabin's. You have to respect that.


----------



## OCEANE

SanAntone said:


> I was not misleading since I also included the fact that Mahler changed his mind during rehearsals, something you failed to include in your excerpt of my post.
> 
> But those arguments have been proven to be unconvincing for many conductors, especially the Alma Mahler note. Anton Webern conducted the S-A version, and he was very close to Mahler, and held him in high esteem. It is unlikely that Webern would have done something that he knew to be against Mahler's wishes.
> 
> On a strictly musical level the S-A makes more sense. Not only from the key sequence, but there are internal thematic relationships between the Allegro and the Scherzo, as well as the overall structure mirrors Beethoven's plan in his 7th symphony.
> 
> As I said, there are strong cases for each version - and the history of performance and recordings shows that neither has taken precedence and the only rational answer is to continue to have two versions available to conductors.


Agreed that it is a endless discussion starting from Mahler's rehearsal and there are strong cases for each version. Thus, I could only choose the version more convincing or reasonable to myself and I appreciate and understand by the version A-S-A-F that I believe in and have no objection to others' preference.


----------



## WildThing

RobertJTh said:


> It's been said already that Mahler felt very strongly about the validity of the change, he instructed his publisher to add errata notes to the score, which was unheard of. All of his performances used the A-S order.
> 
> I don't agree with people claiming there's still room for the discredited order, and that conductors and the audience have the freedom to chose whatever version they want.


Yeah. There's no longer "good arguments to be made for both sides" as some want to claim. Reading Jerry Bruck's paper Undoing A Tragic Mistakemakes it clear that A-S was unquestionably Mahler's choice.

Listeners and performers don't decide on the substance of a symphony and what way "works" best based on their opinions. That choice is left up to the creator.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> despite the decades of different tradition.





Kreisler jr said:


> It is still (more than) a bit surprising that almost 100 years of conducting tradition


What "tradition"? It's ridiculous to think that some cult groups after the death of an artist can decide all they want what the "truth" is about his work. If vast majority of people in the world think, for a period of 100 years, that classical music is uninterestingly stuffy, outdated music (in terms of philosophy and aesthetics) that deserves to sit in a museum, then that forms a "tradition" of "viewing classical music". (Doesn't it? By the majority rule?) That's about how much the concept of "tradition" matters in classical music, especially in music performance, -a perpetual copycat industry.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Anton Webern conducted the S-A version, and he was very close to Mahler, and held him in high esteem. It is unlikely that Webern would have done something that he knew to be against Mahler's wishes.


Or maybe Webern simply didn't care. Or maybe he liked the S-A version better. But he was Webern, not Mahler. Colleagues, friends, acquaintances, relatives, family members of an artist don't have greater a right to alter his work than we do.



> On a strictly musical level the S-A makes more sense. Not only from the key sequence, but there are internal thematic relationships between the Allegro and the Scherzo, as well as the overall structure mirrors Beethoven's plan in his 7th symphony.


Did Mahler ever say that, with his 6th, he wanted to emulate Beethoven's 7th in layout? Mahler is known for having ironies in his music. Maybe he would have wanted to do things opposite to the way Beethoven would have. Who knows? "Internal thematic relationships"? Interesting. Could you explain more?


----------



## Forster

Philidor said:


> I fully agree that there can be a difference between Mahler's intentions and today's opinions.
> 
> But I am in doubt whether there is something like "the" intention of Mahler. We know that Mahler had different intentions at different times.
> 
> In some other context he stated that he wants to revise his scores every five years. So, if he changed the order from S-A to A-S in 1906, nobody knows what he would have done in 1911 or 1916.
> 
> But this is not the point imho. For me it is enough to know that there was a time in his life when he felt that S-A was correct.
> 
> Had Mahler died shortly after printing, everyone would celebrate this order as the only true and sensible one for his (then) last symphony. "Just look at the score ... you clearly see, what Mahler wanted" or similar.


Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

Let's go with what Mahler said and did, not with what anyone else claims he might have done.



SanAntone said:


> We all probably know the history of the controversy, but I will repeat it here:
> 
> Mahler originally, and for at least two years, as well as publishing the work, placed the Scherzo before the Andante movement. This order seems to make makes sense when we consider the keys of each movement: both I and II (Scherzo) are in A minor, III (Andante) is in E-flat and the last movement begins in C Minor, closely related to E-flat, which is very distant from A Minor. But, then during rehearsals for the premier, Mahler changed his mind about the order and instructed his publisher to issue a second version to reflect this change.
> 
> So, it can be said that Maher intended or at least considered two different orders, leading to much confusion.
> 
> However, the performance history shows that many conductors, including some who had a close relationship with Mahler, prefer the original order and until today there appear to be more recordings with the S-A order as opposed to the reverse. So in reality we have dual-version tradition. There are strong cases for each version.
> 
> I prefer the S-A order since I think the pacing is better with the Scherzo before the Andante, as well as hearing the key progression making more sense.
> 
> I am happy with each conductor deciding for himself which version to use and feel no need to argue for or against either.


The fact that Mahler changed his mind does not justify others deciding that this equivocation should somehow be perpetuated.

I don't mind that there has been, and might continue to be, a tradition of alternative performances. What I object to are the various claims that what others decide about the order (such as what Webern thought) is of greater significance than what Mahler himself actually said and did, to which there was a sequence. He made up his mind and acted accordingly.


----------



## Knorf

Kreisler jr said:


> It is still (more than) a bit surprising that almost 100 years of conducting tradition mostly had it the other way round, if it was a done deal...


You can blame Alma Mahler for that. Except for her totally unreliable narrative about this, as she told Mengelberg, there would be zero controversy. Mahler unequivocally decided the final order as Andante then Scherzo and never changed his mind again, and there is zero evidence he had any misgivings about the decision.


----------



## Waehnen

The issue can and maybe should be divided into several more analytical parts:


1. What was the original order of the movements?

2. How does the original movement order manifest itself in the material, for example in the keys and shared themes and motifs between movements?

3. What were the core problems of the initial order which made Mahler doubt himself? To what problem was changing the order of the middle movements a solution?

4. What was the composer's final decision on the order of the inner movements?

5. Which order makes musically most sense and is most convincing from historical perspective?

6. Is the final decision of a composer always the "word of god" even if it would handicap the work on some areas? Are there any other values?

7. Mahler himself said that everything a conductor can do to enhance his music, the conductor should do. Could this be one of the places where Mahler himself would let competent conductors make their own decision?



I do not think it is enough only to answer point 4 and leave it there.


----------



## Philidor

Becca said:


> (Not only did Mahler instruct the publisher to add the erratum, he only ever performed it as A/S - what more do you need to know?)


I am happy to know that he wrote this symphony with S-A and even let it print this way. I understand that he changed his mind later on.



SanAntone said:


> [ ... ] So, it can be said that Maher intended or at least considered two different orders, leading to much confusion. [ ... ]


That's it.



Becca said:


> The moral of the story is to never argue religion, politics or Mahler's 6th :tiphat:






Forster said:


> Shoulda, woulda, coulda.
> 
> Let's go with what Mahler said and did, not with what anyone else claims he might have done.


That's what I am doing. He wrote the score with S-A and let it print this way. That's what he did some day. He did something different some other day, fine. But there was a time in his life when S-A was ok for him.

So why shouldn't S-A be ok some conductos or listeners for a time in their life?


----------



## Forster

Philidor said:


> That's what I am doing. He wrote the score with S-A and let it print this way. That's what he did some day. He did something different some other day, fine. But there was a time in his life when S-A was ok for him.


But it wasn't just "some day" and "some other day". He didn't equivocate back and forth and back and forth again. He made a final decision.


----------



## Waehnen

Forster said:


> But it wasn't just "some day" and "some other day". He didn't equivocate back and forth and back and forth again. He made a final decision.


Forster please, answer my questions on post #356.


----------



## HenryPenfold

EdwardBast said:


> No, it doesn't just point very strongly, it's unequivocal. It's a done deal.


How many hammer blows are there in this deal?


----------



## HenryPenfold

Knorf said:


> You can blame Alma Mahler for that.


Alma gets blamed for everything!!

Was she really that bad? :lol:


----------



## HenryPenfold

Waehnen said:


> The issue can and maybe should be divided into several more analytical parts:
> 
> 1. What was the original order of the movements?
> 
> 2. How does the original movement order manifest itself in the material, for example in the keys and shared themes and motifs between movements?
> 
> 3. What were the core problems of the initial order which made Mahler doubt himself? To what problem was changing the order of the middle movements a solution?
> 
> 4. What was the composer's final decision on the order of the inner movements?
> 
> 5. Which order makes musically most sense and is most convincing from historical perspective?
> 
> 6. Is the final decision of a composer always the "word of god" even if it would handicap the work on some areas? Are there any other values?
> 
> 7. Mahler himself said that everything a conductor can do to enhance his music, the conductor should do. Could this be one of the places where Mahler himself would let competent conductors make their own decision?
> 
> *I do not think it is enough only to answer point 4 and leave it there*.


Good questions.

I don't think it's enough to only answer point 4 either. But we can't really argue with those that do - the evidence is clear as to how Mahler thought his symphony should be. And I'm in no doubt that Mahler should have some say in the matter!

Mahler's original compositional decision is indeed trumped by his (not that much later) decision to switch to A-S and to perform it that way. He did not depart from this view for the remainder of his life.

If anyone claims that this is the way it should be played (and hopefully they prefer the experience of hearing it in concert that way, and/or in recordings), it's hard to know how they can be argued against. One caveat being that they must also accept two hammer blows, not three.

Speaking for myself, I think Mahler was 'wrong' to reverse the order of the inner movements and to cut third hammer blow.


----------



## Forster

Waehnen said:


> Forster please, answer my questions on post #356.


Will do, but have to come back later.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Waehnen said:


> 2. How does the original movement order manifest itself in the material, for example in the keys and shared themes and motifs between movements?
> 3. What were the core problems of the initial order which made Mahler doubt himself? To what problem was changing the order of the middle movements a solution?
> 5. Which order makes musically most sense and is most convincing from historical perspective?


8. If a Haydn symphony that begins with a slow movement sounds "unnatural" according to our conception of what a Classical symphony is supposed to be, can we freak up the order the way we want and pretend it's what Haydn would also have done?

9. What are other things we can freak up in various composers' works the way we want, under the pretext "what they did don't make sense logically"?

10. How do the "allegedly" shared themes and motifs between the movements objectively advocate for the S-A version, but not the A-S version?


----------



## HenryPenfold

hammeredklavier said:


> 8. If a Haydn symphony that begins with a slow movement sounds "unnatural" according to our conception of what a Classical symphony is supposed to be, can we freak up the order the way we want and pretend it's what Haydn would also have done?


I don't think this is an appropriately worded question. We don't have to 'pretend it's what Mahler would've done', because it's what he did indeed do. This of course does not deny the fact that he changed his mind.


----------



## Waehnen

hammeredklavier said:


> 8. If a Haydn symphony that begins with a slow movement sounds "unnatural" according to our conception of what a Classical symphony is supposed to be, can we freak up (or fix) the order the way we want and pretend it's what Haydn would also have done?
> 
> 9. What are other things we can freak up in various composers' works the way we want, under the pretext "what they did don't make sense logically"?
> 
> 10. How do the "allegedly" shared themes and motifs between movements objectively advocate for the S-A version, but not the A-S version?


Please answer my questions and form a coherent answer on that basis - instead of pick n' choosin' before a great load of whataboutism.


----------



## Waehnen

Just listened to the 6th by Barbirolli who placed the Andante second. What a wonderful symphony and a wonderful recording! The only thing that in my ears could make this better would be scherzo before andante.


----------



## RobertJTh

HenryPenfold said:


> Alma gets blamed for everything!!Was she really that bad? :lol:


I've read her Mahler biography, and it's a nice read but she's about as reliable as Anton Schindler.

There's the famous example of her attributing the three hammer blows in the finale of the 6th to the 3 "blows" that befell Mahler in his life: the forced resignation from the Vienna Opera, the death of his daughter and the discovery of his heart disease. But the two latter "blows" occurred in 1907, 3 years after the symphony was finished and a year after it was published! In fact, the 6th was created in what was the happiest time in Mahler's life - which makes it even more of an enigma.

Alma's remark about Mahler's superstition making him remove the 3rd hammer blow should be taken cum grano salis too. Just like his superstition concerning the "curse of the 9th". The 3rd hammer blow was probably just taken out because of musical reasons.

(It's funny that when people are asked "where would the 3rd hammer blow take place?", they always point at the wrong spot. It actually came later in the first version of the score, at a much less effective place. So if people argue for that 3rd hammer blow to be restored, maybe they should have the freedom to put it wherever they want, right? Since we're tampering with Mahler's intentions to start with anyway...)


----------



## HenryPenfold

Waehnen said:


> Just listened to the 6th by Barbirolli who placed the Andante second. What a wonderful symphony and a wonderful recording! The only thing that in my ears could make this better would be scherzo before andante.


It's funny that you mention this. Last night/early hours of the morning, I listened to Barbirolli's live August 1967 Royal Albert Hall performance with the New Philharmonia on Testament, followed by the live BPO 1966 recording, also on Testament. Utterly superb performances that I even prefer to the studio EMI. I deliberately avoided thinking about 'what if S-A' and tasked myself with trying to listen to more A-S performances. I didn't get off to a good start - I poured a large glass of whisky and listened to Currentzis on a fabulous Hi-Res download that I bought! I'll get on with the challenge in the coming days!


----------



## HenryPenfold

RobertJTh said:


> The 3rd hammer blow was probably just taken out because of musical reasons.
> 
> (It's funny that when people are asked "where would the 3rd hammer blow take place?", they always point at the wrong spot. It actually came later in the first version of the score, at a much less effective place. So if people argue for that 3rd hammer blow to be restored, maybe they should have the freedom to put it wherever they want, right? Since we're tampering with Mahler's intentions to start with anyway...)


Whatever the reasons for excising the third hammer blow, we have to go with it if we insist on 'it's what Mahler wanted'. And I have no problem with that.

The third hammer blow should come near the end, away from the other two. I prefer three blows and I'm easy about where a conductor places it in a performance.


----------



## mbhaub

I prefer three hammerblows, too, but only when placed in the proper orchestration. When Mahler deleted that third one, he also significantly lightened the the texture along with it. You can't just add the third; the original orchestration has to put back.

AS/SA will never get resolved. Musically SA makes more sense to me and the balance of the whole symphony is better. Whatever you like, go for it.


----------



## Forster

Waehnen said:


> The issue can and maybe should be divided into several more analytical parts:
> 
> [etc]


1. What was the original order of the movements?

S/A

2. How does the original movement order manifest itself in the material, for example in the keys and shared themes and motifs between movements?

I haven't the technical knowledge to answer this. But in any case, for me, it's immaterial (see answer to 6 below).

3. What were the core problems of the initial order which made Mahler doubt himself? To what problem was changing the order of the middle movements a solution?

I don't know. See answers to 2 and 6

4. What was the composer's final decision on the order of the inner movements?

A/S

5. Which order makes musically most sense and is *most convincing from historical perspective*?

The order he finally chose. Doubtless someone somewhere argues that Sibelius' first version of the 5th is the "right" one, and the same for Prokofiev's 4th; but I'm not aware that such an argument is made for either. It is interesting that there has been a strong tradition to argue for the alternatives for Mahler's 6th, but I doubt that the the difference between these three is merely "what makes most musical sense'.

6. Is the final decision of a composer always the "word of god" even if it would handicap the work on some areas? Are there any other values?

Yes. For some people, Beethoven's decision to make the 9th a choral work "handicaps" the work, but does anyone seriously argue that he was wrong and that anyone else has the right to revise the work because he got it wrong?

7. Mahler himself said that everything a conductor can do to enhance his music, the conductor should do. Could this be one of the places where Mahler himself would let competent conductors make their own decision?

We do know that composers often expressed appreciation for conductors' various interpretations of their works. I'm not familiar with what Mahler said in this instance - but it seems to me unlikely that he meant a conductor should tinker with something that - judging by the arguments it has engendered - is as important as the order of movements.


----------



## Philidor

Forster said:


> 6. Is the final decision of a composer always the "word of god" even if it would handicap the work on some areas? Are there any other values?
> 
> Yes. For some people, Beethoven's decision to make the 9th a choral work "handicaps" the work, but does anyone seriously argue that he was wrong and that anyone else has the right to revise the work because he got it wrong?


I think the word "final" is difficult in this context. It could be replaced by the words "last known".

If we are talking about some "final decision" and if we raise it to the level of a god's jugdement (and the whole discussion has a religious style about knowledge of good and evil), we just could acknowledge that this "final" just depends from the (maybe accidential) time of passing away of the decision maker.

As already pointed out: Had Mahler passed away after giving the score away for printing, the order Scherzo-Andante would be defended with the same religious enthusiasm, maybe even by the same advocates, as now the order Andante-Scherzo is.


----------



## Forster

Philidor said:


> I think the word "final" is difficult in this context. It could be replaced by the words "last known".


You mean he might have changed his mind after death? :lol:

Or that there is some secret change of mind that we just don't know about? Is that what Alma claimed...that he had some damascene conversion to the 'right' order that only she knew about?

As for the rest of your post, no need to raise it to such exalted levels. This is about what an earthly composer decided about an earthly artistic artefact.


----------



## Philidor

Forster said:


> You mean he might have changed his mind after death? :lol:
> 
> Or that there is some secret change of mind that we just don't know about? Is that what Alma claimed...that he had some damascene conversion to the 'right' order that only she knew about?
> 
> As for the rest of your post, no need to raise it to such exalted levels. This is about what an earthly composer decided about an earthly artistic artefact.


I see that you don't get the point. So let's stay happy, everyone with his own perspective on Mahler #6. Enjoy!


----------



## Malx

Philidor said:


> As already pointed out: Had Mahler passed away after giving the score away for printing, the order Scherzo-Andante would be defended with the same religious enthusiasm, maybe even by the same advocates, as now the order Andante-Scherzo is.


If Mahler had passed away just after giving the score for printing and before hearing rehearsals it is obvious that there would be no debate, or need for anything to be defended as he wouldn't have changed the sequence.


----------



## Philidor

Malx said:


> If Mahler had passed away just after giving the score for printing and before hearing rehearsals it is obvious that there would be no debate, or need for anything to be defended as he wouldn't have changed the sequence.


Indeed. Thus, the term "final" has some random component.


----------



## Forster

Philidor said:


> I see that you don't get the point. So let's stay happy, everyone with his own perspective on Mahler #6. Enjoy!


I'd rather know what point I didn't get...

(than be happy  )


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> You mean he might have changed his mind after death? :lol:
> 
> Or that there is some secret change of mind that we just don't know about? Is that what Alma claimed...that he had some damascene conversion to the 'right' order that only she knew about?
> 
> As for the rest of your post, no need to raise it to such exalted levels. This is about what an earthly composer decided about an earthly artistic artefact.


It seems to me you are cavalierly dismissing the fact that many conductors perform and record the original order of the movements, as well as ignoring their rationale for doing so. In fact, the number of these conductors might be more than those who use the revised score.

And there is no reason to assume that Mahler might not have changed his mind again.

I doubt this issue will ever be settled; but that is okay. There is no harm in accepting dual versions.


----------



## Philidor

Forster said:


> I'd rather know what point I didn't get...
> 
> (than be happy  )


 The point, that "final decision" has some random component, which is the time of the decision maker's deceasing.

I think there is no need to point out again (1) deceasing after giving the score to printing (2) deceasing in 1911 as actually happened, (3) deceasing later ... there you have the random component.

Furthermore, we know Mahler's statement that he wanted to revise all his scores every five years. The latter statement refrains me from using the word "final" in Mahler's context.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> It seems to me you are cavalierly dismissing the fact that many conductors perform and record the original order of the movements, as well as ignoring their rationale for doing so.[...]


I already said, "I don't mind that there has been, and might continue to be, a tradition of alternative performances." (#354)

Cavalier? No. Superficially considered because I'm no musicologist, and I've not read books and written essays on the matter? Definitely.



Philidor said:


> The point, that "final decision" has some random component, which is the time of the decision maker's deceasing.
> 
> I think there is no need to point out again (1) deceasing after giving the score to printing (2) deceasing in 1911 as actually happened, (3) deceasing later ... there you have the random component.
> 
> Furthermore, we know Mahler's statement that he wanted to revise all his scores every five years. The latter statement refrains me from using the word "final" in Mahler's context.


I see. I didn't miss the point at all. I just reject the idea that we consider the random. He died when he did, as did Mozart and Schubert who, but for the random, might have composed all sorts of things, as did Beethoven, who might have changed his mind about the Choral symphony, as did....etc


----------



## Kreisler jr

There are very few clear parallel cases, therefore they are usually not that helpful. The closest parallel case might be Beethoven's string quartet op.130+133 (whereas anything about the 9th's finale is wishful thinking by people who do not like the piece, there is no historical evidence for an alternative except in sketching stages and of course there simply is no actual alternative finale to play).

With op.130+133 we also have a version played at the first performance and a different "last word"/final edition. This final edition dominated performances for about 100 years or so but by now this mostly got reversed to the "original intention" because performers prefer it that way. This change (replacement of a key movement) seems considerably more substantial than mere ordering but performers seem to have no qualms at all because they can refer to "original intention".

The odd/special thing about the Mahler is that we have that third step, namely editors reversing the composer "last word", thus establishing the abandoned "original intention" as standard for decades. So this would be as if Beethoven's op.130 had been performed with op.133 until the mid-20th century (because Schindler or Czerny had interfered with the printing as separate pieces) and then people had "rediscovered" the revision and insisted on the replacement finale.

(There might be other similar cases with Bruckner symphonies, but I don't want to open that can of hornets...) In any case, it seems that those who accept op.130 with 133 as finale as an option at least as good or preferable to the replacement finale should also accept the "original but abandoned" order in Mahler's 6th as an option.


----------



## HenryPenfold

SanAntone said:


> It seems to me you are cavalierly dismissing the fact that many conductors perform and record the original order of the movements, as well as ignoring their rationale for doing so. In fact, the number of these conductors might be more than those who use the revised score.
> 
> And there is no reason to assume that Mahler might not have changed his mind again.
> 
> I doubt this issue will ever be settled; but that is okay. There is no harm in accepting dual versions.


I think we might be making too much of this. It's clear that Mahler wanted his 6th symphony to be A-S, and there's not much discussion to be had on the matter, given the evidence - it's A-S.

But I absolutely agree on your point about duel versions. And as a fully paid up member of the S-A club, I'm pleased that the door was originally opened on my preferred order and a performance tradition ensued accordingly!

Ironically, of the many performances (10+(?)) of M6 that I've witnessed, the most amazing performance was *Gergiev LSO* in London. Unforgettable. One of the best performance of anything I'd ever attended - but it was A-S!

I must dedicate some time to listening to A-S, there are some super performances out there, but looking through my collection, it's heavily weighted on S-A. I don't actively pursue S-A recordings, I tend to go by recommendations, reviews and previous experience of the conductor and orchestra.

A quick look (I've certainly overlooked some, I'm sure I have more than 25 recordings of this symphony) at my shelves shows:

*S-A*
Tennstedt x3
Sinopoli x2 (SWR & Philharmonia)
Szell Cleveland
Boulez
Currentzis
Karajan
Bernstein x2
Bertini
Solti Chicago Decca
Antoni Wit Naxos
Chailly Concertgebouw Decca
Kubelik Bavarian Radio SO DG
Pappano & the Italians

*A-S
*Valery Gergiev LSO live
Daniel Harding Bavarian Radio SO
Barbirolli x3 (Philharmonia & BPO)
Jansons LSO live
Rattle BPO
Abbado Live BPO DG


----------



## Philidor

Fully agreed, however this one:


HenryPenfold said:


> Abbado Live BPO DG


comes along in the order A-S.

Sorry for being bean counter.


----------



## Resurrexit

SanAntone said:


> It seems to me you are cavalierly dismissing the fact that many conductors perform and record the original order of the movements, as well as ignoring their rationale for doing so. In fact, the number of these conductors might be more than those who use the revised score.
> 
> And there is no reason to assume that Mahler might not have changed his mind again.
> 
> I doubt this issue will ever be settled; but that is okay. There is no harm in accepting dual versions.


The only rationale that matters is Mahler's in deciding the Andante should be second.

And yes, actually, there is every reason to believe he wouldn't have changed his mind again. While Mahler was continuously tinkering with the orchestration and minor details of his symphonies based on performance knowledge, once he settled on the basic structure of a work he never pulled a 180 turnaround. By your logic, we should reinstate the "Blumine" movement in Symphony No. 1, or reverse the order of the Andante and Scherzo movements of the 2nd Symphony (which Mahler also originally had in a different order), and accept them as legitimate dual versions because...you know. You can't _prove_ he wouldn't have rethought his decision later in life.



Kreisler jr said:


> There are very few clear parallel cases, therefore they are usually not that helpful. The closest parallel case might be Beethoven's string quartet op.130+133 (whereas anything about the 9th's finale is wishful thinking by people who do not like the piece, there is no historical evidence for an alternative except in sketching stages and of course there simply is no actual alternative finale to play).
> 
> With op.130+133 we also have a version played at the first performance and a different "last word"/final edition. This final edition dominated performances for about 100 years or so but by now this mostly got reversed to the "original intention" because performers prefer it that way. This change (replacement of a key movement) seems considerably more substantial than mere ordering but performers seem to have no qualms at all because they can refer to "original intention".
> 
> The odd/special thing about the Mahler is that we have that third step, namely editors reversing the composer "last word", thus establishing the abandoned "original intention" as standard for decades. So this would be as if Beethoven's op.130 had been performed with op.133 until the mid-20th century (because Schindler or Czerny had interfered with the printing as separate pieces) and then people had "rediscovered" the revision and insisted on the replacement finale.
> 
> (There might be other similar cases with Bruckner symphonies, but I don't want to open that can of hornets...) In any case, it seems that those who accept op.130 with 133 as finale as an option at least as good or preferable to the replacement finale should also accept the "original but abandoned" order in Mahler's 6th as an option.


You're right, this is is another unique case, and an interesting one, but not analogous to Mahler's 6th. We are talking about an editor/musicologist making a decision to change the structure of a work half a century after the fact based on what an acquaintance of the composer said in a correspondence once. Not anything the composer said or did. And not to mention that acquaintance subsequently contradicted themselves later in life.


----------



## sbmonty

I have always wondered why Alma claimed that SA was the preferred order? Could she have been correct? Was there some ulterior motive? Spouses are frequently privy to thoughts not revealed to others. Could she not have been telling the truth? There are some very knowledgable Mahler fans that must be able to shed some light. 
Thanks.


----------



## Resurrexit

sbmonty said:


> I have always wondered why Alma claimed that SA was the preferred order? Could she have been correct? Was there some ulterior motive? Spouse's are frequently privy to thoughts not revealed to others. Could she not have been telling the truth? There are some very knowledgable Mahler fans that must be able to shed some light.
> Thanks.


Did you read the Jerry Bruck essay cited earlier in this thread? It provides some insight on the dubious credibility of her correspondence with Mengelberg.


----------



## sbmonty

No I missed that. I'll check it out. Thank you.



Resurrexit said:


> Did you read the Jerry Bruck essay cited earlier in this thread? It provides some insight on the dubious credibility of her correspondence with Mengelberg.


----------



## Philidor

Resurrexit said:


> While Mahler was continuously tinkering with the orchestration and minor details of his symphonies based on performance knowledge, once he settled on the basic structure of a work he never pulled a 180 turnaround.


 Difficult to answer this ... in the 6th symphony, this was exactly the case. After all, this is why we are discussing here.

He settled on the basic structure of the symphony and let it print and afterwards there was a 180 turnaround.



Resurrexit said:


> By your logic, we should reinstate the "Blumine" movement in Symphony No. 1, or reverse the order of the Andante and Scherzo movements of the 2nd Symphony (which Mahler also originally had in a different order), and accept them as legitimate dual versions because...you know. You can't _prove_ he wouldn't have rethought his decision later in life.


"We should reinstate" - no.
"We should accept them as legitimate dual versions" - yes.

Besides, I get to the idea, that we discussing what the symphony is. Is the symphony the score?


----------



## HenryPenfold

Philidor said:


> Fully agreed, however this one:
> 
> comes along in the order A-S.
> 
> Sorry for being bean counter.


Thanks! Done in error, duly corrected


----------



## Resurrexit

Philidor said:


> Difficult to answer this ... in the 6th symphony, this was exactly the case. After all, this is why we are discussing here.
> 
> He settled on the basic structure of the symphony and let it print and afterwards there was a 180 turnaround.
> 
> "We should reinstate" - no.
> "We should accept them as legitimate dual versions" - yes.
> 
> Besides, I get to the idea, that we discussing what the symphony is. Is the symphony the score?


The fact is he made a decision and there's no credible evidence that he would have changed his mind. Everything else is pure speculation and rationalization.

I'm not sure how one could accept the original conception of the 1st without reinstating the movement. There have been a few one off performances of Mahler's 1st with the Blumine movement of course, but they don't make the claim to be a legitimate dual version. They are clear that they are purely an "experiment" as a performance of an earlier version of the work, not Mahler's 1st symphony.

I've said before that the Scherzo-Andante version of Mahler's 6th should be labeled correctly as the Erwin Ratz edition, and if conductors and listeners want to perform and attend the Ratz edition, they are free to do so.


----------



## Philidor

Resurrexit said:


> The fact is he made a decision


Nobody disputes on this.

Another fact is, that at time of drafting, working out and handing over to print he made another decision. I think nobody disputes on this - do you?



Resurrexit said:


> I'm not sure how one could accept the original conception of the 1st without reinstating the movement. There have been a few one off performances of Mahler's 1st with the Blumine movement of course, but they don't make the claim to be a legitimate dual version. They are clear that they are purely an "experiment" as a performance of an earlier version of the work, not Mahler's 1st symphony.


Maybe, because the 5-mvts-version of Mahler's 1st is much less convincing as Mahler's 6th with Scherzo-Andante? Just as a possibility?



Resurrexit said:


> I've said before that the Scherzo-Andante version of Mahler's 6th should be labeled correctly as the Erwin Ratz edition, and if conductors and listeners want to perform and attend the Ratz edition, they are free to do so.


The label has no importance for me. If we agree that conductors and listeners are free to go for the other order, that's fine.


----------



## Resurrexit

Philidor said:


> Maybe, because the 5-mvts-version of Mahler's 1st is much less convincing as Mahler's 6th with Scherzo-Andante? Just as a possibility?


Maybe listeners find the Scherzo-Andante version convincing because it was the version they were imprinted on? Just a possibility?


----------



## EdwardBast

mbhaub said:


> I prefer three hammerblows, too, but only when placed in the proper orchestration. When Mahler deleted that third one, he also significantly lightened the the texture along with it. You can't just add the third; the original orchestration has to put back.
> 
> *AS/SA will never get resolved.* Musically SA makes more sense to me and the balance of the whole symphony is better. Whatever you like, go for it.


It has been resolved. When those taken in by Ratz's meddling and the recordings of a certain era die off, the issue will be fully and finally laid to rest. It's just people justifying their own habitual judgments and incapable of hearing the work as intended.

The first time I heard the 6th in the S-A order (also the first time I heard the 6th) I was immediately convinced that the scherzo directly following the first movement was a blunder. Apparently Mahler had a similar experience.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> What "tradition"? It's ridiculous to think that some cult groups after the death of an artist can decide all they want what the "truth" is about his work.


Not ridiculous at all. Performance traditions matter a lot in dozens of cases. Music is a performance art, the final arbiters are musicians and audiences, not musicologists. Dozens of pieces have "customary cuts" or re-shufflings (and it was far more common until the mid-20th century, i.e. when classical music was still more alive and relevant than today). Or even insertions, such as Leonore III in the 2nd Fidelio act. Or editions "beefing up" solo parts, such as Tchaikovsky's Rococo variations and some concertos.
It's just that in opera hardly anyone gets their knickers in a twist about such things. There are probably far more performances of Messiah and Don Giovanni that are of a "mixed" version than there are of the several options in each case that would be historically correct, and the same probably goes for several other operas and some oratorios.

As I wrote elsewhere, nowadays (and since the 1960s or so) performances of the "original version" of op.130 (with op.133) dominate, despite Beethoven revising this, separating the pieces and publishing op.130 with a different finale. This is clearly against the "last word" (and against >100 years of performance) but "cult groups" convinced themselves that the original version was what Beethoven "really wanted"? Hardly anyone has a problem to accept this at least as an admissible option.

What about different versions of Schumann's 4th symphony, several of his piano works, Dichterliebe? Bruckner symphonies...? Tannhäuser, Don Carlo(s), Contes d'Hoffmann?


----------



## Philidor

Resurrexit said:


> Maybe listeners find the Scherzo-Andante version convincing because it was the version they were imprinted on? Just a possibility?


I don't dare to judge how other listeners come to their opinions or more substantial estimations.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Resurrexit said:


> I've said before that the Scherzo-Andante version of Mahler's 6th should be labeled correctly as the Erwin Ratz edition, and if conductors and listeners want to perform and attend the Ratz edition, they are free to do so.


I prefer 'Mahler Symphony No. 6 in A minor'. I wouldn't want Erwin Ratz to get the credit for identifying a musically better version than Mahler, especially when it was Mahler's original compositional decision. Changing it was a tragic error.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Resurrexit said:


> Maybe listeners find the Scherzo-Andante version convincing because it was the version they were imprinted on? Just a possibility?


Yes, that's the elephant in the room that we're ignoring in this discussion. I don't see how we can ever decipher that one!


----------



## Resurrexit

HenryPenfold said:


> I prefer 'Mahler Symphony No. 6 in A minor'. *I wouldn't want Erwin Ratz to get the credit for identifying a musically better version than Mahler*, especially when it was Mahler's original compositional decision. Changing it was a tragic error.


:lol:

Poor deluded Mahler.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Resurrexit said:


> :lol:
> 
> Poor deluded Mahler.


Anyone can make a mistake. Doesn't mean one is deluded.


----------



## Resurrexit

HenryPenfold said:


> Anyone can make a mistake. Doesn't mean one is deluded.


Whether it is a mistake or not is simply an opinion. Unfortunately for those who believe it's a mistake, its Mahler's symphony. He reserves the right to make those kind of "mistakes".


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> As I wrote elsewhere, nowadays (and since the 1960s or so) performances of the "original version" of op.130 (with op.133) dominate, despite Beethoven revising this, separating the pieces and publishing op.130 with a different finale. This is clearly against the "last word" (and against >100 years of performance) but "cult groups" convinced themselves that the original version was what Beethoven "really wanted"? Hardly anyone has a problem to accept this at least as an admissible option.


In the case of the Beethoven, many recordings clearly indicate that they're separate works, Op.130 and Op.133, and discuss the history and Beethoven's own intentions, in the associated booklets or descriptions.








"Pushing" the S-A version as something authentic or Mahler himself intended, without telling the "truth" behind it is a different matter entirely.


----------



## Philidor

"Das Beste in der Musik steht nicht in den Noten" (Gustav Mahler)


----------



## EdwardBast

Resurrexit said:


> Maybe listeners find the Scherzo-Andante version convincing because it was the version they were imprinted on? Just a possibility?


It's not only a possibility, it's the obvious explanation. This happens all the time. In a thread on Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony I wrote that I couldn't give an objective opinion on the work because I had strongly imprinted on the cut version and ever after the complete version sounded flabby and overstuffed to me. Those who imprinted on the S-A version of Mahler 6 should likewise recuse themselves from judgment or, at the very least, only express an opinion after a long and serious effort to hear it as Mahler intended.


----------



## HenryPenfold

EdwardBast said:


> It's not only a possibility, it's the obvious explanation. This happens all the time. In a thread on Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony I wrote that I couldn't give an objective opinion on the work because I had strongly imprinted on the cut version and ever after the complete version sounded flabby and overstuffed to me. Those who imprinted on the S-A version of Mahler 6 should likewise recuse themselves from judgment or, at the very least, only express an opinion after a long and serious effort to hear it as Mahler intended.


I went years with Szell and Karajan before I started buying further recordings, so it could have an influence on my position on the work. But we must be careful not to overstate the case. I adore this symphony and I've listened to it through about six times in the last 48 hours. Faced with another way of listening, I'd grab it with both hands, this is not a quotidian thing. I did this with HIPP - moving from the heavily upholstered Mozart of Bohm to a preference for Rene Jacobs (for example). This is the passion that we give so much of our life to, that's to say nothing about the scores of thousands of pounds!


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> It's not only a possibility, it's the obvious explanation. This happens all the time. In a thread on Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony I wrote that I couldn't give an objective opinion on the work because I had strongly imprinted on the cut version and ever after the complete version sounded flabby and overstuffed to me. Those who imprinted on the S-A version of Mahler 6 should likewise recuse themselves from judgment or, at the very least, only express an opinion after a long and serious effort to hear it as Mahler intended.


What is interesting is that in his book on Mahler's symphonies, Constantin Floros makes no mention of the option of the Andante as Movement II. He discusses the symphony as Mahler originally wrote it.

How could the Scherzo-Andante version have become imprinted since it was the Andante-Scherzo version that was used from the premier until the 1960s (with the exception of Webern's performances in the 1930s)? Unless it is your belief that most of the recordings/performances since the 1960s have reverted to the S-A version.


----------



## RobertJTh

SanAntone said:


> Unless it is your belief that most of the recordings/performances since the 1960s have reverted to the S-A version.


Ratz' edition came out in 1963 and was criticized right away for reinstating the S-A order without proper documentary evidence.
But it being the official "critical" edition, it carried a lot of weight, and most conductors from the mid-60's on took it for granted.
Before 1963 the (rare) recordings of the 6th all used the A-S order, because they were based on the corrected first edition.

There's Adler/VPO, Flipse/RotterdamPO, Mitropoulos/NYPO , Rosbaud/SWR and van Beinum/Concertgebouw, and that's all for pre-1963, correct me if I forgot one. All these use A-S order.

After 1963 the 6th debuted in stereo studio recordings, and almost all the consequent recordings were of the S-A version, the most famous exception being 1966 Barbirolli, and the influence of Ratz' edition was so strong that Barbirolli was overturned by EMI and had his recording changed to S-A for the commercial release.

So I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of the Mahler-lovers who came to know and love the 6th through recordings were imprinted on the S-A order, since till recent time that was the dominant version.

And that's perfectly understandable, people will always defend what they know, many even will return to the first recording they heard of a piece regardless of its quality and the availability of better versions.


----------



## Philidor

RobertJTh said:


> After 1963 the 6th debuted in stereo studio recordings, and almost all the consequent recordings were of the S-A version, the most famous exception being 1966 Barbirolli, and the influence of Ratz' edition was so strong that Barbirolli was overturned by EMI and had his recording changed to S-A for the commercial release.


The booklet of my EMI CD-Set 5 69349 2 ("double fforte") tells me: "_The original LP release of this recording placed the Scherzo before the Andante. However, as it was Barbirolli's custom to perform the Andante before the Scherzo, as the composer originally intended, these two movements have been reordered for this CD issue._"


----------



## Becca

Philidor said:


> The booklet of my EMI CD-Set 5 69349 2 ("double fforte") tells me: "_The original LP release of this recording placed the Scherzo before the Andante. However, as it was Barbirolli's custom to perform the Andante before the Scherzo, as the composer originally intended, these two movements have been reordered for this CD issue._"


Barbirolli did the Mahler 6th with the New Philharmonia at a Proms concert a couple of days prior to the studio recording. That performance is available on Testament and does have the A/S order.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Two of the more recent Mahler 6 performances, Pappano and Currentzis, have it S-A. Rattle's BPO is A-S. We've ventilated considerably on here, I wonder what the maestros reasoning is.


----------



## SanAntone

RobertJTh said:


> Ratz' edition came out in 1963 and was criticized right away for reinstating the S-A order without proper documentary evidence.
> But it being the official "critical" edition, it carried a lot of weight, and most conductors from the mid-60's on took it for granted.
> Before 1963 the (rare) recordings of the 6th all used the A-S order, because they were based on the corrected first edition.
> 
> There's Adler/VPO, Flipse/RotterdamPO, Mitropoulos/NYPO , Rosbaud/SWR and van Beinum/Concertgebouw, and that's all for pre-1963, correct me if I forgot one. All these use A-S order.
> 
> After 1963 the 6th debuted in stereo studio recordings, and almost all the consequent recordings were of the S-A version, the most famous exception being 1966 Barbirolli, and the influence of Ratz' edition was so strong that Barbirolli was overturned by EMI and had his recording changed to S-A for the commercial release.
> 
> So I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of the Mahler-lovers who came to know and love the 6th through recordings were imprinted on the S-A order, since till recent time that was the dominant version.
> 
> And that's perfectly understandable, people will always defend what they know, many even will return to the first recording they heard of a piece regardless of its quality and the availability of better versions.


Yes, I know about the criticism of the Ratz edition. But he based his rationale on three things:

1. the internal musical logic of the original order

2. testimony that Mahler came to be insecure with the tempo for the Scherzo during rehearsals and swapped the inner movements, but communicating some uncertainty although he did instruct his publisher to issue a new score and add errata to the existing scores.

3. an allusion to Alma Mahler's telegram in 1919 saying that the Scherzo was before the Andante, indicating that she had knowledge from conversations with her husband subsequent to the 1906 revision.

I am not advocating that the S-A version is "correct" I am advocating that there are plausible arguments for either version. I just happen to think the S-A makes more musical sense and think the symphony unfolds in a stronger fashion. But my view is that conductors should have both versions available in authoritative editions and can choose which version they think makes more musical sense.


----------



## Resurrexit

SanAntone said:


> 3. an allusion to Alma Mahler's telegram in 1919 saying that the Scherzo was before the Andante, indicating that she had knowledge from conversations with her husband subsequent to the 1906 revision.


It doesn't indicate any such thing. In fact, if she had knowledge from conversations with her husband that he intended to change his mind, it's suspect that she wouldn't say a word until approached about it.

From Jerry Bruck:



> Paradoxically, in Alma's account of her life with Mahler which she began writing a year or so after sending the telegram, she identified the Scherzo as the third movement of the Sixth. Despite the opportunity presented by her attendance at performances of the Sixth for half a century thereafter, Alma seems never to have chided a conductor for performing the Sixth "A-S." Which leaves us to wonder: Which Alma are we to trust?


----------



## Heck148

HenryPenfold said:


> Two of the more recent Mahler 6 performances, Pappano and Currentzis, have it S-A. Rattle's BPO is A-S. We've ventilated considerably on here, I wonder what the maestros reasoning is.


I heard Nelsons/BSO perform it a few years back, pre-covid - very good - S-A order.....


----------



## HenryPenfold

Heck148 said:


> I heard Nelsons/BSO perform it a few years back, pre-covid - very good - S-A order.....


If we go by the shrill A-S exponents who have posted on here, then what on Earth do maestros Nelsons, Pappano, Currentzis, et al think they're doing?


----------



## EdwardBast

HenryPenfold said:


> If we go by the shrill A-S exponents who have posted on here, then what on Earth do maestros Nelsons, Pappano, Currentzis, et al think they're doing?


Ask them. Maybe they say in the liner notes - if such things still exist.


----------



## WildThing

HenryPenfold said:


> If we go by the shrill A-S exponents who have posted on here, then what on Earth do maestros Nelsons, Pappano, Currentzis, et al think they're doing?


Maybe they haven't given it much thought at all, and are simply presenting the symphony in the form that most conductors and audience members have come to know and expect.

One conductor who has thought about it is James Conlon.

"After reading Jerry Bruck's essay, I became convinced that there is no longer any historical defence for Rat's position. This summer, after 30 years of conducting the Sixth in the order S/A, I switched to A/S for a performance at a Mahler/Freud Symposium at the Aspen Institute and Music Festival. Two weeks later I repeated the experience with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra at the Ravinia Festival as a part of a multi-year complete Mahler cycle. This experience has provoked a dramatic challenge to the performer in me: what to do when your brain is convinced of one thing, and the "habits of a lifetime" as well as your heart tell you something else.

To change positions on the weight of historical evidence is easier for the historian or musicologist than it is for the performing artist or the avid music lover. The moral imperative for a historian is to view history dispassionately. The musicologist studies music without necessarily directing that study towards performance. The performing artist, however, can be weighed down by emotion, and by the deep subjectivity of his perceptions, however objective he might strive to become. The greatest difficulty is in changing the view and relationship to a work which the artist has loved and admired, and with which he has communed and identified in one form. The challenge is to surrender an older view of the proportions, chemistry and implications for a newer one.

The first moral mandate for a performing artist is, in my opinion, to render a work as closely as possible to the perceived intentions of the composer. Following that premise, even while loving the work in its "wrong form", I feel obliged to retrain my feelings until I can "feel" the new form. There should be no further question once the composer's intentions are plain. The history is clear and there are also strong musical arguments for the A/S order. The Sixth is in many ways the most "classical" symphony, with its overall sonata-form structure, first-movement repeat and in the A/S version, the key relationships (first, second and fourth movements in A minor and third in E flat). This last is in sharp distinction to Mahler's characteristic progressive tonality."


----------



## EdwardBast

WildThing said:


> Maybe they haven't given it much thought at all, and are simply presenting the symphony in the form that most conductors and audience members have come to know and expect.
> 
> One conductor who has thought about it is James Conlon.
> 
> "After reading Jerry Bruck's essay, I became convinced that there is no longer any historical defence for Rat's position. This summer, after 30 years of conducting the Sixth in the order S/A, I switched to A/S for a performance at a Mahler/Freud Symposium at the Aspen Institute and Music Festival. Two weeks later I repeated the experience with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra at the Ravinia Festival as a part of a multi-year complete Mahler cycle. This experience has provoked a dramatic challenge to the performer in me: what to do when your brain is convinced of one thing, and the "habits of a lifetime" as well as your heart tell you something else.
> 
> … *The greatest difficulty is in changing the view and relationship to a work which the artist has loved and admired, and with which he has communed and identified in one form. The challenge is to surrender an older view of the proportions, chemistry and implications for a newer one.*


Thanks for this, WildThing - Conlon nicely sums up the dilemma faced by those habituated to the Ratz version.


----------



## SanAntone

WildThing said:


> Maybe they haven't given it much thought at all, and are simply presenting the symphony in the form that most conductors and audience members have come to know and expect.
> 
> One conductor who has thought about it is James Conlon.
> 
> "After reading Jerry Bruck's essay, I became convinced that there is no longer any historical defence for Rat's position. This summer, after 30 years of conducting the Sixth in the order S/A, I switched to A/S for a performance at a Mahler/Freud Symposium at the Aspen Institute and Music Festival. Two weeks later I repeated the experience with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra at the Ravinia Festival as a part of a multi-year complete Mahler cycle. This experience has provoked a dramatic challenge to the performer in me: what to do when your brain is convinced of one thing, and the "habits of a lifetime" as well as your heart tell you something else.
> 
> To change positions on the weight of historical evidence is easier for the historian or musicologist than it is for the performing artist or the avid music lover. The moral imperative for a historian is to view history dispassionately. The musicologist studies music without necessarily directing that study towards performance. The performing artist, however, can be weighed down by emotion, and by the deep subjectivity of his perceptions, however objective he might strive to become. The greatest difficulty is in changing the view and relationship to a work which the artist has loved and admired, and with which he has communed and identified in one form. The challenge is to surrender an older view of the proportions, chemistry and implications for a newer one.
> 
> The first moral mandate for a performing artist is, in my opinion, to render a work as closely as possible to the perceived intentions of the composer. Following that premise, even while loving the work in its "wrong form", I feel obliged to retrain my feelings until I can "feel" the new form. There should be no further question once the composer's intentions are plain. The history is clear and there are also strong musical arguments for the A/S order. The Sixth is in many ways the most "classical" symphony, with its overall sonata-form structure, first-movement repeat and in the A/S version, the key relationships (first, second and fourth movements in A minor and third in E flat). This last is in sharp distinction to Mahler's characteristic progressive tonality."


Interesting. British composer David Matthews was a former adherent of the Andante/Scherzo order, but has since changed his mind and now argues for Scherzo/Andante as the preferred order, again citing the overall tonal scheme of the symphony. (Wikipedia)

I think most conductors, historians and musicologists advocate, as I do, for a dual version tradition. That is, since there are valid cases to support either choice, it only makes since to encourage conductors to choose according to their insights and opinion of the history and internal musical logic.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> Interesting. British composer David Matthews was a former adherent of the Andante/Scherzo order, but has since changed his mind and now argues for Scherzo/Andante as the preferred order, again citing the overall tonal scheme of the symphony. (Wikipedia)
> 
> I think most conductors, historians and musicologists advocate, as I do, for a dual version tradition. That is, since there are valid cases to support either choice, it only makes since to encourage conductors to choose according to their insights and opinion of the history and internal musical logic.


Sorry, no, that won't do. There's Mahler's version and there's Ratz's edition. Label them that way and bill them that way on all public facing documents and text files. It's basic truth in advertising and the minimal respect we should show composers' clearly expressed wishes.


----------



## Knorf

HenryPenfold said:


> Alma gets blamed for everything!!
> 
> Was she really that bad? :lol:


Sadly, yes. She was notoriously unreliable.


----------



## Knorf

HenryPenfold said:


> If we go by the shrill A-S exponents who have posted on here...


"Shrill." I mean, really? Come on, Henry. 

In any case, like most people who got to know Mahler's Sixth Symphony from recordings such a Bernstein/NYPO, I "imprinted" on the Scherzo-Andante order. The argument supporting that order is clearly at odds with Mahler's own, from the premiere performance until he died, and there is zero evidence that he ever changed his mind or doubted the decision after he made it at the premiere. And so I corrspondingly have made the rational shift in accepting the Andante-Scherzo order.

It's a bit ridiculous to me that people are still arguing about this.


----------



## Forster

Advocates for both (here) are habituated to their preferred order, and consequently wish to rigorously defend their preference.

No one is being shrill.


----------



## Waehnen

Forster said:


> Advocates for both (here) are habituated to their preferred order, and consequently wish to rigorously defend their preference.
> 
> No one is being shrill.


What surprises me time after time is the tendency of us humans not to accept multiple solutions or answers or truths. We want either this or that, we want finality. Why? Especially when it comes to art it is peculiar.


----------



## RobertJTh

SanAntone said:


> Interesting. British composer David Matthews was a former adherent of the Andante/Scherzo order, but has since changed his mind and now argues for Scherzo/Andante as the preferred order, again citing the overall tonal scheme of the symphony. (Wikipedia)


On the wiki page, Dave Hurwitz of all people has the last word on the matter. Make of that what you will.
Matthews also propagates the reinstating of the 3rd hammer blow. That alone makes it hard to take him seriously. As has been pointed out here, Mahler not just excised the 3rd hammer blow, he changed the surrounding orchestration as well. Putting it back (why?) would mean tinkering with Mahler's published score and going against his final wishes even more. But some people don't have moral objections against such procedures, it seems.



> I think most conductors, historians and musicologists advocate, as I do, for a dual version tradition. That is, since there are valid cases to support either choice, it only makes since to encourage conductors to choose according to their insights and opinion of the history and internal musical logic.


I think this "dual version" solution is proposed mostly by S-A advocates who realize their claim lacks any valid foundation and argumentation, and just consists of variations of "I like this more". Musicological and historical arguments are overwhelming in favor of A-S, nobody can deny that. Musical arguments tend to be split 50/50.
So presenting an elegant "let's agree on disagreeing" and "both versions are equally valid" solution sounds a bit like a sneaky cop-out to me. Pretending the game is a tie while it's 10-1 on the scoreboard.

I won't frown upon any version, past, present or future, of the symphony that uses the S-A version, if it's a musically convincing performance. After all, success in Mahler 6 doesn't depend solely on the order of the inner movements. But I think the public has the right to know that such performances are not in accordance to Mahler's own preferences.


----------



## Waehnen

RobertJTh said:


> On the wiki page, Dave Hurwitz of all people has the last word on the matter. Make of that what you will.
> Matthews also propagates the reinstating of the 3rd hammer blow. That alone makes it hard to take him seriously. As has been pointed out here, Mahler not just excised the 3rd hammer blow, he changed the surrounding orchestration as well. Putting it back (why?) would mean tinkering with Mahler's published score and going against his final wishes even more. But some people don't have moral objections against such procedures, it seems.
> 
> I think this "dual version" solution is proposed mostly by S-A advocates who realize their claim lacks any valid foundation and argumentation, and just consists of variations of "I like this more". Musicological and historical arguments are overwhelming in favor of A-S, nobody can deny that. Musical arguments tend to be split 50/50.
> So presenting an elegant "let's agree on disagreeing" and "both versions are equally valid" solution sounds a bit like a sneaky cop-out to me. Pretending the game is a tie while it's 10-1 on the scoreboard.
> 
> I won't frown upon any version, past, present or future, of the symphony that uses the S-A version, if it's a musically convincing performance. After all, success in Mahler 6 doesn't depend solely on the order of the inner movements. But I think the public has the right to know that such performances are not in accordance to Mahler's own preferences.


There is no doubt what the final decision by Mahler was: A-S. I have never argued against that and neither have I really seen anyone arguing against that.

I still think the symphony is better as S-A and prefer those performances and think even today it is a valid choice to be made by conductors. So what?


----------



## OperaChic

Waehnen said:


> There is no doubt what the final decision by Mahler was: A-S. I have never argued against that and neither have I really seen anyone arguing against that.
> 
> I still think the symphony is better as S-A and prefer those performances. So what?


So what indeed:



EdwardBast said:


> There's Mahler's version and there's Ratz's edition. Label them that way and bill them that way on all public facing documents and text files. It's basic truth in advertising and the minimal respect we should show composers' clearly expressed wishes.


----------



## Philidor

RobertJTh said:


> just consists of variations of "I like this more".


Yes. And I think that "I like this more" (and I find it more convincing than A-S for reason 1, 2 and 3) is a valid argument from my point of view.

People are playing Bach on the Steinway just because "I like this more". Bach obviously never had a Steinway in mind. But it works, and this is, what solely matters.

You can build a museum for Mahler No. 6 and show everyone the A-S-order: "This is what Mahler wanted in 1906, and there is no testimonial that he ever changed it afterwards." That's fine.

I build another a museum for Mahler No. 6 and show everyone the S-A-order: "This is what Mahler wanted in 1903/04, when he drafted the symphony and worked it out."

But I do not listen to music the same way as I am going to some museum. Either it has something to do with me or not - with nuances, of course, this question is not binary.

If some conductors in our time like the order S-A, why not? They show the symphony's state in 1903/04. Fine. Why not to give some insight in Mahler's factory? There are enough other works in history where we fully accept the coexistence of several versions, Messiah, St. John's Passion, Beethoven op. 130 with Fugue or with later-composed finale, Mozart symphony No. 40, Schumann symphony No. 4, ...

Why this quasi-religious zeal with a religious language using words like "final", "last word" etc.? Why this handling as a black and white issue?

To my mind, the whole subject could be regarded with some more ease.



RobertJTh said:


> Pretending the game is a tie while it's 10-1 on the scoreboard.


For me it is not a game, I am not about to look for a win, and I wonder whether questions in art could be discussed seriously in terms of football results.


----------



## Waehnen

OperaChic said:


> So what indeed:


If someone is willing to make far-reaching conclusions about the level of my respect or disrespect for composers based on this preference of mine, then it is more telling of the other person than me.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Knorf said:


> "Shrill." I mean, really? Come on, Henry.


HaHa I realised that 'shrill' would be interpreted in it's narrow sense and a wider view would include 'loud and forceful'.

I think that some of the latter A-S proponents have been persistently prescriptive and rather dictatorial. Hence my use of the word in that way. :angel:


----------



## HenryPenfold

Knorf said:


> It's a bit ridiculous to me that people are still arguing about this.


I totally agree with you Knorf.

There is nothing to argue about. Mahler's original composition decision was S-A. In rehearsing it for performance, he changed his mind, altered the order, performed it the new way, and made arrangements for it to be published according to his decision.

Rightly or wrongly, despite Mahler's wishes, a performance tradition developed around S-A. Some classical music fans prefer it that way and are lucky enough to have many recordings to listen to, and new recordings too.

The problem comes when people become dogmatic.


----------



## Philidor

HenryPenfold said:


> The problem comes when people become dogmatic.


This insight has many applications beyond classical music ...


----------



## OperaChic

Waehnen said:


> If someone is willing to make far-reaching conclusions about the level of my respect or disrespect for composers based on this preference of mine, then it is more telling of the other person than me.


It's not about your preference. I haven't seen any arguments about anyone's preference being _wrong_.



HenryPenfold said:


> I totally agree with you Knorf.
> 
> There is nothing to argue about. Mahler's original composition decision was S-A. In rehearsing it for performance, he changed his mind, altered the order, performed it the new way, and made arrangements for it to be published according to his decision.
> 
> Rightly or wrongly, despite Mahler's wishes, a performance tradition developed around S-A. Some classical music fans prefer it that way and are lucky enough to have many recordings to listen to, and new recordings too.
> 
> The problem comes when people become dogmatic.


No one side is being more dogmatic than the other -- the A/S proponents have said EXACTLY the same exact thing as you just have, with one caveat: the S/A performance tradition began because of untrustworthy scholarship, and it is wrong for musicologists to tamper with the work of artists. Moving forward, we should be mindful of the true intentions of the composer.


----------



## Waehnen

OperaChic said:


> It's not about your preference. I haven't seen any arguments about anyone's preference being _wrong_.
> 
> No one side is being more dogmatic than the other -- the A/S proponents have said EXACTLY the same exact thing as you just have, with one small caveat : the S/A performance tradition began because of untrustworthy scholarship, and it is wrong for musicologists to tamper with the work of artists. Moving forward, we should be mindful of the true intentions of the composer.


How disrespectful do you think I am if I am willing to support contemporary conductors who perform "The Original S-A" despite the fact that we currently know that Mahler's final thought on the matter very likely was "The Final A-S"?

Is there something you are worried about in my attitude?


----------



## OperaChic

Waehnen said:


> How disrespectful do you think I am if I am willing to support contemporary conductors who perform "The Original S-A" despite the fact that we currently know that Mahler's final thought on the matter very likely was "The Final A-S"?
> 
> Is there something you are worried about in my attitude?


Do you believe an editor and or/musicologist should be able to posthumously change the work of a composer, and do you believe that it is justified if it was a "correction" for the better?

Do you have a problem recognizing that your preference is at odds with the way Mahler wished for his symphony to be performed? If not, why would there be an issue in identifying this version is the product of Edwin Ratz's decisions and not Mahler's?


----------



## Forster

Waehnen said:


> What surprises me time after time is the tendency of us humans not to accept multiple solutions or answers or truths. We want either this or that, we want finality. Why? Especially when it comes to art it is peculiar.


Some people like ambiguity, but it does seem the case that more prefer certainty.

There are two issues here: one that provokes those who prefer certainty (which _should _be the order of movements) and one that provokes those who prefer to stick with habit ("I'm used to and prefer S-A / A-S" and that's that.")

I'm very happy for people to listen to whichever they prefer. I'm not provoked by that issue.



Philidor said:


> Why this *quasi-religious zeal *with a *religious language *using words like "final", "last word" etc.? Why this handling as a black and white issue?


Where is anyone handling this with quasi religious zeal - quotes please. I don't believe either "final" or "last word" carry religious connotations unless presented in a religious context.



HenryPenfold said:


> HaHa I realised that 'shrill' would be interpreted in it's narrow sense and a wider view would include 'loud and forceful'.
> 
> I think that some of the latter A-S proponents have been persistently prescriptive and rather dictatorial. Hence my use of the word in that way. :angel:


You might indeed detect some impatience on both sides of the debate that the other side won't accept the argument(s). I don't believe that describing some proponents as prescriptive and dictatorial helps, especially since it's a vague accusation without any evidence.


----------



## Philidor

OperaChic said:


> Do you have a problem recognizing that your preference is at odds with the way Mahler wished for his symphony to be performed? If not, why would there be an issue in identifying this version is the product of Edwin Ratz's decisions and not Mahler's?


Everything fine. Two questions:

(1) Do you agree that there was a time in Mahler's life when he wanted the order to be S-A?

(2) Do you agree that it is interesting and worthy to perform, say, the 2nd version of Bach's St. John Passion or the 1841 version of Schumann's symphony No. 4, even if the composers produced later versions?


----------



## Kreisler jr

I now read that paper below and although this is only one side of the debate it seems a rather incredible story how S-A could be established despite Mahler's intentions. (I don't think Alma takes most of the blame, she apparently didn't care much and that brief telegram is lost anyway. In fact the story is so incredible that like in a few other cases (nutrition, some fields of medicine) one tends to become so wary of "experts" to be skeptical about almost any of their scientifically established expert claims.) 
I agree that the case is not as similar to op.130/133 as I claimed above, more like playing the Waldstein sonata with Andante favori (I have known one person who preferred the andante favori to the later introduzione but I don't know if he edited/burned CDs to get that piece into the sonata).

Nevertheless, there are quite a few cases some mentioned above where very similar or usually more severe editorial choices such as cuts, re-orderings, "enhancements", hybrid versions are (or have been) very common. Although most of them are in opera and concertos that are both taken not as "seriously" and it is more accepted that demands of soloists or theatrical performances be met.

It's hard for me to understand that the order should be more important than some tempo choices that differ wildly from composers demands (e.g. in some Beethoven slow movements), cutting 30% or more from the 2nd mvmt. of Tchaikovsky's 2nd piano concerto, or inserting a 15 min instrumental piece like Leonore III into an opera act.

I only have two recordings with A-S, Mitropoulos/NY 1955 (in Cologne 1959 he has S-A!!! although this was before the Ratz edition that apparently cemented S-A for most of the 1960s-70s) and Rattle (Berlin live 1987). I thought Gielen/SWR was another one but it's S-A (with the Scherzo so slow the playing times are almost the same for both movements). Apparently Gielen has some other live performances with A-S.

https://www.posthorn.com/Mahler/paper.pdf


----------



## Waehnen

OperaChic said:


> Do you believe an editor and or/musicologist should be able to posthumously change the work of a composer, and do you believe that it is justified if it was a "correction" for the better?
> 
> Do you have a problem recognizing that your preference is at odds with the way Mahler wished for his symphony to be performed? If not, why would there be an issue in identifying this version is the product of Edwin Ratz's decisions and not Mahler's?


Every case in unique. I am commenting on this specific Mahler case here and do not recognize the dramatic and immoral consequences of my position described by many.

I would not mind the performances to have labels like "The Original Version" or "The Final Version". Where would the problem then be in your opinion?


----------



## OperaChic

Philidor said:


> Everything fine. Two questions:
> 
> (1) Do you agree that there was a time in Mahler's life when he wanted the order to be S-A?


He composed his symphony and made revisions to it, as composers do. When Dvorak composed the famous Largo to his 9th symphony, he originally conceived of its tempo as Andante . During rehearsals, after hearing conductor Anton Seidl perform it much slower, he was persuaded him that Largo would be more effective, and Dvorak revised his score accordingly. I've never seen or heard of anyone debating that Dvorak's 9th exists in multiple legitimate forms. Of course anyone is free to perform the symphony with the second movement marked Andante, and it might be interesting to hear it that way. But if they did they would undoubtedly make it clear they were performing the work as it stood in an early compositional phase.



> (2) Do you agree that it is interesting and worthy to perform, say, the 2nd version of Bach's St. John Passion or the 1841 version of Schumann's symphony No. 4, even if the composers produced later versions?


I don't know much about the performance history of these two works. Did Bach and Schumann complete them and authorize performances in one form, and later revise them? Or did musicologists take drafts from an earlier compositional stage and push them as the works in their original form that reflected the true intentions if the composers and base these second versions off their own volition and ability to take composer's scores into their own hands and shape them as they see fit?


----------



## RobertJTh

Kreisler jr said:


> Nevertheless, there are quite a few cases some mentioned above where very similar or usually more severe editorial choices such as cuts, re-orderings, "enhancements", hybrid versions are (or have been) very common. Although most of them are in opera and concertos that are both taken not as "seriously" and it is more accepted that demands of soloists or theatrical performances be met.


The only other big case in Mahler must be Das Klagende Lied, which consists of two versions: the original one in 3 parts, and the much later re-orchestrated version which dropped the first part.
Problem is that most recordings of the three-part version don't use Mahler's original 1880 score but are hybrids using the 1880 first part and the revised 2nd and 3rd part. Which is at least musicologically contestable if not musically as well (you can't overlook the style change between the 1st and 2nd part).
As with the 6th, I think Mahler's final decision works best: a tight two-part cantata, dropping the rambling and repetitious first part and presenting the rest in an orchestration that benefited from Mahler's experience with the 1st and 2nd symphonies.



> I only have two recordings with A-S, Mitropoulos/NY 1955 (in Cologne 1959 he has S-A!!! although this was before the Ratz edition that apparently cemented S-A for most of the 1960s-70s) and Rattle (Berlin live 1987). I thought Gielen/SWR was another one but it's S-A (with the Scherzo so slow the playing times are almost the same for both movements).


Interesting to hear Mitropoulos changed to S-A in Cologne, one wonders why. Early knowledge of Ratz' editorial work? His NYPO account is of course one of the great 6th's around, a terrifying (in the good sense) performance.


----------



## OperaChic

Waehnen said:


> Every case in unique. I am commenting on this specific Mahler case here and do not recognize the dramatic and immoral consequences of my position described by many.
> 
> I would not mind the performances to have labels like "The Original Version" or "The Final Version". Where would the problem then be in your opinion?


I agree that every case is unique, and my belief is that in this case a wrong has been committed that should not be repeated.

Mahler never authorized the 6th to be performed with the scherzo second, so there is no original Mahler 6th. There is Mahler's 6th and there is the Ratz edition that presents the symphony as it stood at an earlier stage before Mahler made his final revisions.


----------



## Philidor

OperaChic said:


> I don't know much about the performance history of these two works. Did Bach and Schumann complete them and authorize performances in one form, and later revise them? Or did musicologists take drafts from an earlier compositional stage and push them as the works in their original form that reflected the true intentions if the composers and base these second versions off their own volition to take composer's scores into their own hands and shape them as they see fit?


For Bach's St. John Passion, there are at least four versions, all performed by the composer itself.

I wouldn't say that there is something like "the true intention" of a composer. Composers are humans and change their mind during their life. Sibelius changed metronome marks for his symphonies decades later, Schumann did the same for his first symphony, just to add further examples. Which mark is "the true intention"? Bach reworked some organ works, sometimes by adding or eliminating some ornaments, sometimes by changing voicings, sometimes by building a completely new architecture. All intention is subject to change, as people change. The composer has changed, so his intentions may have changed, too.

Just see multiple recordings of the same music by the same conductor to see that something as "the true intention" is very difficult. Or listen to Bartók or Rachmaninov playing their own works on the piano - in conflict with the clear instructions in the score. It's a scandal, isn't? Who has allowed the pianist Bartók to do other things than the composer Bartók had written in his holy score?

(Only the dogmatic one's never change ... sorry, but I had to write this ...  )


----------



## OperaChic

Philidor said:


> For Bach's St. John Passion, there are at least four versions, all performed by the composer itself.
> 
> I wouldn't say that there is something like "the true intention" of a composer. Composers are humans and change their mind during their life. Sibelius changed metronome marks for his symphonies decades later, just to add another example. Which mark is "the true intention"? Bach reworked some organ works, sometimes by adding or eliminating some ornaments, sometimes by changing voicings, sometimes by building a completely new architecture. All intention is subject to change, as people change. The composer has changed, so his intentions may have changed, too.
> 
> Just see multiple recordings of the same music by the same conductor to see that something as "the true intention" is very difficult. Or listen to Bartók or Rachmaninov playing their own works on the piano - in conflict with the clear instructions in the score. It's a scandal, isn't? Who has allowed the pianist Bartók to do other things than the composer Bartók had written in his holy score?
> 
> (Only the dogmatic one's never change ... sorry, but I had to write this ...  )


Agreed. And your examples are all decisions made by the composer's, not decisions made for them by someone else after they were dead.


----------



## Philidor

OperaChic said:


> Agreed. And your examples are all decisions made by the composer's, not decisions made for them by someone else after they were dead.


Agreed. And Mahler's decision in 1903/04 to have Scherzo-Andante is also a "decision made by the composer's, not decisions made for them by someone else after they were dead."


----------



## OperaChic

Philidor said:


> Agreed. And Mahler's decision in 1903/04 to have Scherzo-Andante is also a "decision made by the composer's, not decisions made for them by someone else after they were dead."


Good. So make it clear moving forward that Mahler's preferred order was for A/S, and don't pretend the symphony exists in two legitimate forms and that Mahler would have been happy with it being performed either way, because that's not the case. Label the early draft of the symphony with the Scherzo/Andante ordering as the Ratz edition, a performance version of that earlier draft of Mahler's. And conductors and listeners can enjoy it to their heart's content. And moving forward we can agree that editors making posthumous decisions for composers isn't a good practice.


----------



## Philidor

Just acknowledging the fact that the printed version would be the Holy Grail if Mahler had passed by the week before the first rehearsal. And the printed version would be likely to be defended as the only legitimate way to play the symphony.


----------



## Forster

Philidor said:


> Just acknowledging the fact that the printed version would be the Holy Grail if Mahler had passed by the week before the first rehearsal. And the printed version would be likely to be defended as the only legitimate way to play the symphony.


Holy Grail? Now who's using religious language?

Anyway, the printed edition, including erratum slip, _is_ the legitimate way.


----------



## OperaChic

Philidor said:


> Just acknowledging the fact that the printed version would be the Holy Grail if Mahler had passed by the week before the first rehearsal. And the printed version would be likely to be defended as the only legitimate way to play the symphony.


The issue is that Erwin Ratz's critical edition was passed off as the legitimate form of the symphony, embodying Mahler's true intentions. Which is why it was regularly performed and recorded. Alternatively I could point out If the Scherzo/Andante order was clearly understood to be an earlier, unrevised version, it most likely would only have been performed rarely as a curiosity.


----------



## Waehnen

OperaChic said:


> I agree that every case is unique, and my belief is that in this case a wrong has been committed that should not be repeated.
> 
> Mahler never authorized the 6th to be performed with the scherzo second, so there is no original Mahler 6th. There is Mahler's 6th and there is the Ratz edition that presents the symphony as it stood at an earlier stage before Mahler made his final revisions.


Is there a law that indicates only a version which the composer himself has accepted after printing the score may be performed? Does someone own the rights to Mahler's music and have they voiced some opinions carrying legal weight on the matter? Has anyone broken the law here?

If there is a law which I have broken, I will cease to do so.

In other cases I consider the order of the inner movements a part of the freedom of performing artists and listeners who all only want the best for this music despite their possibly opposite views on the matter. I will also be referring to the original version as The Original S-A Version.


----------



## OperaChic

Waehnen said:


> Is there a law that indicates only a version which the composer himself has accepted after printing the score may be performed? Does someone own the rights to Mahler's music and have they voiced some opinions carrying legal weight on the matter? Has anyone broken the law here?
> 
> If there is a law which I have broken, I will cease to do so.
> 
> In other cases I consider the order of the inner movements a part of the freedom of performing artists and listeners who all only want the best for this music despite their possibly opposite views on the matter. I will also be referring to the original version as The Original S-A Version.


It's a matter of principle and I've made my position clear. You can do as you wish.


----------



## Waehnen

OperaChic said:


> It's a matter of principle and I've made my position clear. You can do as you wish.


I appreciate and respect you voicing your opinion so clearly. Thanks!


----------



## SanAntone

OperaChic said:


> It's a matter of principle and I've made my position clear. You can do as you wish.


I accept the fact that many conductors (actual conductors) perform and record the symphony as Mahler originally conceived of it, i.e. Scherzo - Andante. Apparently they are satisfied that this is a musically valid choice, actually the better choice, and one which represents Mahler's intentions. These many conductors, with a lot more to lose than you, have put their careers and reputations on the line with this decision. I accept and respect that.

Maybe, over time, one version will take precedence. But as things stand right now, there are two valid choices.


----------



## Philidor

Forster said:


> Holy Grail? Now who's using religious language?


Sorry, I forgot ... hypothetically, just hypothetically it could be that certain mindsets are coming along with the loss of being sensitive for jokes, irony and similar things.

So to get it clear: It was ironic. For me, a score released by a composer at some time is not holy in the sense of being immaculate, perfect, pure, invariable for eternity, the last word of the guru or whatever. This perspective on scores relies on real existing practise.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> These many conductors, with a lot more to lose than you, have put their careers and reputations on the line with this decision.


Really? Has anyone of any significance taken any of the S-A conductors to task for their choice, such that their career and/or reputation has been put at risk?



Philidor said:


> For me, a score released by a composer at some time is not holy in the sense of being immaculate, perfect, pure, invariable for eternity, the last word of the guru or whatever. This perspective on scores relies on real existing practise.


I got that. Of course, Mahler agreed with you: his real existing rehearsal caused him to change his non-immaculate score.


----------



## Philidor

Forster said:


> Of course, Mahler agreed with you:


I know that Mahler had agreed with me.

The master himself said that he wishes to revise his scores every five years.

The Master's own mouth hath spoken it.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Really? Has anyone of any significance taken any of the S-A conductors to task for their choice, such that their career and/or reputation has been put at risk?


It was a rhetorical language, i.e. these conductors were convinced it was the best choice and were willing to defend it, if necessary. However, the majority of the professional Classical music community knew that there were strong cases for either choice - simply accepted their preference.

It appears only on TC are people convinced of their own view and disparaging of the other.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> It was a rhetorical language, i.e. these conductors were convinced it was the best choice and were willing to defend it, if necessary. However, the majority of the professional Classical music community knew that there were strong cases for either choice - simply accepted their preference.
> 
> It appears only on TC are people convinced of their own view and disparaging of the other.


You and I often agree on stuff, but maybe we have different tastes in rhetoric.


----------



## Forster

Philidor said:


> I know that Mahler had agreed with me.
> 
> The master himself said that he wishes to revise his scores every five years.
> 
> The Master's own mouth hath spoken it.


Well unless he can come back from the grave, we're lumbered with his last revision. Any speculation on what he might have done every five years is absurd.


----------



## Philidor

Forster said:


> Well unless he can come back from the grave, we're lumbered with his last revision. Any speculation on what he might have done every five years is absurd.


Yes, but the question was not what Mahler could have done five years later, but the question was whether the scores have to be regarded as unchangeable, only truth etc. etc. They are not, according to Mahler's words. - I admit that even this opinion of Mahler's could be subjected to change.

But the game of using some argument in a different context for falsification is popular when defending weak positions.


----------



## Forster

Philidor said:


> Yes, but the question was not what Mahler could have done five years later, but the question was whether the scores have to be regarded as unchangeable, only truth etc. etc. They are not, according to Mahler's words. - I admit that even this opinion of Mahler's could be subjected to change.
> 
> But the game of using some argument in a different context for falsification is popular when defending weak positions.


So why use it? Give it up!:devil:


----------



## HenryPenfold

SanAntone said:


> It appears only on TC are people convinced of their own view and disparaging of the other.


Don't lump me in with that! I appreciate it's got a bit shrill*, but I've had no part in that!

The discussion imo, has gone from extremely interesting through to mainly boring dogma.

*unrestrained and irritatingly insistent


----------



## EdwardBast

OperaChic said:


> The issue is that Erwin Ratz's critical edition was passed off as the legitimate form of the symphony, embodying Mahler's true intentions. Which is why it was regularly performed and recorded. Alternatively I could point out If the Scherzo/Andante order was clearly understood to be an earlier, unrevised version, it most likely would only have been performed rarely as a curiosity.


Exactly. Ratz's bad act, either fraud or incompetence, take your pick, is the reason there are two versions rather than one. This should be acknowledged wherever decisions about the performance order are discussed in criticism and program notes.


----------



## HenryPenfold

EdwardBast said:


> Exactly. Ratz's bad act, either fraud or incompetence, take your pick, is the reason there are two versions rather than one. This should be acknowledged wherever decisions about the performance order are discussed in criticism and program notes.


Whatever Ratz's motivation was from the lose-lose binary option you give, or otherwise, a truly splendid result occurred. We have two marvellous ways of performing one great symphony!

I'm convinced we can only be happy about this, unless we think we shouldn't be allowed to perform or listen to the S-A version.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> Exactly. Ratz's bad act, either fraud or incompetence, take your pick, is the reason there are two versions rather than one. This should be acknowledged wherever decisions about the performance order are discussed in criticism and program notes.


If there was widespread belief that Ratz was incompetent or a fraud, then his edition would never have taken hold. But that is not what happened. It was accepted as legitimate.

Those of you who stridently rail against the S-A performance stand at odds with reality. You can believe that the A-S version is better, but you cannot cancel out a more than 70 year history of performance.


----------



## Forster

It seems to me that accusations of insistent or strident, if they apply at all, apply to both sides of this debate.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> It seems to me that accusations of insistent or strident, if they apply at all, apply to both sides of this debate.


There is a reality of how this work has been performed. When one side acts as if that reality does not exist and maintains that there is only one logical choice - then I think that is an example of stridency. I have consistently said that the reasonable view is to acknowledge a dual-version approach, which is merely to acknowledge the reality of the performance history of this work.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> There is a reality of how this work has been performed. * When one side acts *as if that reality does not exist and maintains that there is only one logical choice - then I think that is an example of stridency. I have consistently said that the reasonable view is to acknowledge a dual-version approach, which is merely to acknowledge the reality of the performance history of this work.


Hang on - there is not "one side" acting as a homogeneous whole.

As I said earlier, accusing people of being strident, when no-one has actually pointed to the words that justify the term, is unhelpful. If there is any mileage left in this debate, it should be done without such diversions. Members should either tackle what people actually write and quote it, or desist from participation.

If I have written a strident post, please point to it.


----------



## Becca

Enough already, there is little if any "mileage left in this debate" so please drop it, no opinions have or are likely to be changed. The energy would be better put into a different topic, perhaps "Why Mahler's 8th is his greatest symphony".


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Holy Grail? Now who's using religious language?
> 
> Anyway, the printed edition, including erratum slip, _is_ the legitimate way.





OperaChic said:


> Good. So make it clear moving forward that Mahler's preferred order was for A/S, and don't pretend the symphony exists in two legitimate forms and that Mahler would have been happy with it being performed either way, because that's not the case. Label the early draft of the symphony with the Scherzo/Andante ordering as the Ratz edition, a performance version of that earlier draft of Mahler's. And conductors and listeners can enjoy it to their heart's content. And moving forward we can agree that editors making posthumous decisions for composers isn't a good practice.





OperaChic said:


> I agree that every case is unique, and my belief is that in this case a wrong has been committed that should not be repeated.
> 
> Mahler never authorized the 6th to be performed with the scherzo second, so there is no original Mahler 6th. There is Mahler's 6th and there is the Ratz edition that presents the symphony as it stood at an earlier stage before Mahler made his final revisions.





EdwardBast said:


> Exactly. Ratz's bad act, either fraud or incompetence, take your pick, is the reason there are two versions rather than one. This should be acknowledged wherever decisions about the performance order are discussed in criticism and program notes.





Forster said:


> Well unless he can come back from the grave, we're lumbered with his last revision. Any speculation on what he might have done every five years is absurd.


In none of these posts is the long performance history of the Scherzo-Andante version acknowledged. It is as if these posters believe that their opinion is more important that what conductors have actually done.

If you don't like the word "strident" - fine. But no matter how much you protest, the history of performance will not evaporate. It may change. The Andante-Scherzo version may become standard. But until then we have a dual-version tradition.


----------



## Forster

Thanks.

However, remove these from the context of the conversation is misleading. The post of mine you cite is a specific riposte to a specific point made by another poster (Philidor #347)

In other posts I have acknowledged that I have no problem with the alternatives. It's not like every post must be a complete essay. (#319, #354, #381, #435)


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Thanks.
> 
> However, remove these from the context of the conversation is misleading. The post of mine you cite is a specific riposte to a specific point made by another poster (Philidor #347)
> 
> In other posts I have acknowledged that I have no problem with the alternatives. It's not like every post must be a complete essay. (#319, #354, #381, #435)


I appreciate that your posts may not reflect the worst excesses of a few others.

IMO the most absurd claim is that the Ratz edition represents "shoddy," "fraudulent," or "incompetent" scholarship. This implies that all of the conductors who have used that version for their performances and recordings, dozens of conductors, are imbeciles without the wherewithal to know good from shoddy scholarship.

Shall I list the names of these conductors?


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> I appreciate that your posts may not reflect the worst excesses of a few others.
> 
> IMO the most absurd claim is that the Ratz edition represents "shoddy," "fraudulent," or "incompetent" scholarship. This implies that all of the conductors who have used that version for their performances and recordings, dozens of conductors, are imbeciles without the wherewithal to know good from shoddy scholarship.
> 
> Shall I list the names of these conductors?


No need. I read the posts where numbers of conductors for each alternative were listed. You'll have to take up that issue with the other posters.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> I appreciate that your posts may not reflect the worst excesses of a few others.
> 
> IMO the most absurd claim is that the Ratz edition represents "shoddy," "fraudulent," or "incompetent" scholarship. *This implies that all of the conductors who have used that version for their performances and recordings, dozens of conductors, are imbeciles without the wherewithal to know good from shoddy scholarship.*
> 
> Shall I list the names of these conductors?


No, it doesn't. It means they mistook Ratz for a responsible scholar and took the words critical edition to mean what they usually do. "They were all of them deceived" and it's an easy mistake to make.

And what would you call such a willful suppression and distortion of the evidence Ratz had readily available when he decided to substitute his judgment for Mahler's?


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> No, it doesn't. It means they mistook Ratz for a responsible scholar and took the words critical edition to mean what they usually do. "They were all of them deceived" and it's an easy mistake to make.
> 
> And what would you call such a willful suppression and distortion of the evidence Ratz had readily available when he decided to substitute his judgment for Mahler's?


First, I don't think any conductor relies solely on the work of a single scholar. Conductors have their own musicological expertise, and strong minds of their own, otherwise they would not have successful careers as conductors. It defies credulity to believe that the many conductors who have chosen to perform Mahler's 6th with the Scherzo-Andante plan have done so without any scholarship of their own as to have been hoodwinked by Ratz. Surely if this were the case, new recordings would have ceased long ago. But they haven't ceased. There are new recordings using Ratz's edition all the time - despite the longstanding controversy concerning the inner movements.

Second, I do not believe that Ratz's scholarship was irresponsible. His flaw as in not providing adequate documentation for his conclusions. But there is enough evidence to support his edition, which the conductors using that version have known of as well their own analysis of the score, weighing all of the musical problems and aspects, and finally deciding on which movement plan works best.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with a dual-version tradition. Mahler himself was divided over the work's plan. I do not for a minute believe that the Alma Mahler evidence is unreliable. Her testimony would indicate that Mahler may have reverted back to his original plan. But since we will never be sure, the proof will have to be in the pudding.

As more conductors record this work using one or the other versions, and the numbers line up along one side, a consensus will form over the correctness of one of the movement plans. This decision will be based on a musical rationale of how the symphony works best.


----------



## EdwardBast

There is no credible evidence to support Ratz's conclusions. None. 

What I primarily object to isn't two performing traditions per se. It's the refusal to clearly acknowledge that one tradition is authorized by the composer and the other is not (that is: based on dubious theoretical arguments and whimsy). All I'm asking is that those who perform or record the Ratz acknowledge what they are doing by stating: This performance is of an edition created by Erwin Ratz in which the movements are in a different order than the one Mahler authorized and conducted instead of repeating the same old discredited BS and pretending it's valid.


----------



## Aries

Mahler changed the order, so the order is not as much set in stone as in the case of most other works and he himself laid the foundation of different opinions, and even Alma disagreed with his final A-S order. Because of that the central question should be: What sounds better. It should be a musical question instead of a historical question, because the history is not 100% clear.

The beginning of the Scherzo fits the end of the first movement much better than the end of the Adagio and the quiet end of the Scherzo fits the beginning of the Andante perfectly imo. Both inner movement benefit from the S-A order imo, especially the Scherzo. There is a natural flow with the S-A order.


----------



## Ludwig Schon

A sublime, complex symphony that Boulez considered to be one of the ten greatest works of the 20th Century. 

Abbado & the BPO on DG is the one to own


----------



## Monsalvat

Ratz's scholarship is worse than dubious. See https://posthorn.com/Mahler/Correct_Movement_Order_III.pdf, starting at page 37. There are some convenient prevarications and some outright fabrications, and his correspondence with Alma Mahler reveals that by the mid-'50s, her memory was not at all reliable (and she was also known for cleansing Mahler's image posthumously). For instance:



> It can be seen from the increasingly sharp tone of Ratz's argument that he was gradually working himself into the delusion that the Scherzo-Andante order was right, and developing a "blindness" with regard to the facts that is of the utmost concern.


That article also says that it is "impossible to think that the order of the middle movements in the Sixth Symphony is 'irresolvable' and belongs only in the realm of hypothetical debate" after looking at the historical record. And, even more striking:



> Ratz, it turns out, intentionally distorted the facts and withheld evidence that contradicted his personal opinion that, based on music theory, there could be only one correct order, Scherzo-Andante.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> There is no credible evidence to support Ratz's conclusions. None.


This is not really true. There is primary evidence of Mahler's original compositional plan. The key plan makes more sense pacing the Scherzo second, as well as other internal musical logic. And then there is Alma Mahler's telegram stating that the Mahler's original plan was to be used.

You may wish to ignore this evidence, but it is false to claim there is none.



> What I primarily object to isn't two performing traditions per se. It's the refusal to clearly acknowledge that one tradition is authorized by the composer and the other is not (that is: based on dubious theoretical arguments and whimsy). All I'm asking is that those who perform or record the Ratz acknowledge what they are doing by stating: This performance is of an edition created by Erwin Ratz in which the movements are in a different order than the one Mahler authorized and conducted instead of repeating the same old discredited BS and pretending it's valid.


However, what you wish to occur is not what any of these conductors, a who's who of prominent conductors, have felt was necessary. Below is a list included in the Wikipedia article of recordings using the Scherzo-Andante plan.



> Erich Leinsdorf, Boston Symphony Orchestra, RCA Victor Red Seal LSC-7044
> Jascha Horenstein, Royal Stockholm Philharmonic Orchestra, Unicorn UKCD 2024/5 (live recording from 1966)
> Leonard Bernstein, New York Philharmonic,[16] Sony Classical SMK 60208 (*)
> Václav Neumann, Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra, Berlin Classics 0090452BC
> George Szell, Cleveland Orchestra, Sony Classical SBK 47654
> Bernard Haitink, Concertgebouw Orchestra, Amsterdam, Q-DISC 97014 (live performance from November 1968)
> Rafael Kubelik, Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra, Deutsche Grammophon 289 478 7897-1
> Rafael Kubelik, Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra, Audite 1475671 (live recording of 6 December 1968 performance)
> Bernard Haitink, Concertgebouw Orchestra, Amsterdam, Philips 289 420 138-2
> Jascha Horenstein, Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra, BBC Legends BBCL4191-2
> Georg Solti, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Decca 414 674-2
> Hans Zender, Saarbrücken Radio Symphony Orchestra, CPO 999 477-2
> Maurice Abravanel, Utah Symphony, Vanguard Classics SRV 323/4 (LP)
> Herbert von Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, Deutsche Grammophon 289 415 099-2
> Leonard Bernstein, Vienna Philharmonic, Deutsche Grammophon DVD 440 073 409-05 (live film recording from October 1976) (*)
> James Levine, London Symphony Orchestra, RCA Red Seal RCD2-3213
> Herbert von Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, Saint Laurent Studio (live recording of 17 June 1977 performance)
> Herbert von Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, Fachmann FKM-CDR-193 (live recording of 27 August 1977 performance)
> Kirill Kondrashin, Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra, Melodiya CD 10 00811
> Václav Neumann, Czech Philharmonic, Supraphon 11 1977-2
> Claudio Abbado, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Deutsche Grammophon 289 423 928-2
> Milan Horvat, Philharmonica Slavonica, Line 4593003
> Kirill Kondrashin, SWR Sinfonieorchester Baden-Baden und Freiburg, Hänssler Classic 9842273 (live recording from January 1981)
> Lorin Maazel, Vienna Philharmonic, Sony Classical S14K 48198
> Klaus Tennstedt, London Philharmonic Orchestra, EMI Classics CDC7 47050-8
> Klaus Tennstedt, London Philharmonic Orchestra. LPO-0038 (live recording from the 1983 Proms)
> Erich Leinsdorf, Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra, Orfeo C 554 011 B (live recording of 10 June 1983 performance)
> Gary Bertini, Cologne Radio Symphony Orchestra, EMI Classics 94634 02382
> Giuseppe Sinopoli, Philharmonia Orchestra, Deutsche Grammophon 289 423 082-2
> Eliahu Inbal, Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra, 1986, Denon Blu-spec cd (COCO-73280-1)
> Leonard Bernstein, Vienna Philharmonic, Deutsche Grammophon 289 427 697-2 (*)
> Michiyoshi Inoue, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Pickwick/RPO CDRPO 9005
> Bernard Haitink, Berlin Philharmonic, Philips 289 426 257-2
> Riccardo Chailly, Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, Decca 444 871-2
> Hartmut Haenchen, Netherlands Philharmonic Orchestra, Capriccio 10 543
> Hiroshi Wakasugi, Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra, 1989, Fontec FOCD9022/3
> Leif Segerstam, Danish Radio Symphony Orchestra, Chandos CHAN 8956/7
> Christoph von Dohnányi, Cleveland Orchestra, Decca 289 466 345-2
> Klaus Tennstedt, London Philharmonic Orchestra, EMI Classics 7243 5 55294 28 (live recording from November 1991)
> Anton Nanut, Radio Symphony Orchestra Ljubljana, Zyx Classic CLS 4110
> Neeme Järvi, Royal Scottish National Orchestra, Chandos CHAN 9207
> Antoni Wit, Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra, Naxos 8.550529
> Seiji Ozawa, Boston Symphony Orchestra, Philips 289 434 909-2
> Yevgeny Svetlanov, State Symphony Orchestra of the Russian Federation, Warner Classics 2564 68886-2 (box set)
> Emil Tabakov, Sofia Philharmonic Orchestra, Capriccio C49043
> Edo de Waart, Radio Filharmonisch Orkest, RCA 27607
> Pierre Boulez, Vienna Philharmonic, Deutsche Grammophon 289 445 835-2
> Zubin Mehta, Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, Warner Apex 9106459
> Thomas Sanderling, Saint Petersburg Philharmonic Orchestra, RS Real Sound RS052-0186
> Yoel Levi, Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, Telarc CD 80444
> Michael Gielen, SWR Sinfonieorchester Baden-Baden und Freiburg, Hänssler Classics 93029
> Günther Herbig, Saarbrücken Radio Symphony Orchestra, Berlin Classics 0094612BC
> Michiyoshi Inoue, New Japan Philharmonic, 2000, Exton OVCL-00121
> Michael Tilson Thomas, San Francisco Symphony, SFS Media 40382001 (recorded September 2001)
> Bernard Haitink, Orchestre National de France, Naïve V4937
> Christoph Eschenbach, The Philadelphia Orchestra, Ondine ODE1084-5B
> Mark Wigglesworth, Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, MSO Live 391666
> Bernard Haitink, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, CSO Resound 210000045796
> Gabriel Feltz, Stuttgart Philharmonic, Dreyer Gaido 9595564
> Vladimir Fedoseyev, Tchaikovsky Symphony Orchestra of Moscow Radio, Relief 2735809
> Eiji Oue, Osaka Philharmonic Orchestra, Fontec FOCD9253/4
> Takashi Asahina, Osaka Philharmonic Orchestra, Green Door GDOP-2009
> Jonathan Nott, Bamberg Symphony Orchestra, Tudor 7191
> Esa-Pekka Salonen, Philharmonia Orchestra, Signum SIGCD275
> Hartmut Haenchen, Orchestre Symphonique du Théâtre de la Monnaie, ICA Classics DVD ICAD5018
> Antal Doráti, Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, Helicon 9699053 (live recording of 27 October 1963 performance)
> Lorin Maazel, Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, RCO Live RCO 12101 DVD
> Paavo Järvi, Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra, C-Major DVD 729404
> Jukka-Pekka Saraste, Oslo Philharmonic, Simax PSC1316 (*)
> Pierre Boulez, Lucerne Festival Academy Orchestra, Accentus Music ACC30230
> Antonio Pappano, Orchestra dell'Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia, EMI Classics (Warner Classics 5099908441324)
> Lorin Maazel, Philharmonia Orchestra, Signum SIGCD361
> Jaap van Zweden, Dallas Symphony Orchestra, DSO Live
> Libor Pešek, Ceski Narodni Symfonicky Orchestr, Out of the Frame OUT 068
> Václav Neumann, Czech Philharmonic, Exton OVCL-00259
> Zdeněk Mácal, Czech Philharmonic, Exton OVCL-00245
> Vladimir Ashkenazy, Czech Philharmonic, Exton OVCL-00051
> Eliahu Inbal, Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra, 2007, Fontec SACD (FOCD9369)
> Eliahu Inbal, Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra, 2013, Exton SACD (OVCL-00516 & OVXL-00090 "one point recording version")
> Gary Bertini, Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra, Fontec FOCD9182
> Georges Prêtre, Wiener Symphoniker, Weitblick SSS0079-2
> Giuseppe Sinopoli, Stuttgart Radio Symphony Orchestra, Weitblick SSS0108-2
> Rudolf Barshai, Yomiuri Nippon Symphony Orchestra, Tobu YNSO Archive Series YASCD1009-2
> Martin Sieghart, Arnhem Philharmonic Orchestra, Exton HGO 0403
> Heinz Bongartz, Leipzig Radio Symphony Orchestra, Weitblick SSS0053-2
> Teodor Currentzis, MusicAeterna, Sony Classical 19075822952
> Paavo Järvi, NHK Symphony Orchestra, Tokyo, RCA Victor Red Seal SICC 19040
> Michael Gielen, SWR Sinfonieorchester Baden-Baden und Freiburg, SWR Classic SWR19080CD (live concert performance from 1971)
> Michael Tilson Thomas, San Francisco Symphony, SFS Media (digital release, UPC 821936007723, live recording of September 2019)
> Tomas Netopil, Essen Philharmonic, Oehms Classics OC 1716
> Jahja Ling, San Diego Symphony, San Diego Symphony proprietary label, Jacobs Masterworks (recorded 2008)


As I have said, currently we have a dual-version tradition. Maybe your preferred plan will end up taking precedence. But it hasn't done so as of today.


----------



## HenryPenfold

I plan to focus exclusively on Petrenko BPO Mahler 6 to contrast my preference for S-A and better understand this symphony and the different perspectives on it. I have 7 recordings of A-S performances (see below) but I'm wondering whether fellow Mahler 6 enthusiasts would recommend a recording I don't have. 

Prompted by sbmonty's post #6800 on the current listening thread, I realise I also have Petrenko BPO and I've amended my list accordingly.

A quick look (I've certainly overlooked some, I'm sure I have more than 25 recordings of this symphony) at my shelves shows:

*S-A
Tennstedt x3
Sinopoli x2 (SWR & Philharmonia)
Szell Cleveland
Boulez
Currentzis
Karajan
Bernstein x2
Bertini
Solti Chicago Decca
Antoni Wit Naxos
Chailly Concertgebouw Decca
Kubelik Bavarian Radio SO DG
Pappano Orchestra dell'Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia
Gielen SWR

A-S
Valery Gergiev LSO live
Daniel Harding Bavarian Radio SO
Barbirolli x3 (Philharmonia & BPO)
Jansons LSO live
Rattle BPO
Rattle CBSO
Abbado Live BPO DG
Petrenko BPO*


----------



## Monsalvat

SanAntone said:


> This is not really true. There is primary evidence of Mahler's original compositional plan. The key plan makes more sense pacing the Scherzo second, as well as other internal musical logic. And then there is Alma Mahler's telegram stating that the Mahler's original plan was to be used.
> 
> You may wish to ignore this evidence, but it is false to claim there is none.
> 
> However, what you wish to occur is not what any of these conductors, a who's who of prominent conductors, have felt was necessary. Below is a list included in the Wikipedia article of recordings using the Scherzo-Andante plan.
> 
> As I have said, currently we have a dual-version tradition. Maybe your preferred plan will end up taking precedence. But it hasn't done so as of today.


I'm not a musicologist or expert, but while I acknowledge the _de facto_ reality that the performing tradition is split, the evidence simply isn't. The original plan Mahler had for the symphony was superseded by his decision to switch to Andante/Scherzo, which he felt so strongly about that he had his publisher include an erratum. I also reject the notion that Alma Mahler's word can be considered reliable here; when compared with Mahler's own clearly stated intentions, and considering how unreliable she could be about other matters, I think her telegram may represent her intentions but not his. It's fine to prefer one or the other, but there is fairly clear primary and secondary evidence that Mahler wanted it to be performed Andante/Scherzo. The best evidence for the Scherzo/Andante order comes from Ratz and Alma Mahler, neither of whom are reliable sources. I'm not getting into the musicological reasons for taking one order or the other, only the historical reasons.

Your long list of conductors is an indication that Ratz was able to pass his shoddy scholarship as the real thing for some decades, but it isn't indicative of the historical argument for the Andante/Scherzo order. Again, there may be structural reasons for taking the other order, but there aren't strong historical reasons for doing so. Tilson Thomas and Mehta have performed it _both_ ways. One conductor who isn't on that list is Barbirolli, who preferred Andante/Scherzo but was overridden by EMI for his studio recording.


----------



## Aries

EdwardBast said:


> There is no credible evidence to support Ratz's conclusions. None.
> 
> What I primarily object to isn't two performing traditions per se. It's the refusal to clearly acknowledge that one tradition is authorized by the composer and the other is not (that is: based on dubious theoretical arguments and whimsy). All I'm asking is that those who perform or record the Ratz acknowledge what they are doing by stating: This performance is of an edition created by Erwin Ratz in which the movements are in a different order than the one Mahler authorized and conducted instead of repeating the same old discredited BS and pretending it's valid.


The first edition of March 1906 authorized by Gustav Mahler published by Christian Friedrich Kahnt had the Scherzo in second and the Andante in third position.

In May 1806 Mahler ordered Kahnt to publish a second edition with changed order.

In 1919 conductor Willem Mengelberg asked Alma Mahler in which order the movements should be played and she said "First Scherzo then Andante". And Mengelberg became the first conductor to use this order.

Anton Webern also used the S-A order. Ratz was a pupil of Webern and published a critical edition in 1963 with S-A order. But Ratz is not the origin of the S-A order. It goes back to Gustav and Alma Mahler.

Also I think that the authenticy mindset of today was unfamiliar back in the days of Mahler. Gustav Mahler himself prepared and performed an version of Bruckners 4th symphony that was not authorized by Bruckner at all: 



 Alma Mahler also had no scruples to overturn Gustavs final decision regarding the movement order. The mindset of the time was more pragmatically: Play what sounds best and what fits the circumstances. And in this case Gustav Mahler was insecure.

Todays mindset of total historical authenticity is quite unhistorical.


----------



## Becca

As my 'Enough already' appeal seems to have been blithely ignored, I will offer the following items...

- When Mahler signed a contract with Universal Edition in 1910 to publish all his symphonies, he did not make a change to the A/S order.
- In 1910, while Mahler was still alive, Universal Edition published Zemlinsky's four-hand piano score with the A/S order.
- In her memoirs, _Mein Leben mit Mahler_, which was initially published in 1940, Alma Mahler states that the scherzo is the 3rd movement.
- In a 1962 letter from Berthold Goldschmidt to Erwin Ratz (!!), Goldschmidt wrote: _"In a letter written a few weeks ago and presented to me for consideration, Bruno Walter says that Mahler never in his presence referred to any other movement order than the [A-S] one above, and that he [Walter] could never approve a reordering."_
- Despite Mengelberg having queried Alma Mahler abut the movement order in 1919, he had already performed the symphony in the A/S order (1916).

As to the 'performing tradition' of S/A, it is worth noting that none of the conductors listed as using that format were prior to 1960 which is not surprising as there was no such tradition before the Ratz edition. If you look at known performances prior to then, including by conductors who knew Mahler, almost all used the A/S ordering...
Oskar Fried, Alexander Zemlinsky, F. Charles Adler, Eduard Flipse, Eduard van Beinum, Dimitri Mitropoulos, Hermann Scherchen

One last item from Jerry Buck's lengthy article about the issue is very telling "_Jascha Horenstein told me that he distrusted Ratz's work . . . having known Ratz for many years Horenstein had some suspicion that Ratz manipulated facts to suit his theories, and that he was not the most trustworthy of editors._" (Private correspondence from Joel Lazar, August 22, 2003)


----------



## Becca

One (very) last item... In a letter to Ratz, Alma Mahler said "The way Mahler played the Sixth in Amsterdam is definitely the right order!"...
- Mahler never played the 6th in Amsterdam
- He only ever performed it in the A/S order.


----------



## WildThing

Monsalvat said:


> I'm not a musicologist or expert, but while I acknowledge the _de facto_ reality that the performing tradition is split, the evidence simply isn't. The original plan Mahler had for the symphony was superseded by his decision to switch to Andante/Scherzo, which he felt so strongly about that he had his publisher include an erratum. I also reject the notion that Alma Mahler's word can be considered reliable here; when compared with Mahler's own clearly stated intentions, and considering how unreliable she could be about other matters, I think her telegram may represent her intentions but not his. It's fine to prefer one or the other, but there is fairly clear primary and secondary evidence that Mahler wanted it to be performed Andante/Scherzo.


Or she simply didn't know/ remember. As an earlier poster already quoted from Jerry Bruck --

"Paradoxically, in Alma's account of her life with Mahler which she began writing a year or so after sending the telegram, she identified the Scherzo as the third movement of the Sixth. Despite the opportunity presented by her attendance at performances of the Sixth for half a century thereafter, Alma seems never to have chided a conductor for performing the Sixth "A-S." Which leaves us to wonder: Which Alma are we to trust?"


----------



## SanAntone

Monsalvat said:


> I'm not a musicologist or expert, but while I acknowledge the _de facto_ reality that the performing tradition is split, the evidence simply isn't. The original plan Mahler had for the symphony was superseded by his decision to switch to Andante/Scherzo, which he felt so strongly about that he had his publisher include an erratum. I also reject the notion that Alma Mahler's word can be considered reliable here; when compared with Mahler's own clearly stated intentions, and considering how unreliable she could be about other matters, I think her telegram may represent her intentions but not his. It's fine to prefer one or the other, but there is fairly clear primary and secondary evidence that Mahler wanted it to be performed Andante/Scherzo. The best evidence for the Scherzo/Andante order comes from Ratz and Alma Mahler, neither of whom are reliable sources. I'm not getting into the musicological reasons for taking one order or the other, only the historical reasons.
> 
> Your long list of conductors is an indication that Ratz was able to pass his shoddy scholarship as the real thing for some decades, but it isn't indicative of the historical argument for the Andante/Scherzo order. Again, there may be structural reasons for taking the other order, but there aren't strong historical reasons for doing so. Tilson Thomas and Mehta have performed it _both_ ways. One conductor who isn't on that list is Barbirolli, who preferred Andante/Scherzo but was overridden by EMI for his studio recording.


It is not convincing to simply throw out the statement from Alma Mahler, but I understand the reluctance to consider her statement since it would undercut the claim that Mahler never admitted to any doubts about his revised plan. I am of the opinion that a composer's first inspirations are usually the best, especially if he maintained them for more than two years and published them. It seems to me that Mahler was indecisive about the tempo of the Scherzo and somewhat impulsively swapped the inner movement to avoid the problem entirely.

He may also have gotten cold feet about departing from the standard symphonic plan of having the scherzo usually the third movement. We only have some anecdotal testimony of why he switched them. But I do acknowledge that he did feel strongly enough to publish a revised score and issue errata to the original ones in circulation. But I also do not exclude from possibility that Mahler might have thought about this work still further and expressed his doubts to Alma. Composers often continue thinking about and revising a work, still searching for solutions to perceived problems.

As to your "historical" argument as well as your disparagement of the Ratz edition, the fact that so many conductors chose to leave a recorded performance of the original version seems to prove to me that they found the historical argument inadequate to override the compelling musical logic and plan of Mahler's original conception of the work. This makes more sense to me than they were such dimwitted musicians that they accepted without question an edition that had questionable historical aspects.


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> ....It seems to me that Mahler was indecisive about the tempo of the Scherzo and somewhat impulsively swapped the inner movement to avoid the problem entirely. ...[-----]....
> .....As to your "historical" argument as well as your disparagement of the Ratz edition, the fact that so many conductors chose to leave a recorded performance of the original version seems to prove to me that they found the historical argument inadequate to override the compelling musical logic and plan of Mahler's original conception of the work. This makes more sense to me than they were such dimwitted musicians that they accepted without question an edition that had questionable historical aspects.


You make some very good points....


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> We also know why some people can't give up their preference for S-A: because they got used to it from early exposure and can't or are unwilling to hear it the way Mahler intended.


I know why SanAntone loves S-A; because of the initials of his username.


----------



## Waehnen

A minor observation:

In symphonies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 there is always either a scherzo or ländler or some other dance as the second movement — and never a slow movement as the second. The slow movements are placed on later slots or occasionally as the starting movement, but never the second, and you cannot really say that of the 8th either.

Considering that Mahler originally conceived the 6th Symphony in a similar way to his other symphonies and even had the score printed that way, it can be argued that this arrangement and strong mahlerian structural tendency manifests itself even in the material. Especially in the close thematic relationship between the 1st Movement and the 2nd (Scherzo).

I find it peculiar that given all the facts stated above, some people are outraged that it can perceived as musically much more convincing to keep the scherzo as the second movement, and it can also be perceived as the true Mahlerian solution (scherzo/dance comes always the 2nd).

For me this is not a ”How dare you think that way?” -issue but an ”Ain’t it obvious why I think this way? Why cannot you accept my position like I appreciate yours?” -issue.


----------



## Knorf

HenryPenfold said:


> Rightly or wrongly, despite Mahler's wishes, a performance tradition developed around S-A.


An important point needs to be emphasized here: the comment above was _not_ true until after Ratz and his shoddy scholarship and Alma's total unreliability mislead people into believing the Scherzo-Andante order was authoritative.

Again, I spent a solid decade and a half committed to the Scherzo-Andante order, as Bernstein recorded it with the NYPO, which was my first exposure to it and to which I listened obsessively.

But I am capable of recognizing an error and have successfully adjusted my understanding of the symphony. Mahler's authoritative decision was Andante-Scherzo, from the premiere forward. Anything else is not from Mahler. The end.


----------



## Becca

Waehnen said:


> A minor observation:
> 
> In symphonies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 there is always either a scherzo or ländler or some other dance as the second movement - and never a slow movement as the second. The slow movements are placed on later slots or occasionally as the starting movement, but never the second, and you cannot really say that of the 8th either.


- In the 5th, the 2nd movement is marked as "Stürmisch bewegt. Mit größter Vehemenz", hardly a scherzo/ländler
- The 2nd movement of the 7th is "Nachtmusik" ... see above.
- 2, 3, 5 & 7 are all 5+ movement symphonies so the structure is not comparable.


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> - In the 5th, the 2nd movement is marked as "Stürmisch bewegt. Mit größter Vehemenz", hardly a scherzo/ländler
> - The 2nd movement of the 7th is "Nachtmusik" ... see above.
> - 2, 3, 5 & 7 are all 5+ movement symphonies so the structure is not comparable.


Should you refuse to recognize my point, I cannot help you further. The 2nd movement of the 5th is not ländler/scherzo but it is fast and there are dance-like elements there, too. Just like the 7th II.


----------



## Becca

I do not recollect asking to be helped.


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> I do not recollect asking to be helped.


I am referring to normal ways of conversation to provide the means (and help) for different arguments to get understood better. Acknowleding there is some point in the other person's output is often considered constructive.


----------



## Forster

HenryPenfold said:


> Rightly or wrongly, despite Mahler's wishes, a performance tradition developed around S-A.


Mistakenly, if the weight of _historical _evidence presented so far is to be accepted.

The problem, it seems to me, with the _musical _evidence is that it largely depends on the subjective, especially the idea that the audience's battering and exhaustion is better in one place rather than another.

I find Mahler's Symphony No 6 exhausting after every movement, never mind after two or three or four. Where any respite is alleged to come when the listener is also wrung out by the andante is immaterial.

ADD

I found this account of the sequence of events. Anything wrong with it? It seems important to me that what Alma told Mengelberg was not in a conversation or discussion, but a four word telegram.



> In October 1919, [Willem] Mengelberg prepared the Sixth Symphony for another performance, prior to planning a Mahler Festival in Amsterdam in 1920, and asked his nephew, the musicologist Kurt Mengelberg, to provide a programme-note. Kurt obtained a copy of the score of the Sixth, but it was of the first edition, with the _erratum_ slip missing. He therefore asked Willem as to the correct middle-movement order, at which point the conductor telegraphed Alma. Her four-word reply, "first Scherzo, then Andante", without explanation, was taken by Willem as justification to change the composer's explicit instructions to Scherzo-Andante, in which order the Symphony was performed, incorrectly, in 1919, over thirteen years (and nine performances) since the work was first heard.


https://www.classicalsource.com/art...-symphony-andante-scherzo-or-scherzo-andante/


----------



## Aries

Waehnen said:


> A minor observation:
> 
> In symphonies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 there is always either a scherzo or ländler or some other dance as the second movement - and never a slow movement as the second.


As far as I know the 2nd movement of the 5th is the "main movement", and the first movement is a movement before the "main movement". Overall every Mahler symphony is individual, so I don't really see a pattern.



Waehnen said:


> Considering that Mahler originally conceived the 6th Symphony in a similar way to his other symphonies and even had the score printed that way, it can be argued that this arrangement and strong mahlerian structural tendency manifests itself even in the material. Especially in the close thematic relationship between the 1st Movement and the 2nd (Scherzo).


Is it possible that Mahler did a mistake?

There was a composing process and than a last minute change. I do not trust such last minute changes. They often raise more problems than they solve in my experience (with other things than music).



Knorf said:


> An important point needs to be emphasized here: the comment above was _not_ true until after Ratz and his shoddy scholarship and Alma's total unreliability mislead people into believing the Scherzo-Andante order was authoritative.


Ratz had the idea of the scherzo in second position apparently from his teacher Webern. Overall there are not too much recordings before 1963 (maybe a dozen) but there is at least one recording with conductor Hans Rosbaud from 1961 with Scherzo in 2nd position. Webern, Mengelberg played it also with S/A order. So I don't know if you can call it a tradition, but the idea of the S/A order was there before Ratz, who made it dominanting.

Imo a pure historical justification of a movement order and a pure musical justification of a movement order are both not convincing. Both needs to be considered.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Aries said:


> Imo a pure historical justification of a movement order and a pure musical justification of a movement order are both not convincing. Both needs to be considered.


In my opinion, it doesn't matter one way or another because what we have is two ways of performing one marvellous symphony.

I'm pleased to sit back and be the passive recipient of whatever Maestri Rattle, Pappano, Tilson Thomas, Gergiev, Currentzis and Petrenko serve up!

Edit: And they are mostly recent recordings.


----------



## Kreisler jr

The strange thing for me is why Mengelberg was so confused and so easily swayed by a brief remark from Alma. He could have written to the publisher. The whole thing is strange and I also tend to the idea that many people (not only Ratz much later) preferred S-A and looked for rationalizations.

As for the other symphonies, one rather obvious effect of S-A is too shift the weight towards the second half of the symphony. The other consideration is the contrasts between the movements. Paul Bekker seriously suggested in his book on Beethoven (or elsewhere) to swap the inner movements of the Eroica because 3+4 together are barely as long as the first movement or the funeral march. But this was more or less the normal case in earlier classical symphonies (not quite, the Eroica is an extreme case). In later large scale pieces like Beethoven's op.106 or Bruckner's 8th we roughly have 1/3 for first mvmt and scherzo, 1/3 adagio, 1/3 finale
But this doesn't really fit with Mahler's 1-5. Mahler avoided large scale slow movements in the first two (the grotesque 3rd mvmt. in 1 is neither very slow nor very large scale, Urlicht is tiny compared to the rest of the 2nd) and put it at the very end in the 3rd. The 4th has a moderate/slowish first movement and a very short/light finale, so it would not make sense to have the adagio earlier (it's also the most serious movement among the more grotesque/silly ones). 
In any case, I don't think that this helps much as all the pieces are so different in their overall arch. One could argue that in some ways the 6th has the most conventional form, but both options for the inner movements had been well established since Beethoven's 9th (e.g. Schumann's 2nd, Brahms' 2nd PC, Bruckner's 8th and 9th). 

If there had not been plausible structural reasons for scherzo-andante it would not have been Mahler's plan until the first rehearsals. He obviously also had good reasons to change it, maybe because what seemed good on paper, the scherzo as a "variation" in the same key and somewhat similar motives and mood as the first movement was not sufficient contrast in actual sound. I am largely deaf to such things but I wonder if Mahler had put the scherzo in c minor if the original plan had been A-S as the c minor beginning of the finale fits better with the E flat major of the andante as someone pointed out further above whereas we now have a minor "clashing" twice with E flat and then with c minor.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Forster said:


> Mistakenly, if the weight of _historical _evidence presented so far is to be accepted.


I use 'rightly or wrongly' figuratively, as I would 'mistakenly or not', to me they mean the same in relation to what we are discussing. If it's a mistake, it's a happy mistake, and one I endorse!



> The problem, it seems to me, with the _musical _evidence is that it largely depends on the subjective, especially the idea that the audience's battering and exhaustion is better in one place rather than another.


It's _all_ very subjective as far as I can see. Objective facts beyond S-A was the first decision and he changed his mind and settled on A-S. We don't even have much of an idea for his reasoning for the reversal of the order of the movements.



> I find Mahler's Symphony No 6 exhausting after every movement, never mind after two or three or four. Where any respite is alleged to come when the listener is also wrung out by the andante is immaterial.


We all listen to music and experience it differently, or at least in our own way.



> ADD
> 
> I found this account of the sequence of events. Anything wrong with it? It seems important to me that what Alma told Mengelberg was not in a conversation or discussion, but a four word telegram.
> 
> https://www.classicalsource.com/art...-symphony-andante-scherzo-or-scherzo-andante/


I will confess to knowing very little concerning Alma Mahler in all this, but I have read that article a few times now. I honestly don't know what to think of it all.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Kreisler jr said:


> The strange thing for me is why Mengelberg was so confused and so easily swayed by a brief remark from Alma. He could have written to the publisher. The whole thing is strange and I also tend to the idea that many people (not only Ratz much later) preferred S-A and looked for rationalizations.


Maybe she was pushing on an open door.........


----------



## HenryPenfold

Bill Cooke said:


> I always preferred S-A, because the drama of the final movement is so intense, it needs the relative calm of the andante to precede it. When listening the andante I feel as if Mahler is saying goodbye to his love before facing the triumphs and terrors of the final struggle and defeat.





Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have four prime recommendations:
> 
> Sir John Barbirolli (EMI)
> Eduard van Beinum (Tahra)
> Leonard Bernstein (DG)
> Jascha Horenstein (1969) (BBC)
> 
> And then for additional listening:
> 
> Sir John Barbirolli (Testament)
> Dmitri Mitropoulos (1955) (Archipel, NYPO)
> Hermann Scherchen (1961) (Tahra)
> Leonard Bernstein (Sony)
> Herbert von Karajan (DG)
> Thomas Sanderling (Real Sound)
> 
> Some say the studio Barbirolli is too slow in the beginning movement. To me it is one of the most powerful symphony recordings of which I know, one of the great Mahler recordings of all time alongside the Ferrier/Walter DLVDE, Walter 1939 1st, Horenstein 8th, and Barbirolli’s live 1960 9th.





Merl said:


> I prefer Andante - Scherzo but I'm still OK with it the other way round sometimes. If I'm playing it on cd I'll often program it in A - S (and same in the car as I often reorder the track numbers). If not I'm not unduly bothered.


----------



## staxomega

Michael Tilson Thomas has recently re-recorded this. I haven't heard the newer recording but the timings of the Scherzo and Andante are a _hair_ brisker than the earlier cycle's recordings. In this newer performance he also maintains Scherzo Andante order. 

My favorites are the old dogs T. Sanderling, Barbirolli EMI, Bernstein/VPO but there is something to be said about MTT's earlier recording in terms of balance in the light and dark that works very well. Also revisited Solti to see if I changed my mind on it as the recording quality remains great to this day; still comes across as a brash one dimensional interpretation missing all nuance and there is a _lot_ of nuance in this symphony.


----------



## starthrower

Has anyone else listened to the Vanska / Minnesota recording on BIS? It's one of the longest 6ths at 86:48. The inner movement order is Andante - Scherzo for those who are concerned about that aspect. I always feel a bit let down when things start of with a rather sluggish intro but soon after I forgot about that and just got into the performance which is beautifully recorded, finely detailed, and rhythmically dynamic although some may find the finale a bit lacking in force and urgency. I'm listening to a library copy of the standard CD layer as I don't have a SACD player.


----------



## golfer72

One disc?


----------



## starthrower

golfer72 said:


> One disc?


Yes, it's a single disc.


----------



## golfer72

starthrower said:


> Yes, it's a single disc.


Interesting. When CD's first came out they had a 74 minute limit. i heard they took that number so Beethovens 9th would fit on one disc. Over the years the number crept up. I have one or two around 80 minutes. Didnt realize the numbers had gotten even higher


----------



## mbhaub

golfer72 said:


> Interesting. When CD's first came out they had a 74 minute limit. i heard they took that number so Beethovens 9th would fit on one disc. Over the years the number crept up. I have one or two around 80 minutes. Didnt realize the numbers had gotten even higher


The recent set of Schmidt symphonies on DG put the 3rd and 4th on one 85 minute disk. Plays with no problem on most CD players, but I do have a 20 year old Denon (hard to believe it still works) that cannot.


----------



## Montarsolo

golfer72 said:


> Interesting. When CD's first came out they had a 74 minute limit. i heard they took that number so Beethovens 9th would fit on one disc. Over the years the number crept up. I have one or two around 80 minutes. Didnt realize the numbers had gotten even higher


I can still remember Gergiev's Nutcracker breaking a record: 80 minutes.


----------



## mbhaub

Montarsolo said:


> I can still remember Gergiev's Nutcracker breaking a record: 80 minutes.


Yes, but,,,there were other reasons it fit on one disk: brisk tempos (that are too fast for dancers) and elimination of many repeats.


----------

