# Mahler 6: Scherzo-Andante or Andante-Scherzo?



## Waehnen

Please vote which order of the middle movements of Mahler’s 6th Symphony do you think is musically better, more convincing and more suitable for your ears, heart and mind?

Scherzo-Andante (the original order)
Andante-Scherzo (the ”final” order)

Please note that this is not a musicological poll on what the order should be, but the focus is on musical insight on the matter.


----------



## HenryPenfold

As I've said elsewhere, I think Mahler was wrong to reverse the order of the inner movements and to excise the final hammer blow. 

With S-A there is a continuation of the dynamic thrust and thematic flow of the material, making for an exhilarating half-hour or so of some of the darkest and most intense nerve-draining music ever written, and there's more than three quarters of an hour to go! 

The andante then provides much needed emotional relief from the onslaught, and crucially, it provides the calming composure required before the vast finale of the most emotionally exhausting and concentrated music that I know.

The foregoing is, in my opinion, lost with A-S and causes the symphony to be thematically and emotionally disjointed. When I hear the start of the scherzo in A-S, I can't help feeling that Mahler's going backwards to pick up from where he left off, as if there's something that he hadn't quite finished.


----------



## Waehnen

HenryPenfold said:


> As I've said elsewhere, I think Mahler was wrong to reverse the order of the inner movements and to excise the final hammer blow.
> 
> With S-A there is continuation of the dynamic thrust and thematic flow of the material, making for an exhilarating half-hour or so of some of the most intense and powerful music ever written, and there's more than three quarters of an hour to go! The andante then provides much needed emotional relief from the onslaught, and crucially, it provides the calming composure required before the vast finale of the most exhausting and concentrated music that I know.
> 
> The foregoing is, in my opinion lost with A-S and causes the symphony to be thematically and emotionally disjointed. When I hear the start of the scherzo in A-S, I can't help feeling that Mahler's going backwards to pick up from where he left off, as if there's something that he hadn't quite finished.


You are expressing also my thoughts on the matter exactly.

When listening to A-S I cannot prevent the thought: "Hey, there is a true error here, let´s fix it, let´s turn these two the other way around -- yeah, much better, no question about it! Isn´t this what Mahler originally planned? I think so, yeah! So where is the problem? I'll stick to this. Mahler wouldn´t mind. Better symphony this way."


----------



## CnC Bartok

I voted Scherzo-Andante, because it works better for me, in terms of impact and of balance.

But it doesn't matter, sorry.


----------



## RobertJTh

Waehnen said:


> Please note that this is not a musicological poll on what the order should be, but the focus is on musical insight on the matter.


Here's why I think that A-S is much more convincing in a purely musical sense:

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.
Playing the symphony in the S-A order makes the work fall apart in 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 parts. 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.


----------



## Waehnen

RobertJTh said:


> Here's why I think that A-S is much more convincing in a purely musical sense:
> 
> 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.
> Playing the symphony in the S-A order makes the work fall apart in 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 parts. 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.


Just wondering do you find the tight relationship between the 1st and 2nd Movement of the 5th Symphony a problem? Is there something more problematic (in scherzo coming second) in the 6th?


----------



## SanAntone

The history of the composition of the work was that in the summer of 1903 he composed the I. Allegro and the II. Scherzo, then in the summer of 1904 he came back and composed the III. Andante and the IV. Finale. For me, I find the pacing and musical plan of the work is best reflected with the Scherzo as the second movement. And then the Andante represents a departure in both tone, tempo, key, and thematic material (although there are fleeting echos of the music which came before) - leading to the Finale which returns to the earlier two movements.

However, both arrangements make sense.

Which is why, since the choice of "either/both" is missing from the poll, I will not vote.


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> ....Better symphony this way."


I think so, too...


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Andante before Scherzo. The Master knew."


----------



## RobertJTh

Waehnen said:


> Just wondering do you find the tight relationship between the 1st and 2nd Movement of the 5th Symphony a problem? Is there something more problematic (in scherzo coming second) in the 6th?


1. No, because in the 5th there's more than sufficient contrast in tempo and mood. There's also a key change, from C# minor to A minor. That's all missing in the 6th if the scherzo follows the first movement.

2. I've heard recordings with the S-A order where the conductor choses to play the scherzo in the _exact_ same tempo as the first movement. Quarter note from movement 1 becomes dotted quarter in the scherzo. That's catastrophal. I first heard the symphony in Tennstedt's EMI recording - great, but every time the scherzo started, I was like "Oh boy, there we go again!"

This is really a problem, and I don't know why people don't get this. Mahler surely got it, since he solved the so problem elegantly by switching the inner movements. In his Wunderhorn days, he would probably have composed a new movement to seperate the first movement from the scherzo, creating a 5-movement symphony, but I feel that in the 6th, his goal was creating a formally "classical" symphony, filled with romantic-modernist content. And of course that goal was achieved perfectly with the A-S order, since classical symphonies mostly have the slow movement before the scherzo.


----------



## RobertJTh

SanAntone said:


> The history of the composition of the work was that in the summer of 1903 he composed the I. Allegro and the II. Scherzo, then in the summer of 1904 he came back and composed the III. Andante and the IV. Finale. For me, I find the pacing and musical plan of the work is best reflected with the Scherzo as the second movement.


If compositional history and musical planning is an argument pro S-A, we better start performing the 7th with the two Nachtmusiken in front, since those were composed before the outer movements and the scherzo...


----------



## Waehnen

RobertJTh said:


> 1. No, because in the 5th there's more than sufficient contrast in tempo and mood. There's also a key change, from C# minor to A minor. That's all missing in the 6th if the scherzo follows the first movement.
> 
> 2. I've heard recordings with the S-A order where the conductor choses to play the scherzo in the _exact_ same tempo as the first movement. Quarter note from movement 1 becomes dotted quarter in the scherzo. That's catastrophal. I first heard the symphony in Tennstedt's EMI recording - great, but every time the scherzo started, I was like "Oh boy, there we go again!"
> 
> This is really a problem, and I don't know why people don't get this. Mahler surely got it, since he solved the so problem elegantly by switching the inner movements. In his Wunderhorn days, he would probably have composed a new movement to seperate the first movement from the scherzo, creating a 5-movement symphony, but I feel that in the 6th, his goal was creating a formally "classical" symphony, filled with romantic-modernist content. And of course that goal was achieved perfectly with the A-S order, since classical symphonies mostly have the slow movement before the scherzo.


Thanks. I need to admit the same key has annoyed me, yet it is obvious to me Mahler composed the movement like that anyway and everything in the movement indicates similar relationship as that between the first two movements of the fifth.

So it annoys me way more that the obvious 2nd movement is placed 3rd. It brings forward "a problem with a tried solution" in the music and it takes me away from the magic. I would rather stay in the illusion and enjoy the ways good conductors deal with the challenge of the first two movements reminding each other.

(At the beginning of my Mahler journey I was annoyed even by the similarities of the first to movements of the fifth. For that initial evaluation the blame and shame is on me. I was wrong to put the blame on the composition when certain performances failed to convince there was some point to what was happening in the music.)

Like I have said before, the 6th Symphony is wonderful if the conductor allows time and focus on the contrasting elements in the music and lets a nyanced world to evolve - instead of just letting the Star Wars armies march through the music. Not a single imaginable order of the movements saves the symphony if one just marches.


----------



## EdwardBast

The reason S-A doesn't work is that it's incoherent from a narrative-structural perspective. To follow the dramatic assertion of the second theme at the end of the first movement with more pounding based on the principal theme at the beginning of the scherzo negates the dramatic arc of the first movement. It renders its fundamental opposition meaningless. The Adagio following this assertion, by contrast, makes perfect sense; It's a respite won by the concluding action of the first movement.


----------



## Waehnen

EdwardBast said:


> The reason S-A doesn't work is that it's incoherent from a narrative-structural perspective. To follow the dramatic assertion of the second theme at the end of the first movement with more pounding based on the principal theme at the beginning of the scherzo negates the dramatic arc of the first movement. It renders its fundamental opposition meaningless. The Adagio following this assertion, by contrast, makes perfect sense; It's a respite won by the concluding action of the first movement.


In my experience the symphony is a constant battle against outer turmoil and a search for the inner peace and happiness, and relentlessly trying to make the outer world balance with the inner world. When the scherzo starts after the first movement, I do not experience a collapse any greater than the ones in the finale with the famous hammerblows. The scherzo has contrasts in itself as well. Like every movement in this symphony.


----------



## HenryPenfold

EdwardBast said:


> The reason S-A doesn't work is that it's incoherent from a narrative-structural perspective. To follow the dramatic assertion of the second theme at the end of the first movement with more pounding based on the principal theme at the beginning of the scherzo negates the dramatic arc of the first movement. It renders its fundamental opposition meaningless. The Adagio following this assertion, by contrast, makes perfect sense; It's a respite won by the concluding action of the first movement.


An interesting opinion that you present as if it were a fact.


----------



## Forster

Waehnen said:


> Please vote which order of the middle movements of Mahler's 6th Symphony do you think is musically better, more convincing and more suitable for your ears, heart and mind?
> 
> Scherzo-Andante (the original order)
> Andante-Scherzo (the "final" order)
> 
> Please note that this is not a musicological poll on what the order should be, but the focus is on musical insight on the matter.


I'm all for the one that best represents the intentions of the composer.


----------



## Enthusiast

I feel that both options are problematic but some conductors have made one or other of them work. I always play the work in the order the conductor chose.


----------



## Kreisler jr

One could just leave out the Scherzo. It seems rather superfluous anyway. If on #2 it's redundant because too similar to the first movement and what's the point of a movement at all between the Andante and the huge finale...?


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> One could just leave out the Scherzo. It seems rather superfluous anyway. If on #2 it's redundant because too similar to the first movement and what's the point of a movement at all between the Andante and the huge finale...?


Oh noes, this sounds too much like my embarrrassing Mahler playlists (which I hope dear ArtRock would delete to the oblivion)! To which you so very righteously objected!


----------



## Kreisler jr

I was not entirely serious but basically drew a consequence from the respective arguments AGAINST scherzo on position 2 vs. position 3.


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> I was not entirely serious but basically drew a consequence from the respective arguments AGAINST scherzo on position 2 vs. position 3.


But seriosly, you suggested before that the Scherzo as second movement could be in C-minor. I think that was a genius suggestion. I also believe your analysis that the music just SOUNDED too similar to the first movement at the famous Mahler rehearsal. C-minor and maybe some other rhythmic twist in the beginning of the movement and we wouldn´t have this issue at all.


----------



## Kreisler jr

No, I thought the scherzo on 3 might have been transposed to c minor! 
Admittedly, I don't hear these things, but apparently a minor - E flat major is "clashing". If this had any significance within the piece, Mahler originally planned exactly *one* such clash, namely between scherzo on 2 and andante on 3. He began the finale in c minor which is parallel key (or whatever you say in English) to E flat major to have no clash between 3 and 4. (I think SanAntone wrote about the key relationships in the other thread and it is in the wikipedia article with several prominent friends of S-A (la Grange, Adorno,...) also making similar points along such lines.)
Now with the re-shuffling we have two hard (a minor vs. Eflat major) and one minor (a vs. c minor) clash, so if there was any "point" about ONE central tonality clash in the middle in the original conception, this must certainly be gone now.

A transposed c minor scherzo would again give only one clash (between 1 and 2) and otherwise smoother tonality relations.


----------



## Waehnen

A minor first movement
C Minor Scherzo
Eb Major Andante
C Minor progressing to A minor Finale

I would love that with all it’s clashes and relationships of minor thirds. Diminished triad going from a to c and eb and then back down to a.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Yes, this looks good but it would remove the distant relationship a minor vs. E flat major altogether. 
Whereas c minor scherzo on 3 would preserve the tonality relations of the S-A version


----------



## RobertJTh

Kreisler jr said:


> A transposed c minor scherzo would again give only one clash (between 1 and 2) and otherwise smoother tonality relations.


Let's just transpose the Andante to E major, smooth sailing ahoy


----------



## EdwardBast

Waehnen said:


> Thanks. I need to admit the same key has annoyed me, yet it is obvious to me Mahler composed the movement like that anyway and everything in the movement indicates similar relationship as that between the first two movements of the fifth.
> 
> *So it annoys me way more that the obvious 2nd movement is placed 3rd.* It brings forward "a problem with a tried solution" in the music and it takes me away from the magic. I would rather stay in the illusion and enjoy the ways good conductors deal with the challenge of the first two movements reminding each other.


I can't understand why you think the similarity of key and theme between the first and second movements is an argument for why they should be together. That strikes me as weird and counterintuitive, the exact opposite of the obvious default position! Of course you don't put the similar blocks together, you order them so they're separated by a contrasting element. That's why ternary form isn't AAB. That's why sonata form isn't exposition, recapitulation, development. That's why a five part rondo isn't AAABC. As I see it, you're arguing against and contradicted by the most fundamental and universal principle of overall structure in classical music.


----------



## Waehnen

EdwardBast said:


> I can't understand why you think the similarity of key and theme between the first and second movements is an argument for why they should be together. That strikes me as weird and counterintuitive, the exact opposite of the obvious default position! Of course you don't put the similar blocks together, you order them so they're separated by a contrasting element. That's why ternary form isn't AAB. That's why sonata form isn't exposition, recapitulation, development. That's why a five part rondo isn't AAABC. As I see it, you're arguing against and contradicted by the most fundamental and universal principle of overall structure in classical music.


It is a common and logical way of composing to place the movement which concists of variations on the themes of another movement, right after the movement on whose themes it forms variations.

Rather:
Theme1 - Variation1 - Theme2 -Variation2

Than:
Theme1 - Theme2 - Variation1 - Variation2


----------



## Barbebleu

The beauty of modern technology is that one can play the movements in any order one’s little heart desires. Personally I tend to listen to most symphonies on shuffle. It’s really most enervating!:tiphat:


----------



## EdwardBast

Waehnen said:


> It is a common and logical way of composing to place the movement which concists of variations on the themes of another movement, right after the movement on whose themes it forms variations.
> 
> Rather:
> Theme1 - Variation1 - Theme2 -Variation2
> 
> Than:
> Theme1 - Theme2 - Variation1 - Variation2


Theme and variations has nothing to do with the process here. This is cyclic thematic transformation, a very different phenomenon.

Another obvious example to add to my last post as an example of the general principle: In concertos and sonatas in three movements, the outer movements in the same key and fast tempo are almost invariably separated by a slow movement in a different key.


----------



## Waehnen

EdwardBast said:


> Theme and variations has nothing to do with the process here. This is cyclic thematic transformation, a very different phenomenon.
> 
> Another obvious example to add to my last post as an example of the general principle: In concertos and sonatas in three movements, the outer movements in the same key and fast tempo are almost invariably separated by a slow movement in a different key.


Of course the relationship of movements I and II in both symphonies 5 and 6 is similar to a plan of a "theme and a development/variation of the theme". I would call them Elaboration/commenting movements tied to the side of their first movements. The relationship of the movements is extremely tight and they should stick together because they were planned to be stuck together. Both 2nd Movements say from the very first bars: "So here we go again. We continue just where we were left off. Let me say something more on the first movement and take you further."

It is not as wise to put "let me emphatically say something more on the first movement" -movement as the 3rd Movement.

I would have maybe changed the key of the scherzo to Cminor and tweaked the starting marching rhythm a bit but I am no Mahler, don't blame me. We have preludes and fugues and partitas and French Suites and classical symphonies and the like where the key stays the same or mostly stays the same from movement to movement. So I do not see a strong musical tradition objectively pointing to the M6 Scherzo needing to be seperated from it's mother movement.


----------



## MarkW

A) I like S-A because that's how I learned the symphony and because the opening of the finale is all the more devastating after the andante.

B) That said,I have always found the scherzo to be a less satisfactory movement in whatever position. I just don't like it . . . but that's nothing new with Mahler.


----------



## Waehnen

Just listened to the A Minor scherzo. It is a wonderful movement and I am of the opinion that Mahler deliberatedly used the same key as in the first movement to emphasize ”the a-minor drama” of the symphony. So it is actually a rather genius way of anticipating the collapsing a-minor of the Finale.

Don’t we all experience some anxiety when the a-minor starts again straight after the 1st Movement? Mahler was so bold in this expressive solution that started to even doubt himself at the rehearsal.

A composer of this status is able to choose the key he wants to use!


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> I can't understand why you think the similarity of key and theme between the first and second movements is an argument for why they should be together. That strikes me as weird and counterintuitive, the exact opposite of the obvious default position!


Except that is exactly how Mahler composed the two movements - and what countless conductors have also thought made the most musical sense. Changing the order was an after thought, not based on the key, but the tempo.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> Except that is exactly how Mahler composed the two movements - and what countless conductors have also thought made the most musical sense. Changing the order was an after thought, not based on the key, but the tempo.


We can't be sure that "countless conductors" didn't just play it the way they thought that Mahler wanted it played. I'm sure some though it made the most musical sense either way.


----------



## Forster

Waehnen said:


> It is not as wise to put "let me emphatically say something more on the first movement" -movement as the 3rd Movement.


Why not? Who are you to say that Mahler was wrong to change his mind?

Your opinions on Mahler from last November:



Waehnen said:


> But Mahler! I just don't get the music! For me it sounds a bit trivial in the sense that the music flows as though the composer was writing a diary. "Yesterday I did this and that, this morning I woke up…." What I'm trying to say is that with the other composers I know how to follow the music, there is logic behind everything.
> 
> *In my ears Mahler music has so far lacked symphonic logic. *It is as though stuff just happen.
> 
> It is obvious I must be wrong. There are many mahlerians here. Please help me to better understand the essence of Mahler's music!


----------



## Waehnen

Forster said:


> Why not? Who are you to say that Mahler was wrong to change his mind?
> 
> Your opinions on Mahler from last November:


What are you trying to say? That I have no right to participate in the conversation like everyone else?

Are you of the opinion that none of us is to say anything on Mahler's music? Should we abandon musicological research as well and quit music theory alltogether because "who are we to say anything on Mahler?"

I am not interested in arguments for the sake of arguments. I have had fairly solid points in this conversation and I think you know where I stand.

I have been totally open about my journey on discovering Mahler. It does not undermine me even if you try to cast that kind of shadow of doubt on me. Not appreciated.


----------



## Forster

Waehnen said:


> What are you trying to say? That I have no right to participate in the conversation like everyone else?


Of course not. But your statement that "it is not wise" seems a trifle judgemental for one who previously confessed that they didn't understand Mahler - that's all.

I don't understand Mahler either.


----------



## Waehnen

Forster said:


> Of course not. But your statement that "it is not wise" seems a trifle judgemental for one who previously confessed that they didn't understand Mahler - that's all.
> 
> I don't understand Mahler either.


It has been a long journey but I have a clear picture of every symphony (except the 8th) in my mind and aural memory now.

I am of the opinion that classical concert music happens in an interactive medium. It means that the musical language is shared. Mahler's output is based on the shared cultural heritage and semiotic system. So I think that up to certain point the listeners, musicians, scholars and critics may have "a well argumented say" on things.

The better the argumentation, the more weight the position carries. It is not an unsigned check. It is not a matter of black and white. It is a complicated field.

Should a composer's will be crystal clear, it can not be lightly overlooked.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Obviously all or most multi-movement works need some measure of both contrast and continuity. The classical minuet could be on position 2 or 3 (the latter eventually became much more common) and it was almost always in the home key (or rarely the respective major/minor, e.g. Haydn #83). Beethoven began introducing Scherzando and Scherzo movements in contrasting keys (e.g. op.59/1 and 7th symphony). By 1903 the convention of sticking to a home key with close relations of the movements was all but dissolved (also by Mahler himself with the 2nd symphony ending in Eb flat major, the 4th in E instead of G and the 5th in D from c#). 
Now it seems that the 6th was to be "conventional" on the surface, purely instrumental with the four standard movements and even an expo repeat. But with Beethoven's 9th and Bruckner's 8th+9th having the scherzo as 2nd in the home key both positions for the scherzo would be conventional enough for Mahler's 6th. And although Mahler changed the position, S-A was his original plan until the first rehearsals, so one can hardly claim that this was a totally weird idea. 
Both orders are perfectly plausible, otherwise there would probably not have been such a strong "movement" to revert to Mahler's original plan, no matter how clearly he changed it later.


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> Obviously all or most multi-movement works need some measure of both contrast and continuity. The classical minuet could be on position 2 or 3 (the latter eventually became much more common) and it was almost always in the home key (or rarely the respective major/minor, e.g. Haydn #83). Beethoven began introducing Scherzando and Scherzo movements in contrasting keys (e.g. op.59/1 and 7th symphony). By 1903 the convention of sticking to a home key with close relations of the movements was all but dissolved (also by Mahler himself with the 2nd symphony ending in Eb flat major, the 4th in E instead of G and the 5th in D from c#).
> Now it seems that the 6th was to be "conventional" on the surface, purely instrumental with the four standard movements and even an expo repeat. But with Beethoven's 9th and Bruckner's 8th+9th having the scherzo as 2nd in the home key both positions for the scherzo would be conventional enough for Mahler's 6th. And although Mahler changed the position, S-A was his original until the first rehearsals, so one can hardly claim that this was a totally weird idea.
> Both orders are perfectly plausible, otherwise there would probably not have been such a strong "movement" to revert to Mahler's original plan, no matter how clearly he changed it later.


One example of a similar relationship between an opening movement and a following "developing scherzo" in the same key is Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata.

It has a similar 4 movement tonal structure in a way. 1st and 2nd fast movements (2nd is scherzo) are in B Major, contrasting adagio in a rather remote key f#minor, and the Finale introduction starts from another key (Db Major) but modulates to the home key Bmajor for the fugue. The key centres are either a minor or a major third away from the home key.

(A-minor and Eb-major are of course two minor thirds away from each other.)


----------



## Enthusiast

As has been said, having the scherzo of the 6th follow the first movement yields an impact not dissimilar to the first two movements of the 5th - where the second movement takes us into an even more intensely wild world (where most composers would have been seeking to cool thing down). But the 5th has a true scherzo (still lively and with a beautiful horn obligato) after all that to cool things down. With the 6th, Mahler's final choice was to cool things down with a typical Mahlerian slow movement and then to reassert the somewhat brutal world that the symphony starts with. This has to lead into Mahler's complexly worked finale (again of a similar type to the finale of the 5th) and this transition can be difficult to convince with.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> We can't be sure that "countless conductors" didn't just play it the way they thought that Mahler wanted it played. I'm sure some though it made the most musical sense either way.


Who's to say what Mahler wanted when he wanted two different things at different times?

There is something to be said for an objective third party to weigh in and bring new eyes/ears to the work (which is what has done). Mahler may have been too close to the work and couldn't make up his mind. Or as you say the symphony works nicely either way - but for different reasons.

But what I feel confident in saying is that no conductor performs the symphony in a way they think Mahler did not want.


----------



## Marc

Enthusiast said:


> As has been said, having the scherzo of the 6th follow the first movement yields an impact not dissimilar to the first two movements of the 5th - where the second movement takes us into an even more intensely wild world (where most composers would have been seeking to cool thing down). [...]


I feel the same about the first 2 movements of both symphonies.
It feels a bit like "OMG, he hits me again!" or "OMG, this dude keeps hitting me!"
I've always liked that and that's why I prefer the Scherzo-Andante order in no. 6.
The thematic connections do not bore me at all.

(But I'm a weird guy of course. I also love to listen to an entire _Die Kunst der Fuge_. Go figure. )


----------



## dko22

I've tried switching the movements around and tried to evaluate them from the point of view of 1. the emotional narrative of the symphony 2. the transition to the following movements and from the previous ones from a key perspective 3. the same but from a tempi and rhythmic point of view. My preference on the whole remains what I was brought up with (ie SA) but I can see both sides. 

What Mahler actually wanted I'll stay well clear of. One thing I simply don't know is how important it was to him to follow the traditional classical pattern -- in this case then the slow movement in Eb should follow the opening with the scherzo back in the tonic and finale also -- other than than briefly and unsettlingly a semitone lower at the outset. But what reason would he have for trying to follow the methods of Haydn or Mozart when none of his first 5 symphonies do? And the programmatic content of the work could hardly be further away from the classical models.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> Except that is exactly how Mahler composed the two movements - and what countless conductors have also thought made the most musical sense. Changing the order was an after thought, not based on the key, but the tempo.


In the comment you quote I wasn't addressing or making any claim about the performance tradition or the choices of the many conductors; The historical bases of their errors have already been established and discussed to death. I was simply pointing out that Waehnen's argument, that similar movements obviously belong together, is bogus on its face. A more general point might be inferred, I guess - that people will clutch at any straw to justify their commitment to the version on which they've imprinted.

Oh, and the characterization of a decision Mahler made *before* the work was ever performed, stuck to for the rest of his life, and on whose enforcement he expended time and money as "an *after* thought" is silly and surely disingenuous(?) - or do you stand by that?


----------



## Waehnen

EdwardBast said:


> In the comment you quote I wasn't addressing or making any claim about the performance tradition or the choices of the many conductors; The historical bases of their errors have already been established and discussed to death. I was simply pointing out that Waehnen's argument, that similar movements obviously belong together, is bogus on its face. A more general point might be inferred, I guess - that people will clutch at any straw to justify their commitment to the version on which they've imprinted.
> 
> Oh, and the characterization of a decision Mahler made, stuck to for the rest of his life, and expended time and money to enforce as "an after thought" is silly and surely disingenuous(?) - or do you stand by that?


When it comes to musical arguments, Team S-A is winning hands down. When it comes to the frequency of ad hominem and dogmatic arguments, A-S is admittedly on a league of it's own.


----------



## Resurrexit

Waehnen said:


> When it comes to musical arguments, Team S-A is winning hands down. When it comes to the frequency of ad hominem and dogmatic arguments, A-S is admittedly on a league of it's own.


But it's true. There is no argument that Mahler wanted it both ways. That's just not a thing. Why is it so hard to admit that Mahler changed his mind, and that should be acknowledged? And if people want to continue performing and listening to an earlier draft of the symphony, they can do so. Its almost like some of the S/A proponents want to have their cake and eat it too -- they prefer it AND Mahler would have been just as happy with it. Nope. Sorry. Got to come to term with the fact that Mahler did NOT want it performed S/A, and be okay with that because you believe that it makes more sense musically and also believe that overrides Mahler's final decision. Mahler's opinion should be the one that counts most, but apparently there are quite a few people who believe they know better than him and are happy to rewrite his symphony for him. Feel free to call the symphony problematic. Feel free to believe he made a mistake. But don't go around saying well its better this way so let's just change it back for him and pretend he would have wanted it that way. :


----------



## EdwardBast

Waehnen said:


> When it comes to musical arguments, Team S-A is winning hands down. When it comes to the frequency of ad hominem and dogmatic arguments, A-S is admittedly on a league of it's own.


You need to look up the expression ad hominem. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I don't think that means what you think it means. I've heard no good musical arguments for S-A.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> You need to look up the expression ad hominem. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I don't think that means what you think it means. There have been no good musical arguments for S-A.


The real difference is that the S-A group are actually advocating for a dual-version tradition, which is nothing more than what we have. Your A-S group is dogmatically insisting on only their approach, despite the fact that a large number of conductors choose to perform the symphony using the S-A version.

It appears only one side is being unreasonable; yours.

Time will tell, eventually one version or the other will take precedence. But until then the only rational approach is to accept reality as it is and listen to the version you prefer.


----------



## Waehnen

EdwardBast said:


> You need to look up the expression ad hominem. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I don't think that means what you think it means. I've heard no good musical arguments for S-A.


If that is how you see it, then there is nothing more to discuss.


----------



## Heck148

Marc said:


> I feel the same about the first 2 movements of both symphonies.
> It feels a bit like "OMG, he hits me again!" or "OMG, this dude keeps hitting me!"
> I've always liked that and that's why I prefer the Scherzo-Andante order in no. 6....


right, then the Andante provides respite, a ray of hope, optimism...only to be crushed by the overpowering finale...


----------



## Marc

Heck148 said:


> right, then the Andante provides respite, a ray of hope, optimism...only to be crushed by the overpowering finale...


Exactly.
My _ears, heart and mind_ (thanks, Waehnen ) are into that story, too.
The Andante moderato has got some heavenly moments. I love it.

Of course the crush/crash in the last movement takes a while, the moods are going up and down (and up and down again), but despite its length, I think that this Finale is one of Mahler's strongest movements.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> *Who's to say what Mahler wanted *when he wanted two different things at different times?


Mahler. When he made his final decision. I realise that some do not believe that was his final decision, though there is no evidence to say that he changed his mind again, and more than enough evidence that he didn't. I also agree that the tradition of alternative versions is well established.



SanAntone said:


> But what I feel confident in saying is that no conductor performs the symphony in a way they *think* Mahler did not want.


But that 'think' is important. There _may _have been conductors who thought they were going against Mahler's wishes - whichever order they chose - but I'm inclined to agree with you. That doesn't take away from the fact that whatever they thought, they may have been going against his wishes.


----------



## Waehnen

Marc said:


> Exactly.
> My _ears, heart and mind_ (thanks, Waehnen ) are into that story, too.
> The Andante moderato has got some heavenly moments. I love it.
> 
> Of course the crush/crash in the last movement takes a while, the moods are going up and down (and up and down again), but despite its length, I think that this Finale is one of Mahler's strongest movements.


Unbelievably strong music in effect. And like said before, the anxiety felt even at the A-minor (not this again!) in the beginning of the 2nd Movement scherzo -- it is actually genius. I´m learning to love it. 

Do you guys see certain keys and notes in colours? I see A-minor as red (major as another kind of red). This symphony is glowing red hot like nothing else! Quite amazing.


----------



## HenryPenfold

To save me from the laborious task of sifting through all the posts in this and the other Mahler 6 thread, could someone be a darling and remind me of Mahler's explanation for why he reordered the inner movements?


----------



## MaxKellerman

HenryPenfold said:


> To save me from the laborious task of sifting through all the posts in this and the other Mahler 6 thread, could someone be a darling and remind me of Mahler's explanation for why he reordered the inner movements?


Does he need to have offered an explanation to make it valid? I'm not aware that Mahler was in the habit of offering many insights into his compositional processes and decision making.

The real question is, if such an explanation were to suddenly appear, would you magically prefer his finalized ordering?


----------



## Marc

Waehnen said:


> [...]
> 
> Do you guys see certain keys and notes in colours? I see A-minor as red (major as another kind of red). This symphony is glowing red hot like nothing else! Quite amazing.


Wait until you listen to Bach's Prelude & Fugue in A minor BWV 543 on the Schnitger organ of the St. Michael church in Zwolle, Netherlands... a'= 502 Hz. 

Mind you: the piece is indeed glowing red hot, on whatever organ at whatever pitch.

(Here's on at, iirc, a'=440 Hz (which may suit you fine): 



 ... apologies for going off-topic... back to Mahler...)


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Mahler. When he made his final decision. I realise that some do not believe that was his final decision, *though there is no evidence* to say that he changed his mind again, and more than enough evidence that he didn't. I also agree that the tradition of alternative versions is well established.


But there is evidence of Mahler changing his mind with Alma Mahler's statements. Also his devoted disciple, Anton Webern always conducted the symphony with the Scherzo before the Andante - and it is doubtful that Webern would have knowingly gone against Mahler's wishes.

Then there is the internal evidence borne out by the conductors who've chosen that order based on their analysis of the score and concluding (despite the historical controversy) that this order of the movements represented the best musical sense. And we have recordings using this order after the 2010 critical edition which only endorsed the A-S order.


----------



## fbjim

I think a symphony with this much pre-occupation with Classicism (the "tragic" in the title is tragic in the classical sense) should, just for aesthetic reasons, be in the "proper" classical form of slow movement second - but my favorite recordings tend to use the S-A order. In all honesty I'm fine with it either way, it tends not to make or break a recording for me. Performance tradition and aesthetic concerns trump artist intent.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> But there is evidence of Mahler changing his mind with *Alma Mahler's statements*. Also his devoted disciple, Anton Webern always conducted the symphony with the Scherzo before the Andante - and it is doubtful that *Webern would have knowingly gone against Mahler's wishes*.
> 
> Then there is the internal evidence borne out by the conductors who've chosen that order based on *their analysis of the score and concluding (despite the historical controversy) that this order of the movements represented the best musical sense*. And we have recordings using this order after the 2010 critical edition which only endorsed the A-S order.


Alma's statements? I thought it was just a four word telegram?
What about _unwittingly _going against his wishes?
What about Mahler's conclusion that he had the two movements round the wrong way and the number of performances before his death that confirmed his decision to go A-S?

This is a merry-go-round of claim and counter claim. If you get off, I will too. I suspect one or two others wish to persevere in having their cake and eating it. I think that, and being on a merry-go-round might make them sick.


----------



## Becca

SanAntone said:


> But there is evidence of Mahler changing his mind with Alma Mahler's statements. Also his devoted disciple, Anton Webern always conducted the symphony with the Scherzo before the Andante - and it is doubtful that Webern would have knowingly gone against Mahler's wishes.


Let me repeat what I posted yesterday...
- 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_."
- 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 and he only ever performed it in the A/S order.

As to all the conductors, they were using the supposedly definitive International Gustav Mahler Society version edited by Erwin Ratz, so it is no wonder that so many used the S/A ordering. Prior to that edition, almost all performances were A/S, including a number of conductors who knew and worked with Mahler.


----------



## DjPooChoo

fbjim said:


> Performance tradition and aesthetic concerns trump artist intent.


Well at least you're honest about it. But I'd have to respectfully disagree.


----------



## SanAntone

Becca said:


> Let me repeat what I posted yesterday...
> - 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_."
> - 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 and he only ever performed it in the A/S order.
> 
> As to all the conductors, they were using the supposedly definitive International Gustav Mahler Society version edited by Erwin Ratz, so it is no wonder that so many used the S/A ordering. Prior to that edition, almost all performances were A/S, including a number of conductors who knew and worked with Mahler.


Okay, let's accept those accounts. It still doesn't change the fact that a significant number of conductors prefer the order of Scherzo-Andante. I don't know why those of you on the A-S side rigidly reject what conductors actually do and keep repeating the same historical arguments.

I've posted before that for some time both versions have been used and probably will continue to be used. There may come a time when one version becomes the only one performed. But that hasn't happened yet, and it would seem that the rational thing to do is simply accept reality as it is right now.


----------



## Monsalvat

Nobody is trying to claim that Scherzo/Andante isn't already performed, though... just that it's an inauthentic representation of the Sixth as Mahler left it. I keep whichever order is given when I listen to a CD of the Sixth. If a conductor or listener prefers Scherzo/Andante, it's not wrong or anything. The historical arguments firmly point to Andante/Scherzo, which means that one would have to justify re-ordering the movements on a musical basis. I think the Scherzo/Andante proponents might have an argument here, though clearly Mahler believed Andante/Scherzo was the way to go and I am inclined to agree, since I find that this helps the momentum build up over a greater period of time into the Finale. Most of the "classic" recordings on CD are Scherzo/Andante because of the trust misplaced in Ratz's edition, so I've actually heard the Scherzo/Andante order more times than the Andante/Scherzo order.

Mahler authorized the Andante-Scherzo order. To override this decision knowing Mahler's intentions requires a conviction bordering on hubris, unless Alma's telegram is accepted as more valuable historical evidence than Mahler's own clearly expressed intentions. If I am to answer the question, "What is the proper ordering of the inner movements in Mahler's Sixth Symphony?", then I believe the answer must be: Andante-Scherzo. However, this is _not_ tantamount to what you seem to be suggesting, which is that Andante/Scherzo proponents don't accept that reality that some conductors program it in the other order. In other words, the answer to the question "What is the _de facto_ ordering of the inner movements in Mahler's Sixth Symphony?" would be both. If I understand what you are writing, I'm addressing the first of these questions and you seem to be addressing the second, which is why we seem to be talking past each other.



> I don't know why those of you on the A-S side rigidly reject what conductors actually do and keep repeating the same historical arguments.


I confess that I don't know why the S-A proponents reject Mahler's clearly expressed intentions. I don't actually reject what conductors actually do; as I stated, I prefer to keep whichever the conductor chose when I listen to a CD. Surely, a conductor would justify their approach structurally, and so I would feel a bit uneasy about moving things around after they had been recorded with one order or the other in mind.


----------



## SanAntone

Monsalvat said:


> I confess that I don't know why the S-A proponents reject Mahler's clearly expressed intentions.


I am not rejecting anything. I am accepting the reality of what conductors have done and continue to do. I have no reason for coming up with my own argument about which plan is best since I am not a conductor to put it into practice. I am also not interested in speculative arguments about whether Mahler's 1907 performance solidified in his mind the order of the movements, or if he changed his mind again before he died.

The reality of how this symphony is performed by the professional musicians making it is my only concern.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Monsalvat said:


> I confess that I don't know why the S-A proponents reject Mahler's clearly expressed intentions.


I for one don't reject Mahler's clear position on the order of movements i.e. A-S, despite being very much an S-A advocate. I know other S-A preferrers are the same.


----------



## Monsalvat

HenryPenfold said:


> I for one don't reject Mahler's clear position on the order of movements i.e. A-S, despite being very much an S-A advocate. I know other S-A preferrers are the same.


Now this is an interesting point, and one I can sympathize with better.


----------



## Heck148

Marc said:


> Exactly....
> Of course the crush/crash in the last movement takes a while, the moods are going up and down (and up and down again), but despite its length, I think that this Finale is one of Mahler's strongest movements.


Yes, indeed, the finale is a real rollercoaster....after euphoria of the Andante, the up and down drama of the finale is brutal and crushing. So devastating, and effective.


----------



## Aries

Resurrexit said:


> But it's true. There is no argument that Mahler wanted it both ways. That's just not a thing. Why is it so hard to admit that Mahler changed his mind, and that should be acknowledged? And if people want to continue performing and listening to an earlier draft of the symphony, they can do so. Its almost like some of the S/A proponents want to have their cake and eat it too -- they prefer it AND Mahler would have been just as happy with it. Nope. Sorry. Got to come to term with the fact that Mahler did NOT want it performed S/A


That Mahler preferred the A/S order after May 1806 does not necessarily mean that he did not want the S/A performances to happen. It is plausible that he may have preferred S/A performances over no performances, and that he may have even approved S/A performances if he could have talked to the people who preferred it in later times. It is reported that he was insecure regarding the order. And it is speculative that he was pedantic about rigorous authenticity. Its rather likely that authenticity wasn't such a big deal for him, since he created and performed a inauthentic version of Bruckners 4th symphony. And even for his own wife his "final will" was obviously not such a big deal. Maybe says something.



Monsalvat said:


> Nobody is trying to claim that Scherzo/Andante isn't already performed, though... just that it's an inauthentic representation of the Sixth as Mahler left it.


S/A is the way it was composed and it matters because there are references in the movements. So S/A is in a way the more authentic version even if finally something else was authorized.



Monsalvat said:


> I think the Scherzo/Andante proponents might have an argument here, though clearly Mahler believed Andante/Scherzo was the way to go


How clearly? He had to make a decision for an order. But we don't know how clear his preference was. Could be 100%-0%, could be 51%-49%. But it was actually reported that he was insecure.



Monsalvat said:


> I confess that I don't know why the S-A proponents reject Mahler's clearly expressed intentions.


What did he say? Why are we talking about his wifes comments if the made a clear statement?


----------



## HenryPenfold

MaxKellerman said:


> Does he need to have offered an explanation to make it valid? I'm not aware that Mahler was in the habit of offering many insights into his compositional processes and decision making.
> 
> The real question is, if such an explanation were to suddenly appear, would you magically prefer his finalized ordering?


The question of validity doesn't arise. Mahler decided on A-S, and it's really a matter for him. I'd just like to know what his reasoning was.

Magic has anything to do with my preference. I just think S-A is architecturally better and makes for a better listening experience. I'm limiting my listening to A-S recordings at the moment, so who knows? Maybe I'll change my preference.


----------



## Monsalvat

Aries said:


> S/A is the way it was composed and it matters because there are references in the movements. So S/A is in a way the more authentic version even if finally something else was authorized.
> 
> How clearly? He had to make a decision for an order. But we don't know how clear his preference was. Could be 100%-0%, could be 51%-49%. But it was actually reported that he was insecure.
> 
> What did he say? Why are we talking about his wifes comments if the made a clear statement?


Just to respond to your replies to my earlier comments:

1. I'm not sure about this; the movements were not written in order anyway, and my recollection is that the two inner movements were written before the outer movements. Now I don't know the detailed compositional history of the Sixth, so maybe there were some sketches for the whole symphony, but in any case nobody would perform the Sixth in chronological order. I do see your point here that one could argue it is authentic because Mahler originally authorized it, but again this neglects his final decision on the matter. (Unless some new evidence were to surface that would show that he had privately changed his mind later in life, which would settle the matter once and for all in favor of S/A).

2. The reason I think this is very clear is because of the expense and trouble that was required for the printing and insertion of errata, and the fact that his publisher, Kahnt, had to renumber 72 pages of the score after it had already been engraved. If Mahler felt wishy-washy about this, it would not have justified such an endeavour. Again you do have a point that we don't know how confident he was in this. After all, he had originally authorized S/A, so surely it wasn't 100%/0%. However, if it was a 51%/49% decision, I think less drastic means would have suited, such as private correspondence to conductors preparing the symphony, or a notice in a music journal, or even the printing of errata without the trouble of renumbering the pages. I think, for example, that there is a stronger case for arguing about which version of a Bruckner symphony is authentic than debating S/A vs. A/S for reasons I have enumerated previously. I was intrigued by HenryPenfold's comment, which seemed to indicate that he accepted that A/S better reflects Mahler's intentions, but S/A makes for a better experience. While I still disagree, this is a personal preference which is harder to debate as directly.

3. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. My point in that sentence was that, like I explained, I think Mahler's preference for A/S was clearly expressed, so I think it's a bit strange to contradict him. To my knowledge, there isn't any quote that would support my cause here, but I think Mahler's actions in ensuring that the Sixth would be performed A/S speak more loudly than Alma's comments. I generally don't trust Alma as a reliable source, anyway, since she was known to try to doctor Mahler's image after his death. Others have mentioned how her memory was not infallible (referring to a performance in Amsterdam that he never gave). So in my view, Alma's comments matter less in this discussion than what I see as Mahler's own intentions. This sentence of mine came across as more crass than I intended; I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers needlessly here.

I think that the historical record points pretty clearly to A/S. The comment made by HenryPenfold opens up another possible avenue of discussion, which is whether it makes sense on purely musical/structural grounds to perform it S/A. There are potentially persuasive arguments here; I haven't done a detailed structural analysis of the Sixth, but in more general terms, I would add that it must have been "good enough" as S/A for Mahler to have originally planned it this way. (Still, though, he must have thought it that much better if he went to all that trouble to re-order it later!) And in all honestly, probably the only reason there is even any room for such a discussion is that there may not be a clear-cut answer on musical grounds, because both versions are good enough to have devotees. My own arguments do not rely on the musical or the structural, and I would be open to persuasion here potentially. I'm happy enough to leave it as each individual conductor saw fit.


----------



## SanAntone

deleted................


----------



## hammeredklavier

Aries said:


> That Mahler preferred the A/S order after May 1806 does not necessarily mean that he did not want the S/A performances to happen. It is plausible that he may have preferred S/A performances over no performances, and that he may have even approved S/A performances if he could have talked to the people who preferred it in later times.














Becca said:


> Never underestimate the ability of the human mind to rationalize.


----------



## SanAntone

IMO while the historical record is clear I think the symphony ought to primarily be judged on its internal musical facts, as all musical works should. 

Looking at the architecture of the work I see a rationale why so many conductors have ignored the historical facts and use the S-A order because the Allegro + Scherzo act as one long movement, roughly equal in length to the final Allegro movement (34-35 minutes). These first two movements share a tonic key as well as march elements, which is unique for a scherzo which is in 3/4 meter. Mahler often created scherzos with out of character features, so writing a march-like waltz/scherzo is typical of Mahler.

The Andante then serves as a respite from the unrelenting ferocity of the first two movements and the final movement which returns to the tone of the earlier movements. It has new musical content not heard before or after, and placing it midpoint between the two long movements makes more sense than the less balanced alternative order.

With this musical sense and balance, it is no wonder why Mahler originally created this plan.

The historical record is unclear as to exactly why Mahler reversed the Scherzo and the Andante. I've read that he was concerned about the right tempo for the scherzo, as well as the repetition of the march rhythm at the beginning of the scherzo might appear redundant coming just after the Allegro. Mahler several times expressed insecurity about this symphony, and I am not convinced that the revised score contain his final thoughts on the work.

My bottomline is that either version "works" - but it is clear to me that the original plan has much to offer in the way of musical logic. 

Others might have a reasoned argument to support the revised plan, and I would appreciate seeing them.


----------



## BachIsBest

Becca said:


> Let me repeat what I posted yesterday...
> - 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_."
> - 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 and he only ever performed it in the A/S order.
> 
> As to all the conductors, they were using the supposedly definitive International Gustav Mahler Society version edited by Erwin Ratz, so it is no wonder that so many used the S/A ordering. Prior to that edition, almost all performances were A/S, including a number of conductors who knew and worked with Mahler.


Although I agree that the historical evidence, on the whole, favours A-S, one tidbit of information does provide compelling evidence for S-A (other than this, the fact that Webern performed it S-A is good evidence for S-A). From Wikipedia

_One of the first occasions after Mahler's death where the conductor reverted to the original movement order is in 1919/1920, after an inquiry in the autumn of 1919 from Willem Mengelberg to Alma Mahler in preparation for the May 1920 Mahler Festival in Amsterdam of the complete symphonies, regarding the order of the inner movements of the Sixth Symphony. In a telegram dated 1 October 1919, Alma responded to Mengelberg:[12]

Erst Scherzo dann Andante herzlichst Alma ("First Scherzo then Andante affectionately Alma")[12]

Mengelberg, who had been in close touch with Mahler until the latter's death, and had conducted the symphony in the "Andante/Scherzo" arrangement up to 1916, then switched to the "Scherzo/Andante" order. In his own copy of the score, he wrote on the first page:[12]

Nach Mahlers Angabe II erst Scherzo dann III Andante ("According to Mahler's indications, first II Scherzo, then III Andante")_

Obviously, Alma could be an unreliable source. However, it seems extraordinarily implausible to me that if Mahler was completely decided on the movement order that Mengelberg, the conductor Mahler personally valued the most in his music and who was a personal friend of Mahler, would feel the need to even ask.

What we do know, is that the symphony was originally rehearsed in S-A and only switched at the last moment with close friends of Mahler reporting great indecision over the ordering. Although I am not a musicologist, it is my opinion that this indecision was never really resolved, and Mahler likely was never quite sure himself what the order of the movements should be.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Yes, this looks good but it would remove the distant relationship a minor vs. E flat major altogether.
> Whereas c minor scherzo on 3 would preserve the tonality relations of the S-A version





Waehnen said:


> A minor first movement
> C Minor Scherzo
> Eb Major Andante
> C Minor progressing to A minor Finale
> I would love that with all it's clashes and relationships of minor thirds. Diminished triad going from a to c and eb and then back down to a.


By this point in time, I don't think composers really cared that much about having that much neatness in tonal scheme across movements.


----------



## Aries

Monsalvat said:


> Just to respond to your replies to my earlier comments:
> 
> 1. I'm not sure about this; the movements were not written in order anyway, and my recollection is that the two inner movements were written before the outer movements. Now I don't know the detailed compositional history of the Sixth, so maybe there were some sketches for the whole symphony, but in any case nobody would perform the Sixth in chronological order.


It appears to me that the some characteristics of the Scherzo and similarities to the first movement are a result of or at least influenced by the circumstance that the Scherzo was envisioned to be the 2nd movement as it was written.



Monsalvat said:


> 2. The reason I think this is very clear is because of the expense and trouble that was required for the printing and insertion of errata, and the fact that his publisher, Kahnt, had to renumber 72 pages of the score after it had already been engraved. If Mahler felt wishy-washy about this, it would not have justified such an endeavour. Again you do have a point that we don't know how confident he was in this. After all, he had originally authorized S/A, so surely it wasn't 100%/0%. However, if it was a 51%/49% decision, I think less drastic means would have suited, such as private correspondence to conductors preparing the symphony, or a notice in a music journal, or even the printing of errata without the trouble of renumbering the pages.


51%-49% is very unlikely because Mahler would have probably just thought longer about it until a higher confidence would have been reached. But there was also some time pressure probably, so 100% is unlikely too.



hammeredklavier said:


>


Authenticity is overrated imo. It seems like the longer composers are dead the more literally and sterile people want them to be played to be closer to them/to the truth. But romantic music was played more freely, lively and distinctivly.

Hear how Brahms played one of his own works (its difficult to even recognize it today): 





I think a romantic attitude towards romantic music is more appropriate. Rather care for the music instead of "facts". Play what sounds good. Don't treat the music as something dead set in stone. Treat it as something vivid not set in stone.


----------



## BachIsBest

hammeredklavier said:


> By this point in time, I don't think composers really cared that much about having that much neatness in tonal scheme across movements.


But Mahler did want this to be a more "classically structured" symphony. This was likely intentional, even if he did eventually change it.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> By this point in time, I don't think composers really cared that much about having that much neatness in tonal scheme across movements.


You would be wrong, especially in the case of Mahler who was very concerned with issues of form and harmonic movement/progression. It is how he originally conceived of and published the work.

Kreisler and Waehnen have the key wrong for the Scherzo. It is in A Minor, same as the first movement. The Andante is in E-Flat, a very distant key from A Minor, actually the most distant, and the finale begins in C Minor, related to A-Flat Major, then modulates back to A minor to end.

The key progression of [Allegro (A Minor) > Scherzo (A Minor)] (one long movement) > Andante (E-Flat) > Allegro (C Minor / A minor) is harmonically stronger than what results from swapping the Scherzo with the Andante.


----------



## mbhaub

Good God, will this never end? In summary: Mahler wrote it SA but performed it AS. Then came the conflicting statements from people who supposedly knew what he wanted and it's a crap shoot. Too often forgotten is Mahler's warning: if something doesn't seem right not only do performers have the right to change it, but an obligation! So if you want SA, go for it! If you like AS that's fine. Who cares!


----------



## Becca

mbhaub said:


> *Good God, will this never end?* In summary: Mahler wrote it SA but performed it AS. Then came the conflicting statements from people who supposedly knew what he wanted and it's a crap shoot. Too often forgotten is Mahler's warning: if something doesn't seem right not only do performers have the right to change it, but an obligation! So if you want SA, go for it! If you like AS that's fine. Who cares!


"Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I always think that the chances of finding out what really is going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say hang the sense of it and just keep yourself occupied."


----------



## Waehnen

SanAntone said:


> You would be wrong, especially in the case of Mahler who was very concerned with issues of form and harmonic movement/progression. It is how he originally conceived of and published the work.
> 
> Kreisler and Waehnen have the key wrong for the Scherzo. It is in A Minor, same as the first movement. The Andante is in E-Flat, a very distant key from A Minor, actually the most distant, and the finale begins in C Minor, related to A-Flat Major, then modulates back to A minor to end.
> 
> The key progression of [Allegro (A Minor) > Scherzo (A Minor)] (one long movement) > Andante (E-Flat) > Allegro (C Minor / A minor) is harmonically stronger than what results from swapping the Scherzo with the Andante.


Kreisler and I only speculated with the scherzo being in C minor. That way Mahler very likely could have avoided the "problem" he sensed in the rehearsals and which resulted in the reordering of the inner movements. But I am happy with the A minor 2nd Movement Scherzo.

(Also: I will no longer contribute to this thread for it is obvious that the other camp is not even reading not to mention considering the arguments of the other camp. What is the point of mindless babble on a merry-go-around? "No, you said - No, I said - No one has said - No, you said…")


----------



## Forster

From Dame Sarah Connolly, an interesting take on Alma Mahler (that is, interesting for those who've not read much about her, and maybe for those who have too).

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/dec/02/alma-schindler-problem-gustav-mahler



> Music is music whether composed by angels or monsters. Alma Mahler was a monster, no doubt, but she was a very intriguing monster. She outlived Gustav Mahler by 50 years, destroying all but one of her letters to him, and suppressing or falsifying many of his to her for fear of being judged too harshly by posterity. None of the music she chose for her funeral was by Mahler.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Her voice in her diaries and presence in Mahler's letters are famously - notoriously - unreliable (google "The Alma Problem" - it's fascinating reading). She doctored or deliberately falsified letters and her diaries before their publication many years later, presenting the version of herself she wanted people to see. Didn't she think people might do a bit of cross-referencing? Tom Lehrer in his divine song, Alma, seems to have it right: "She gave of her time but not of herself."Would I have wanted to meet her? I think I would have been afraid of her potential cruelty and overawed by her associations. I'd rather raise a glass to her from the other side of the room in recognition of that 20th-century phenomenon, the celebrity.


----------



## Marc

mbhaub said:


> Good God, will this never end? In summary: Mahler wrote it SA but performed it AS. Then came the conflicting statements from people who supposedly knew what he wanted and it's a crap shoot. Too often forgotten is Mahler's warning: if something doesn't seem right not only do performers have the right to change it, but an obligation! So if you want SA, go for it! If you like AS that's fine. Who cares!


Yeah.

And now... let's start with Bruckner 2.
Original idea (1872): S-A.
A performance was planned, but after a few rehearsals conductor Otto Dessoff considered it more or less unplayable.
Bruckner himself conducted a revised version in 1873 with A-S.
A later version was also A-S.

I don't know though, I prefer it S-A.

New thread(s)?


----------



## WildThing

BachIsBest said:


> Although I agree that the historical evidence, on the whole, favours A-S, one tidbit of information does provide compelling evidence for S-A (other than this, the fact that Webern performed it S-A is good evidence for S-A). From Wikipedia
> 
> _One of the first occasions after Mahler's death where the conductor reverted to the original movement order is in 1919/1920, after an inquiry in the autumn of 1919 from Willem Mengelberg to Alma Mahler in preparation for the May 1920 Mahler Festival in Amsterdam of the complete symphonies, regarding the order of the inner movements of the Sixth Symphony. In a telegram dated 1 October 1919, Alma responded to Mengelberg:[12]
> 
> Erst Scherzo dann Andante herzlichst Alma ("First Scherzo then Andante affectionately Alma")[12]
> 
> Mengelberg, who had been in close touch with Mahler until the latter's death, and had conducted the symphony in the "Andante/Scherzo" arrangement up to 1916, then switched to the "Scherzo/Andante" order. In his own copy of the score, he wrote on the first page:[12]
> 
> Nach Mahlers Angabe II erst Scherzo dann III Andante ("According to Mahler's indications, first II Scherzo, then III Andante")_
> 
> Obviously, Alma could be an unreliable source. However, it seems extraordinarily implausible to me that if Mahler was completely decided on the movement order that Mengelberg, the conductor Mahler personally valued the most in his music and who was a personal friend of Mahler, would feel the need to even ask.


Remember, Mengelberg had never conducted the symphony prior. It seems quite understandable to me that there would be some sudden confusion when Mengelberg prepared the Sixth Symphony for another performance, almost a decade after Mahler's death, and his nephew and musicologist Kurt Mengelberg obtained a first edition copy of the score with the erratum slip missing.


----------



## hammeredklavier

BachIsBest said:


> But Mahler did want this to be a more "classically structured" symphony. This was likely intentional, even if he did eventually change it.


And that (the tonal scheme across movements) is what helps to make the music of that nature sound "classically structured"? Since Schoenberg said "When I composed my fourth string quartet, I said this time I must compose like Mozart does it", can we assume there are things about Schoenberg's fourth string quartet that need to be fixed in a similar way?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Aries said:


> I think a romantic attitude towards romantic music is more appropriate. Rather care for the music instead of "facts". Play what sounds good. Don't treat the music as something dead set in stone. Treat it as something vivid not set in stone.


You're of course free to freak up any composition by anyone as you like,


hammeredklavier said:


> 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.


----------



## hammeredklavier

So the advocates of SA also support doing things like this? (ie. to pretend the composers themselves would have approved of things like this?):


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..."):


YES or NO? Please answer me.


----------



## Marc

hammeredklavier said:


> So the advocates of SA also support doing things like this? (ie. to pretend the composers themselves would have approved of things like this?):
> 
> YES or NO? Please answer me.


Not sure if this comparison is entirely 'justified', but... I will personally approve of ANYTHING if I like it myself, or if I feel like doing it myself. For instance: I sometimes change the order of movements in Bach's cantata BWV 120.
I even sometimes break off listening to a piece when I feel the need to do that, and I'm quite convinced that the composer did/does not approve of that. Or I skip a movement of a composition if I'm not in the mood.

Mackerras, with the Prague Chamber Orchestra, plays the Menuetto of Mozart's KV 550 'presto', whilst Mozart asked for 'allegretto'.
I like Mackerras's approach though. Mozart might not approve of it, but hey...

Some conductors include the Menuetto KV 409 in Mozart's symphony KV 334 (as a 3rd movement), despite the different instrumentation. Do I approve of it? Yeah, because it works for me. Would Mozart have approved of it? Don't know, don't care.

If I like Bach's Goldberg on a piano (OMG), organ or accordion, I approve of recordings with those instruments. Bach might not have approved of it, but I could not care less.
(No 'worries' though, I prefer it on harpsichord.)

In many other cases, where I personally do not approve, I am able to think: if it pleases others, let them be. I can live with it. Haydn/Bach/Mahler/composer X or whomever is either dead or (most likely) not present, so the consequences are probably not very dramatic.

There is/was a recording by Horowitz of KV 488, where he changed a few notes in a certain passage. In a documentary he explained something like: "well, Mozart was extremely busy at the time, he was in a hurry and he did not have the time to really think it over... but he was wrong here so I decided to correct him."

I laughed my booty off when I saw and heard him saying this when I watched it on telly.

Is it arrogant? Oh yes. Did I want to run to the shop to buy this 'unique' recording? Nope. Should Horowitz be punished because of it? Well, no. (Maybe the explanation was also included in the booklet...)

Summarized: I either approve of such things when I appreciate it, or I can at least live with it.
And I sometimes like to exchange thoughts about the pros and cons of such things, or to read about it.


----------



## Forster

So basically, if anyone out there thinks they can improve upon masterpieces by the greats, that's OK...and we can still call Beethoven's 3rd, Beethoven's 3rd, never mind that it's been "improved" by Allan Smithee.

I can't accept that idea.


----------



## Marc

Forster said:


> So basically, if anyone out there thinks they can improve upon masterpieces by the greats, that's OK...and we can still call Beethoven's 3rd, Beethoven's 3rd, never mind that it's been "improved" by Allan Smithee.
> 
> I can't accept that idea.


It would be very thoughtful if the 'arranger' wrote in the accompanying booklet or sheet that he/she arranged the original work. And, if possible, for what reason. The concerts I attended and the discs I bought did do that. Which is a good thing.
And I guess that, in most performances of Mahler 6, the debate about the inner movements is at least mentioned.


----------



## Marc

Forster said:


> So basically, if anyone out there thinks they can improve upon masterpieces by the greats, that's OK...and we can still call Beethoven's 3rd, Beethoven's 3rd, never mind that it's been "improved" by Allan Smithee.
> 
> I can't accept that idea.


It is a tradition that is old as mankind making music, I think.

And a huge amount of composers arrange(d) works of other composers.

I also think you don't want to know how many publishers and editors are 'improving' things of writers and composers.

I wrote in my former post that the concert booklets mention the necessary things. But I have to admit that this is not always true. 
When I f.i. visit an organ concert, I read in the program many times (for instance): J.S. Bach, Concerto in A minor, BWV 593. That's all.

It should be: A, Vivaldi, Concerto in A minor RV 522, arranged for organ by J.S. Bach (BWV 593).


----------



## EdwardBast

So Mahler is winning the popularity contest over Ratz, which is both unsurprising and meaningless. A more interesting poll would be one that assesses the degree to which preference in movement order correlates with the version to which listeners were first exposed. We could do it informally. Why don't those who have voted and who out of some masochistic impulse are still following this thread state their preference and the version that dominated their early exposure to Mahler 6.

As I've said, my first exposure and dominant early exposure was to the S-A version, I voted for the authorized Mahler version, A-S.

Anyone else want to play?


----------



## Forster

I don't usually vote, but I register my support for A-S, to which I was first exposed (Janssons/LSO).


----------



## Monsalvat

EdwardBast said:


> So Mahler is winning the popularity contest over Ratz, which is both unsurprising and meaningless. A more interesting poll would be one that assesses the degree to which preference in movement order correlates with the version to which listeners were first exposed. We could do it informally. Why don't those who have voted and who out of some masochistic impulse are still following this thread state their preference and the version that dominated their early exposure to Mahler 6.
> 
> As I've said, my first exposure and dominant early exposure was to the S-A version, I voted for the authorized Mahler version, A-S.
> 
> Anyone else want to play?


Sure. My first exposure to Mahler's Sixth was through Abbado's Berlin recording (2005), which indeed follows Andante-Scherzo. I voted Andante-Scherzo as well.









However, most of the recordings I have listened to or acquired since then are Scherzo-Andante. (At a quick glance, Kubelík, Bernstein, Boulez, Karajan, Solti, Haitink, Chailly, and Tennstedt all follow Scherzo-Andante, while Abbado and Rattle are Andante-Scherzo).

I will also add that this Abbado recording has the most satisfying _Hammerschlag_ sound. It doesn't really fit with Mahler's specific directions but it is very cathartic. It's the little things that count sometimes.


----------



## Marc

EdwardBast said:


> So Mahler is winning the popularity contest over Ratz, which is both unsurprising and meaningless. A more interesting poll would be one that assesses the degree to which preference in movement order correlates with the version to which listeners were first exposed. We could do it informally. Why don't those who have voted and who out of some masochistic impulse are still following this thread state their preference and the version that dominated their early exposure to Mahler 6.
> 
> As I've said, my first exposure and dominant early exposure was to the S-A version, I voted for the authorized Mahler version, A-S.
> 
> Anyone else want to play?


Yeah, and after that, Bruckner 2 please. 

May I be the first masochist to react?

With Mahler, my first listening experiences were with S-A (Haitink). Barbirolli (my fav performance) did A-S. Rattle also. In Rattle's case, EMI made it 'impossible' to change the order, because they issued a 2-cd with 2 movements on each disc. That's why EMI lost the battle on the market, I guess. I gave that twofer away to a good friend. That'll teach them, I thought.

I just got a bit too tired of the combination Scherzo-Finale. I can take a thourough beating, cuz I'm a masochist, as you rightly put it, but 45 to 50 minutes with no 'relief', no, that was just too much for me.
And I liked the First movement-Scherzo combi better, because of the thematic 'bond'.

(Edit: darn, I was only the second masochist.)


----------



## WildThing

I first heard the work under Bernstein and then Bertini, both of whom place the Scherzo second.

I voted for Andante- Scherzo.


----------



## Marc

Monsalvat said:


> Sure. My first exposure to Mahler's Sixth was through Abbado's Berlin recording (2005), which indeed follows Andante-Scherzo. I voted Andante-Scherzo as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, most of the recordings I have listened to or acquired since then are Scherzo-Andante. (At a quick glance, Kubelík, Bernstein, Boulez, Karajan, Solti, Haitink, Chailly, and Tennstedt all follow Scherzo-Andante, while Abbado and Rattle are Andante-Scherzo).
> 
> I will also add that this Abbado recording has the most satisfying _Hammerschlag_ sound. It doesn't really fit with Mahler's specific directions but it is very cathartic. It's the little things that count sometimes.


Ha, the hammer blows!
If someone adds the third hammer blow, despite the fact that Mahler withdrew it... is that someone also wrongfully 'improving' a masterpiece against the composer's final wish?


----------



## Monsalvat

A fellow masochist, I see. You reminded me that I forgot Barbirolli, although EMI's re-ordering of that set is its own story.

In principle, I think I would agree that that would be, as you put it, "wrongfully 'improving' a masterpiece against the composer's final wish." But it is a much smaller part of the performance, even if it is close to the end. If the trumpet soloist cracks a note in the beginning of Mahler's Fifth, I might raise my eyebrows, but I'm not going to condemn the whole performance just on that account. (I wouldn't condemn a performance for taking either A/S or S/A, either, but I think it's more worthy of debate.)


----------



## Marc

Monsalvat said:


> A fellow masochist, I see. You reminded me that I forgot Barbirolli, although EMI's re-ordering of that set is its own story.
> 
> In principle, I think I would agree that that would be, as you put it, "wrongfully 'improving' a masterpiece against the composer's final wish." But it is a much smaller part of the performance, even if it is close to the end. If the trumpet soloist cracks a note in the beginning of Mahler's Fifth, I might raise my eyebrows, but I'm not going to condemn the whole performance just on that account. (I wouldn't condemn a performance for taking either A/S or S/A, either, but I think it's more worthy of debate.)


Yeah, the combi with either Metamorphosen or Ein Heldenleben (on CD), iirc, in Barbirolli's case.

Actually, I don't know if I am a fellow masochist, I kinda 'fell' into this topic, and, compared to a few others, I think my feelings about the subject are rather relaxed. I have less problems with 'wrongfully improvers'. I only have a problem with them when they present their findings as the one and only truth.

When listening to music, I only subordinate to my own taste and preferences. In this particular case: S-A.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> And that (the tonal scheme across movements) is what helps to make the music of that nature sound "classically structured"?


Mahler wrote the 6th as his most traditional Sonata form symphony. The first movement even includes a repeat of the Exposition.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Marc said:


> ............I only have a problem with them when they present their findings as the one and only truth.


Agreed. Well, I don't so much have a problem - I just feel it's a shame that with such an interesting subject like this, a minority of people become dogmatic.


----------



## MaxKellerman

Marc said:


> I only have a problem with them when they present their findings as the one and only truth.


Which is I think why people have a problem here: that's exactly what Ratz did back in 1963.


----------



## Aries

hammeredklavier said:


> 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.


That is no problem.

Mahler wanted the A/S order finally. But it is still important for me that he wanted the S/A order initially, because I am more restrained to variations by other people than the composer. I am not really sure about my position here, because on the one hand there should be not too many changes to works, especially not bad changes. On the other hand it does not make sense to me to disapprove good changes. Overall the number of changed works is so low, that the question doesn't really appear much.



EdwardBast said:


> So Mahler is winning the popularity contest over Ratz, which is both unsurprising and meaningless. A more interesting poll would be one that assesses the degree to which preference in movement order correlates with the version to which listeners were first exposed. We could do it informally. Why don't those who have voted and who out of some masochistic impulse are still following this thread state their preference and the version that dominated their early exposure to Mahler 6.
> 
> As I've said, my first exposure and dominant early exposure was to the S-A version, I voted for the authorized Mahler version, A-S.
> 
> Anyone else want to play?


I heard the A/S version first, but I prefer the S/A order. I have to say that I think S/A is overall the better order. Calm and pieceful Adagio content makes more sense for me after the exuberance and confusion of first movements and Scherzos.


----------



## SanAntone

mbhaub said:


> Good God, will this never end? In summary: Mahler wrote it SA but performed it AS. Then came the conflicting statements from people who supposedly knew what he wanted and it's a crap shoot. Too often forgotten is Mahler's warning: if something doesn't seem right not only do performers have the right to change it, but an obligation! So if you want SA, go for it! If you like AS that's fine. Who cares!


My most recent posts have been described the formal and harmonic structure, and the strengths, of Mahler's original plan for the symphony, which was carefully conceived and composed. I haven't seen anyone explain the musical strengths of swapping the inner movements.

The historical facts have been recited again and again. Can someone explain the musical strengths of Andante-Scherzo?


----------



## MaxKellerman

SanAntone said:


> My most recent posts have been described the formal and harmonic structure, and the strengths, of Mahler's original plan for the symphony, which was carefully conceived and composed. I haven't seen anyone explain the musical strengths of swapping the inner movements.
> 
> The historical facts have been recited again and again. Can someone explain the musical strengths of Andante-Scherzo?


Posts #5, #10, and #13 on the first page of this thread did just that. I also just found this from the Utah Symphony's program notes to Mahler's 6th:

"Placing the Scherzo after the Andante moderato also crafts a sequence of tempos that accords to the norms of Mozartian and Beethovenian symphonies (i.e., fast-slow-dance-fast). Even the key sequence follows this historical model, since the Andante moderato-Scherzo arrangement places the first, third, and fourth movement all in the key of A minor: Eighteenth-century symphonies similarly have a single key common to their outer movements, as well as their dances."


----------



## HenryPenfold

SanAntone said:


> The historical facts have been recited again and again. Can someone explain the musical strengths of Andante-Scherzo?


Best to go to the original source and analyse Mahler's explanation why he changed his mind about the order of the inner movements. His reason for the excision of the third hammer blow seems to be uncontentious, it was superstition.


----------



## SanAntone

MaxKellerman said:


> Posts #5, #10, and #13 on the first page of this thread did just that. I also just found this from the Utah Symphony's program notes to Mahler's 6th:
> 
> "Placing the Scherzo after the Andante moderato also crafts a sequence of tempos that accords to the norms of Mozartian and Beethovenian symphonies (i.e., fast-slow-dance-fast). Even the key sequence follows this historical model, since the Andante moderato-Scherzo arrangement places the first, third, and fourth movement all in the key of A minor: Eighteenth-century symphonies similarly have a single key common to their outer movements, as well as their dances."


I would accept this explanation without question but for a few musical considerations:

1. The key sequence in a classical symphony does not introduce such as *distant *a relationship as A Minor - E-Flat Major between the first two movements. Almost always the keys are related: tonic/relative minor; tonic/subdominant.

2. The revised order would create an uneven structure with the first movement (~ 23 min.) *isolated* harmonically, thematically, and structurally, from the Scherzo and the Finale (44 min), which would make the last half of the symphony "*bottom heavy*" so to speak.

3. Finally, placing the Andante (~ 16 min) as the second movement essentially prematurely introduces its purpose of a *change of pace*, tonality, and rest, from the demonic energy of all the other movements. I find it much more musically satisfying after the Scherzo on all counts.

Allegro (23 min) - A Minor
Scherzo (14 min) - A Minor
Andante (16 min) - E-Flat 
Allegro (33 min) - C Minor / C Major / A Minor

And from everything I've read, Mahler's decision to swap the inner movements was a last minute solution (as the clock was ticking down to the premier) over his indecision about what tempo to use for the beginning of the Scherzo. Essentially he "punted" instead of "going for it."


----------



## Forster

If the musical argument for S-A is so obvious, it's a bit odd that Mahler never recognised it before he died. A so-called master of the symphony didn't put right a mistake apparently obvious to countless other musical scholars.

He died almost exactly 5 years after the work premiered. That's plenty of time to make changes, isn't it?


----------



## Becca

WildThing said:


> Remember, Mengelberg had never conducted the symphony prior. It seems quite understandable to me that there would be some sudden confusion when Mengelberg prepared the Sixth Symphony for another performance, almost a decade after Mahler's death, and his nephew and musicologist Kurt Mengelberg obtained a first edition copy of the score with the erratum slip missing.


Wrong, he had conducted it already about 3 years earlier in 1916, in the A/S order,.


----------



## MaxKellerman

SanAntone said:


> I would accept this explanation without question but for a few musical considerations:
> 
> 1. The key sequence in a classical symphony does not introduce such as *distant *a relationship as A Minor - E-Flat Major between the first two movements. Almost always the keys are related: tonic/relative minor; tonic/subdominant.
> 
> 2. The revised order would create an uneven structure with the first movement (~ 23 min.) *isolated* harmonically, thematically, and structurally, from the Scherzo and the Finale (44 min), which would make the last half of the symphony "*bottom heavy*" so to speak.
> 
> 3. Finally, placing the Andante (~ 16 min) as the second movement essentially prematurely introduces its purpose of a *change of pace*, tonality, and rest, from the demonic energy of all the other movements. I find it much more musically satisfying after the Scherzo on all counts.
> 
> Allegro (23 min) - A Minor
> Scherzo (14 min) - A Minor
> Andante (16 min) - E-Flat
> Allegro (33 min) - C Minor / C Major / A Minor
> 
> And from everything I've read, Mahler's decision to swap the inner movements was a last minute solution (as the clock was ticking down to the premier) over his indecision about what tempo to use for the beginning of the Scherzo. Essentially he "punted" instead of "going for it."


Fair enough. I can see there merits of your arguments, and think that both ways to perform they symphony have their own benefits and potential pitfalls. Personally I prefer the more cyclic structure of having the Andante second, where the tempestuous first movement ends with the second euphoric theme ultimately triumphant. This victory is affirmed by the beautiful and serene Andante, when the Scherzo breaks in and interrupts the calm and sets up the tragedy in the finale.

It may have been a last minute decision, and one he was never completely satisfied because he wasn't sure what to do for the tempo of the Scherzo like you say. But he did have 4-5 years to find a different solution after the premiere. He might have seen putting the Andante second as the best solution to a puzzle he couldn't quite solve to his satisfaction.

Again though, I think all this debate really boils down not to anyone's preference or decision to perform the symphony one way or the other, but the fact that Ratz's critical edition took on an "official" status that supposedly reflected Mahler's intentions that has subsequently been revealed to be unreliable to say the least. And despite the strengths and logic of having the Scherzo second, do I believe that a Leonard Bernstein or Rafael Kubelik or Jascha Horenstein or Georg Solti would have knowingly performed the symphony in a way that contradicted Mahler's wishes? The same conductors who refused to conduct the performance edition of the 10th because it was not authentic Mahler? I don't. Of course it's all water under the bridge now. But now that we have more evidence and a better historical understanding of what happened, I don't think making it clear that Ratz's edition does not align with what Mahler authorized and did himself is unreasonable.


----------



## WildThing

Becca said:


> Wrong, he had conducted it already about 3 years earlier in 1916, in the A/S order,.


Ah, my mistake. So why do you believe he questioned the order of the inner movements 3 year later?


----------



## Becca

WildThing said:


> Ah, my mistake. So why do you believe he questioned the order of the inner movements 3 year later?


If we knew the answer to that question ... :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> My most recent posts have been described the formal and harmonic structure, and the strengths, of Mahler's original plan for the symphony, which was carefully conceived and composed. I haven't seen anyone explain the musical strengths of swapping the inner movements.
> 
> The historical facts have been recited again and again. Can someone explain the musical strengths of Andante-Scherzo?


I've done this repeatedly in several threads including this one. (See #13) For the sake of convenience I'll quote it here:

The reason S-A doesn't work is that it's incoherent from a narrative-structural perspective. To follow the dramatic assertion of the second theme at the end of the first movement with more pounding based on the principal theme at the beginning of the scherzo negates the dramatic arc of the first movement. It renders its fundamental opposition meaningless. The Adagio following this assertion, by contrast, makes perfect sense; It's a respite won by the concluding action of the first movement. 

Note that as an actual real life music theorist (and musicologist), I've dismissed the arguments based on key relations as specious (at best) for two reasons:

1. As Kreisler Jr. and others have pointed out, any key relation between movements was acceptable in the first decade of the 20thc. (One could push it 90 years earlier by citing late Beethoven, but I don't think we need go there.) More standard relationships were still more common, of course, but that's just the inertia of tradition. And obviously a composer who began a symphony in C# minor and ended it in D major-Mahler, that is-is not a stickler for conventional key relations.

2. Key relationships in late Romantic and Post-Romantic music weren't based solely on tonal-harmonic factors. Distant key relations, like the tritone relationship made so much of in this thread, were often used purposefully to emphasize an expressive disjunction, especially one between grim principal material in the minor mode and a contrasting episode in the major mode. One example is Rachmaninoff's _Isle of the Dead_, nearly contemporary with Mahler 6, where the only life affirming episode is in E-flat major precisely because this key is so far removed from the overall key of A minor. (Do those keys sound familiar?) Rachmaninoff likely got the idea from Tchaikovksy, who in the first movement of his Fourth Symphony wrote his second theme, which he described as a dream in which all that is dark and joyless is forgotten, in B major, a tritone away from the tonic key of F minor. And Donald Tovey describes a passage of Brahms's Tragic Overture "in a remote major key" as a "message of peace" amid the "solemn darkness." What key? A-flat major, a tritone away from the tonic D minor. So in all three works a positive or ideal but ultimately doomed state is assigned to the major key a tritone away from the tonic. All three works deal with Fate in a more or less explicit way, and all use the same key relationship to represent the unsustainable ideal. All follow up this tonal disjunction by returning to tragic material in the tonic minor. So the key relations in the A-S version of Mahler 6 are exactly in line with an historical tradition for tragic or Fate-narrative works.



SanAntone said:


> The real difference is that the S-A group are actually advocating for a dual-version tradition, which is nothing more than what we have. Your A-S group is dogmatically insisting on only their approach, despite the fact that a large number of conductors choose to perform the symphony using the S-A version.
> 
> It appears only one side is being unreasonable; yours.
> 
> Time will tell, eventually one version or the other will take precedence. But until then the only rational approach is to accept reality as it is and listen to the version you prefer.


This is false. Several times in these related threads I have said I don't care how others listen to the work and I don't mind If people want to perform it in S-A order. What I've been advocating is simply that those who do so clearly acknowledge that the version they are performing was not authorized by the composer and is the product of the historical errors of Ratz. Of course I've argued that all the theoretical arguments put up by the S-A advocates are bogus and I've opined that they are just rationalizations to justify a preference in direct contradiction of Mahler's, but that's not "dogmatic insistence on [my] approach," it's just disagreement with yours. In general, I'm just asking people to acknowledge historical facts that are beyond dispute. It's just the bare minimum respect due the composer. Why is that so hard?


----------



## Waehnen

May I speak from the heart?

Despite what I said earlier, I love this conversation and thread with all it’s opinions, analysis, dogmatic positions and even frustration.

There is something meaningful and very cool to be arguing over such a matter. There sure are some other values in the world still than just making as much money as possible as fast as possible. So thank you all! Let us all have it also in the future!

When it comes to my own work, I ponder over exactly this kind of things. For some time I have asked myself are there anyone else as obsessed with the right order, composition, architecture, stimmung, stilleben and scenery of the musical elements. It is obvious now there are such people.

Another honest observation without softening of the words, without trying to be intelligently objective: in my heart I do not believe for one instance that Mahler would have stuck with A-S because that arrangement is just ridiculous. A-S is just BAD and it is so obvious and plain for us all to see, right there in your faces.

Thank you.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Forster said:


> If the musical argument for S-A is so obvious, it's a bit odd that Mahler never recognised it before he died. A so-called master of the symphony didn't put right a mistake apparently obvious to countless other musical scholars.


We mustn't lose sight of a very important fact - that the musical argument for S-A is of course Mahler's own. He composed it that way in 1903-1904. Later, he played the completed symphony to Alma on the piano, and orchestrated it the following year in 1905. He then had it published that way. So far, so good!

In my view, the odd thing is why did he then change it? And we simply don't know and probably never will!



> He died almost exactly 5 years after the work premiered. That's plenty of time to make changes, isn't it?


He may not have actually had the opportunity. During the time he changed his mind, he was already busy writing his 7th symphony (1904-1905). So in those final 5 or 6 years of his life, he composed his 7th symphony, the mighty 8th symphony, Das Lied Von Der Erde, his 9th symphony and then sadly died during the writing of the 10th. That's an incredible amount of work, and he did not have 'plenty of time' in which to do it.

Going back to the 6th in the midst of all that couldn't have been a priority.


----------



## Becca

HenryPenfold said:


> In my view, the odd thing is why did he then change it? And we simply don't know and probably never will!


You are right that we won't ever know but I don't see it as at all odd... It is one thing to hear it mentally while composing or later in piano reduction, and a very different thing to finally hear it with full orchestra. Furthermore we know that Mahler frequently tweaked his scores after hearing a performance, so I can easily see why he changed his mind in this case.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Becca said:


> You are right that we won't ever know but I don't see it as at all odd... It is one thing to hear it mentally while composing or later in piano reduction, and a very different thing to finally hear it with full orchestra. Furthermore we know that Mahler frequently tweaked his scores after hearing a performance, so I can easily see why he changed his mind in this case.


I agree, but that's not what I meant. I meant that it's odd that Mahler seems not to have mentioned a reason for quite a significant change.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Becca said:


> I can easily see why he changed his mind in this case.


I can see _how_ he changed his mind (and your explanation is especially helpful in this regard), but I cannot see _why_ he changed his mind. The reason why is the one thing that I think we simply don't know. Everything else is uncontentious (despite the bun-fights!).


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> I've done this repeatedly in several threads including this one. (See #13) For the sake of convenience I'll quote it here:
> 
> The reason S-A doesn't work is that it's incoherent from a narrative-structural perspective. To follow the dramatic assertion of the second theme at the end of the first movement with more pounding based on the principal theme at the beginning of the scherzo negates the dramatic arc of the first movement. It renders its fundamental opposition meaningless. The Adagio following this assertion, by contrast, makes perfect sense; It's a respite won by the concluding action of the first movement.
> 
> Note that as an actual real life music theorist (and musicologist), I've dismissed the arguments based on key relations as specious (at best) for two reasons:
> 
> 1. As Kreisler Jr. and others have pointed out, any key relation between movements was acceptable in the first decade of the 20thc. (One could push it 90 years earlier by citing late Beethoven, but I don't think we need go there.) More standard relationships were still more common, of course, but that's just the inertia of tradition. And obviously a composer who began a symphony in C# minor and ended it in D major-Mahler, that is-is not a stickler for conventional key relations.
> 
> 2. Key relationships in late Romantic and Post-Romantic music weren't based solely on tonal-harmonic factors. Distant key relations, like the tritone relationship made so much of in this thread, were often used purposefully to emphasize an expressive disjunction, especially one between grim principal material in the minor mode and a contrasting episode in the major mode. One example is Rachmaninoff's _Isle of the Dead_, nearly contemporary with Mahler 6, where the only life affirming episode is in E-flat major precisely because this key is so far removed from the overall key of A minor. (Do those keys sound familiar?) Rachmaninoff likely got the idea from Tchaikovksy, who in the first movement of his Fourth Symphony wrote his second theme, which he described as a dream in which all that is dark and joyless is forgotten, in B major, a tritone away from the tonic key of F minor. And Donald Tovey describes a passage of Brahms's Tragic Overture "in a remote major key" as a "message of peace" amid the "solemn darkness." What key? A-flat major, a tritone away from the tonic D minor. So in all three works a positive or ideal but ultimately doomed state is assigned to the major key a tritone away from the tonic. All three works deal with Fate in a more or less explicit way, and all use the same key relationship to represent the unsustainable ideal. All follow up this tonal disjunction by returning to tragic material in the tonic minor. So the key relations in the A-S version of Mahler 6 are exactly in line with an historical tradition for tragic or Fate-narrative works.
> 
> This is false. Several times in these related threads I have said I don't care how others listen to the work and I don't mind If people want to perform it in S-A order. What I've been advocating is simply that those who do so clearly acknowledge that the version they are performing was not authorized by the composer and is the product of the historical errors of Ratz. Of course I've argued that all the theoretical arguments put up by the S-A advocates are bogus and I've opined that they are just rationalizations to justify a preference in direct contradiction of Mahler's, but that's not "dogmatic insistence on [my] approach," it's just disagreement with yours. In general, I'm just asking people to acknowledge historical facts that are beyond dispute. It's just the bare minimum respect due the composer. Why is that so hard?


I very much appreciate your post which brings to light reasons why key relationships alone do not account for the original plan's logic. But there is an architecture that Mahler built of which the key relationship are only one part. However, your curt dismissals of the S-A plan are not aimed at those of us who advocate the musical sense of the original plan, but at Mahler himself. This is a plan he conceived and honed for more than two years, but one you dismiss as incoherent.

Mahler was pleased with it right up until the point when he was troubled with the transition from the end of the Allegro to the beginning of the Scherzo movement. I perceive his hasty solution (hasty compared to the more than 24 months of living with the original plan) as a band-aid and way to avoid the problem. He chose to use his remaining years writing new works instead of spending more time on this symphony which he might have felt he never got right.

So we are left with an ongoing controversy, and one which will not be resolved in this thread.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> 1. The key sequence in a classical symphony does not introduce such as *distant *a relationship as A Minor - E-Flat Major between the first two movements. Almost always the keys are related: tonic/relative minor; tonic/subdominant.


It still seems far too trivial an element, considering Mahler's artistic tendencies (known for having twists and turns, ironies in his music). What would you say about his other symphonies in this regard? His 8th or 9th?


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> Mahler wrote the 6th as his most traditional Sonata form symphony. The first movement even includes a repeat of the Exposition.


It's fascinating how many people come to different conclusions off the same facts (really, it is). Like I've always liked S-A better but other than historical arguments, the most notable argument I agree with for A-S is that - as a very capital-C Classical, traditionally formed symphony, the slow movement should be second.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> It still seems far too trivial an element, considering Mahler's artistic tendencies (known for having twists and turns, ironies in his music). What would you say about his other symphonies in this regard? His 8th or 9th?


It isn't trivial nor overly important; just one more brick in the edifice Mahler created in his original plan. I haven't spent time with his other symphonies so I can't describe their key plans. But my feeling is that Mahler respected traditional harmonic sequencing and exploited it in his work.



fbjim said:


> It's fascinating how many people come to different conclusions off the same facts (really, it is). Like I've always liked S-A better but other than historical arguments, the most notable argument I agree with for A-S is that - as a very capital-C Classical, traditionally formed symphony, the slow movement should be second.


Placing the scherzo as the second movement was not unprecedented when Mahler came to write the 6th. Beethoven did it twice, in the 8th and essentially in the 9th (a fast movement in 3/4 is second). Bruckner placed the scherzo as the second movement for his 8th and 9th symphonies. There are, no doubt, other examples.

The scherzo was an outgrowth of the traditional minuet movement, which went from a lighthearted dance movement to a more dynamic and even violent form in the hands of Chopin and Liszt. Mahler himself invested his scherzo movements with a demonic flavor.

It has been said, I think Bruno Walter, the the last movement of the 6th is the apotheosis of Mahler's style. And the build up to this movement is crucial in any appreciation of Mahler's original structure, and not something to dismiss lightly.


----------



## Marc

Waehnen said:


> May I speak from the heart?
> 
> Despite what I said earlier, I love this conversation and thread with all it's opinions, analysis, dogmatic positions and even frustration.
> 
> There is something meaningful and very cool to be arguing over such a matter. There sure are some other values in the world still than just making as much money as possible as fast as possible. So thank you all! Let us all have it also in the future!
> 
> When it comes to my own work, I ponder over exactly this kind of things. For some time I have asked myself are there anyone else as obsessed with the right order, composition, architecture, stimmung, stilleben and scenery of the musical elements. It is obvious now there are such people.
> 
> Another honest observation without softening of the words, without trying to be intelligently objective: in my heart I do not believe for one instance that Mahler would have stuck with A-S because that arrangement is just ridiculous. A-S is just BAD and it is so obvious and plain for us all to see, right there in your faces.
> 
> Thank you.


My favourite composer is Bach. He is known as a great composing architect.
For the 1725 version of his Johannes-Passion he added an aria after the chorale "Wer hat dich so geschlagen?", immediately after Jesus had been beaten by a temple servant during the interrogation by the hight priests. The aria's lyrics are about the earthquake after his death. To me, it's plain [.......] to put that aria there. Even though I love the music (it's a very expressive aria!), I mostly skip it when listening to the 1725 version.

So yes, I'm as arrogant here as Horowitz was with KV 488. Bach made a mistake there........ in my extremely very humble opinion, of course.





SanAntone said:


> [...] there is an architecture that Mahler built of which the key relationship are only one part. However, your curt dismissals of the S-A plan are not aimed at those of us who advocate the musical sense of the original plan, but at Mahler himself. This is a plan he conceived and honed for more than two years, but one you dismiss as incoherent.[...]


Well, we already saw the proof  that Bach and Mozart made mistakes, and yes, we can most certainly agree that Mahler _*was*_ incoherent. As a human being, and as a composer........ in my very extremely humble opinion, of course.



My opinions can be put aside as being plain rubbish (and rightly so), I know that.
But these composers are not faultless saints either, not even in their own craft and profession.

Despite the interesing musicological proof that the order should be A-S, it's obvious of course that the entire impact of the symphony is much greater with the order S-A.

:lol:

(I'm outta here.)


----------



## Forster

WildThing said:


> Ah, my mistake. So why do you believe he questioned the order of the inner movements 3 year later?





Becca said:


> If we knew the answer to that question ... :lol:


I thought we already had a plausible explanation?



> In October 1919, 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/


----------



## Becca

^^ Yes but that doesn't answer the question of why he would even need to ask given that he had previously conducted the 6th.


----------



## Forster

Becca said:


> ^^ Yes but that doesn't answer the question of why he would even need to ask given that he had previously conducted the 6th.


Because he'd been given the wrong score, putting doubt in his mind? (3 years later).


----------



## BachIsBest

WildThing said:


> Remember, Mengelberg had never conducted the symphony prior. It seems quite understandable to me that there would be some sudden confusion when Mengelberg prepared the Sixth Symphony for another performance, almost a decade after Mahler's death, and his nephew and musicologist Kurt Mengelberg obtained a first edition copy of the score with the erratum slip missing.


This is factually incorrect. If you read the quote from Wikipedia (and my post) it clearly states that Mengelberg performed it multiple times before Mahler's death always in the A-S order and only switched to S-A once he contacted Alma. Regardless, it seems nearly impossible that Mahler never discussed the matter personally with Mengelberg, and if Mahler was completely decided it would be very strange that he even bothered to ask Alma. What is far more likely, is he knew Mahler had some indecision on the matter and thought that Alma, if anyone, would know best what Mahler's thoughts were just before his untimely passing. Obviously, we now know Alma was not the most honest person so her answer can not be taken as any sort of strong evidence, but I feel Mengelberg's asking can.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> Because he'd been given the wrong score, putting doubt in his mind? (3 years later).


But surely a close personal and proffesional friend of Mahler who had performed the symphony before that would not be so easily confused and swayed if Mahler was as adamant about the order A-S as some here seem to claim?


----------



## Monsalvat

Fun note about the hammer-blows: IMSLP actually has both the original version and the revised (final) version on their webpage. You can see a color facsimile of the page with the third hammer-blow at the Mahler Foundation's website, _with Mahler's corrections:_ https://mahlerfoundation.org/mahler...hony-no-6-movement-4-finale-allegro-moderato/

Comparing the two versions (the page of interest is the fourth page from the end if you pull up either the original or revised Kahnt edition), there are some really substantial differences!! Aside from the excision of the hammer, Mahler adds a celesta scale in rapid octaves, doubling the flutes and oboes. (He actually cuts the oboes out as well in the measure preceding the third hammer-blow). The harp glissando is moved so it starts two beats earlier, and he gives some cue notes to the harpist so they know just how fast to play this glissando; he also changes the direction "A-dur" to "B-dur" in the harp here. To the percussionists, he adds the instructions "Holzschlägel" to the timpani, and "gedämpft" to the timpani and snare drum. He also reduced the timpani from two players to one in this passage. In the measure which featured the third hammer-blow (bar 783), the dynamics are all _radically_ altered, in some cases (e.g. the flutes) going from piano to fortissimo! He changes a dotted quarter note in the strings to a quarter note with an eighth rest, adds accents and diminuendi, cuts some of the contrabass parts. The A clarinets come in two measures earlier, while the trombones and tuba are removed. The F trumpets, instead of playing forte and fortissimo, are instructed to play piano and _fp_; two measures later, an instruction to play piano is changed to read _sffp_. Oh, and instead of having all eight horns play muted, he instructs 5-8 to play open, even while 1-4 are muted.

And all of this is on _just one page_! This is a really substantial set of changes in a brief span of time. This tells me that Mahler was _extremely_ particular about his intentions, even if he didn't get it on the first time; I think this line of reasoning could be applied to the ordering of the inner movements as well, but obviously this is up for debate. Obviously, a conductor who wishes to re-insert the third hammer-blow now has to consider all of these other revisions to the orchestral balance at this moment, which are not minor; it clearly isn't as simple as just adding the hammer back in.

Leonard Bernstein was known for including this third hammer-blow. We can see from his marked conducting score that he did _not_ also change the orchestral balances here back to Mahler's original; he simply included the hammer-blow without re-considering the rest of the changes made at this point. I really, really strongly disagree with this, as it is just an arbitrary mishmash of versions. https://archives.nyphil.org/index.p...d-f06625cd5ab6-0.1/fullview#page/266/mode/2up (page 267 in their online tool). It is clear that Bernstein was using the revised Kahnt edition here... but Berstein's only change at this point is to add a _fff_ quarter note, and mark it "HAMMER (3!)". I can't endorse this in principle but I need to go back and listen to Bernstein's rendition to hear how it comes across. This afternoon I listened to Kubelík and found that he did a convincing job with the Scherzo-Andante ordering.


----------



## WildThing

BachIsBest said:


> This is factually incorrect. If you read the quote from Wikipedia (and my post) it clearly states that Mengelberg performed it multiple times before Mahler's death always in the A-S order and only switched to S-A once he contacted Alma. Regardless, it seems nearly impossible that Mahler never discussed the matter personally with Mengelberg, and if Mahler was completely decided it would be very strange that he even bothered to ask Alma. What is far more likely, is he knew Mahler had some indecision on the matter and thought that Alma, if anyone, would know best what Mahler's thoughts were just before his untimely passing. Obviously, we now know Alma was not the most honest person so her answer can not be taken as any sort of strong evidence, but I feel Mengelberg's asking can.


I don't think its nearly impossible, it seems very possible they never had a conversation about this issue specifically. Mengelberg had actually never performed the symphony in Mahler's lifetime, his first performance of it was in 1916. And once Mahler made his decision at the premiere he never looked back. So it wasn't necessarily some point of contention or dissatisfaction that Mahler felt the need to discuss with every associate. Bruno Walter says Mahler never discussed any such desire to switch the movements or doubt about it with him for example.

So while I agree it does seem a little strange he would be thrown into confusion, its not unthinkable. If Mahler had expressed doubts to Mengelberg, why didn't Mengelberg consult Alma before his performance in 1916? Finding a first edition score was perhaps a discovery of something he was just not aware of. In any case it's all speculation and I definitely don't think it counts as very compelling evidence for the S/A ordering.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> But surely a close personal and proffesional friend of Mahler who had performed the symphony before that would not be so easily confused and swayed if Mahler was as adamant about the order A-S as some here seem to claim?


Had he performed the symphony day in day out, I'm sure he works have had no difficulty in remembering.

I know nothing about Mengelberg, but I do know what a full professional life can do to your memory over three years.

Kurt has the wrong score, it seems plausible to me that he would scratch his head, wonder that, surely, the inner movements were the wrong way round, but determined to check. He contacts Willem. Willem asks Alma. The unreliable Alma sends her telegram, confirming scherzo second. Who is Willem to doubt Alma's word, especially since there was no discussion, just four words.

Who knows what might have been occupying Mengelberg's mind in the time since he last conducted it.

At any rate, the change was made.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> I very much appreciate your post which brings to light reasons why key relationships alone do not account for the original plan's logic. But there is an architecture that Mahler built of which the key relationship are only one part. However, your curt dismissals of the S-A plan are not aimed at those of us who advocate the musical sense of the original plan, but at Mahler himself. This is a plan he conceived and honed for more than two years, but one you dismiss as incoherent.
> 
> *Mahler was pleased with it right up until the point when he was troubled with the transition from the end of the Allegro to the beginning of the Scherzo movement.* I perceive his hasty solution (hasty compared to the more than 24 months of living with the original plan) as a band-aid and way to avoid the problem. He chose to use his remaining years writing new works instead of spending more time on this symphony which he might have felt he never got right.
> 
> So we are left with an ongoing controversy, and one which will not be resolved in this thread.


Or one could say, as Becca has, up until the point where he heard it (performed by the forces for which he composed it). Mahler's actions, especially his own performance history, speak for themselves. If he ever thought the A-S order was a bad idea or that S-A was better, it would have been virtually effortless to change it. He could have just sent an errata note to his publisher to be inserted into scores of the 6th. I doubt the hour of labor that required would have seriously impeded work on his later symphonies.  Do you not hear a note of desperation in the arguments that are emerging now?



Monsalvat said:


> This afternoon I listened to Kubelík and found that he did a convincing job with the Scherzo-Andante ordering.


Convincing to those who think that order works but not to others who, like Mahler, don't.


----------



## HenryPenfold

EdwardBast said:


> Convincing to those who think that order works but not to others who, like Mahler, don't.


Was that why he changed the order, because it doesn't work - Is that what he said? Or are you just making this up?


----------



## MaxKellerman

WildThing said:


> I don't think its nearly impossible, it seems very possible they never had a conversation about this issue specifically. Mengelberg had actually never performed the symphony in Mahler's lifetime, his first performance of it was in 1916. And once Mahler made his decision at the premiere he never looked back. So it wasn't necessarily some point of contention or dissatisfaction that Mahler felt the need to discuss with every associate. Bruno Walter says Mahler never discussed any such desire to switch the movements or doubt about it with him for example.
> 
> So while I agree it does seem a little strange he would be thrown into confusion, its not unthinkable. If Mahler had expressed doubts to Mengelberg, why didn't Mengelberg consult Alma before his performance in 1916? Finding a first edition score was perhaps a discovery of something he was just not aware of. In any case it's all speculation and I definitely don't think it counts as very compelling evidence for the S/A ordering.


And even if he _had_ conducted the symphony during Mahler's lifetime and/or had a discussed the matter with Mahler himself, it makes even _less_ sense that he would conduct the symphony in 1916 with the Andante second and then feel the need to turn to Alma Mahler for insight three years later and ultimately switch the order. How much more insight could she possibly provide after 13 years than a one on one conversation with the composer himself could?

Forster's explanation seems far more plausible to me. As hard as it is to believe, Mengelberg was probably not aware that he was in the middle of what would end up a historic controversy. :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Marc said:


> Mackerras, with the Prague Chamber Orchestra, plays the Menuetto of Mozart's KV 550 'presto', whilst Mozart asked for 'allegretto'.
> I like Mackerras's approach though. Mozart might not approve of it, but hey...
> Some conductors include the Menuetto KV 409 in Mozart's symphony KV 334 (as a 3rd movement), despite the different instrumentation. Do I approve of it? Yeah, because it works for me. Would Mozart have approved of it? Don't know, don't care.


You still misunderstand me, and EB, Becca. You're free to make changes to any work by anyone as you wish. Whether or not the composers would roll in their graves today is not important. You just have to admit, acknowledge, and indicate that you did.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> Do you not hear a note of desperation in the arguments that are emerging now?


No. I think this is an interesting question and have read more about this symphony than the others. I had hoped this discussion would have proven to be more enlightening.

Personally I prefer the Scherzo-Andante for the reasons I have posted, and don't find the historical arguments compelling enough to override what I perceive as strong internal musical logic of the original plan. I would like to know more of why Mahler changed his mind, but there is conflicting and insufficient information to form a clear understanding of his thinking.

Either version results in a compelling work, which I consider among his best symphonies.

Ironically David Hurwitz, someone I generally don't follow, summarizes what I think is the most appropriate approach:



> "So as far as the facts go, then, we have on the one hand what Mahler actually did when he last performed the symphony, and on the other hand, what he originally composed and what his wife reported that he ultimately wanted. Any objective observer would be compelled to admit that this constitutes strong evidence for both perspectives. This being the case, the responsible thing to do in revisiting the need for a new Critical Edition would be to set out all of the arguments on each side, and then take no position. Let the performers decide, and admit frankly that if the criterion for making a decision regarding the correct order of the inner movements must be what Mahler himself ultimately wanted, then no final answer is possible."


----------



## MaxKellerman

> Any objective observer would be compelled to admit that this constitutes strong evidence for both perspectives.


Well that's clearly not true. I don't believe that what order the movements were in when Mahler composed the symphony and what he decided when he performed it hold the same weight. And nothing regarding Alma constitutes strong evidence. And I'm genuinely trying to be objective as possible. So sorry Hurwitz, we are back at square one.


----------



## SanAntone

MaxKellerman said:


> Well that's clearly not true. I don't believe that what order the movements were in when Mahler composed the symphony and what he decided when he performed it hold the same weight. And nothing regarding Alma constitutes strong evidence. And I'm genuinely trying to be objective as possible. So sorry Hurwitz, we are back at square one.


His point, and one I agree with, is to *leave it up to conductors* to choose which version they prefer. No other opinions really matter.


----------



## MaxKellerman

SanAntone said:


> His point, and one I agree with, is to *leave it up to conductors* to choose which version they prefer. No other opinions really matter.


And EB's point is that no matter what a conductor chooses to do, we should be able to "acknowledge historical facts that are beyond dispute. It's just the bare minimum respect due the composer."

So its possible to agree with your point and Edward's because one doesn't cancel out the other. So no need to debate the issue further.


----------



## BachIsBest

MaxKellerman said:


> And even if he _had_ conducted the symphony during Mahler's lifetime and/or had a discussed the matter with Mahler himself, it makes even _less_ sense that he would conduct the symphony in 1916 with the Andante second and then feel the need to turn to Alma Mahler for insight three years later and ultimately switch the order. How much more insight could she possibly provide after 13 years than a one on one conversation with the composer himself could?
> 
> Forster's explanation seems far more plausible to me. As hard as it is to believe, Mengelberg was probably not aware that he was in the middle of what would end up a historic controversy. :lol:


If he had discussed it with Mahler and knew that Mahler himself had some degree of indecision on the matter then surely it would make a lot of sense for him to turn to Alma, no? It's also perhaps interesting that he turned to Alma rather than say, Bruno Walter. If it was just a mix-up over score editions, why not go to him?

Anyway, this is a lot of speculation, and as I said in my first post on this thread, I agree the historical evidence is slightly more compelling for A-S. What I had a problem with, were the members who seemed to argue as if there were no two sides to this story and no legitimate arguments for S-A.


----------



## SanAntone

MaxKellerman said:


> And EB's point is that no matter what a conductor chooses to do, we should be able to "acknowledge historical facts that are beyond dispute. It's just the bare minimum respect due the composer."
> 
> So its possible to agree with your point and Edward's because one doesn't cancel out the other. So no need to debate the issue further.


The internal *musical facts* of the work itself, and how a conductor analyzes them, is the best criteria to determine which version to be performed.


----------



## MaxKellerman

BachIsBest said:


> If he had discussed it with Mahler and knew that Mahler himself had some degree of indecision on the matter then surely it would make a lot of sense for him to turn to Alma, no? It's also perhaps interesting that he turned to Alma rather than say, Bruno Walter. If it was just a mix-up over score editions, why not go to him?


I don't follow your logic. If he had spoken to Mahler about it, why would he feel the _need_ to turn to Alma? I don't see what sense that makes. And I can't understand why he would then conduct it one way, then 3 years later suddenly come down with a case of amnesia and become confused and send Alma a telegram and perform it the opposite way.

In any case, we don't even know that a conversation did take place. Despite what wiki may or may not say, he did not perform the symphony in Mahler's lifetime.



> Anyway, this is a lot of speculation, and as I said in my first post on this thread, I agree the historical evidence is slightly more compelling for A-S. What I had a problem with, were the members who seemed to argue as if there were no two sides to this story and no legitimate arguments for S-A.


I'm honestly surprised you only find the evidence slightly more compelling, when I haven't seen any evidence for S-A, just conjecture and speculation about Mahler's supposed indecisiveness.


----------



## MaxKellerman

SanAntone said:


> The internal *musical facts* of the work itself, and how a conductor analyzes them, is the best criteria to determine which version to be performed.


Well, that's your opinion. Others might say that the composer dictates the content of their work, and 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" as one conductor put it. Not to analyze the composition in order to determine how it should be performed. I don't think theres any changing of anyone's minds on where they come down on this.


----------



## SanAntone

MaxKellerman said:


> Well, that's your opinion. Others might say that the composer dictates the content of their work, and 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" as one conductor put it. Not to analyze the composition in order to determine how it should be performed. I don't think theres any changing of anyone's minds on where they come down on this.


Your argument is not with me - but with the many conductors who have performed the Scherzo before the Andante movement. Tell them they are not honoring Mahler's wishes and see what they say.


----------



## MaxKellerman

SanAntone said:


> The primary responsibility of conductors and performers is to interpret a work as they see fit. Sometimes they depart from the composer's indicated tempo, dynamics, and other interpretative aspects which are explicit in the score. Sometimes they incorporate historical information in their performance and sometimes they ignore it.
> 
> Once a composer publishes his work it takes on a life of its own, and becomes the obligation of each performer to bring it to life in a performance, using all of their faculties.
> 
> It is a very limited idea of this process to think there is only one way to honor the composer's intentions. This is why we have hundreds of recordings of the same works with very different results.


True, it isn't black and white. But surely there must be certain boundaries that separate interpretation from recomposition. Anyways, as others have said, feel free to arrange the work and perform it as you see fit. Just maintain the intellectual honesty to make it clear thats what you're doing, and not pretend you are actually in line with what the composer wanted.


----------



## BachIsBest

MaxKellerman said:


> I don't follow your logic. If he had spoken to Mahler about it, why would he feel the _need_ to turn to Alma? I don't see what sense that makes. And I can't understand why he would then conduct it one way, then 3 years later suddenly come down with a case of amnesia and become confused and send Alma a telegram and perform it the opposite way.
> 
> In any case, we don't even know that a conversation did take place. Despite what wiki may or may not say, he did not perform the symphony in Mahler's lifetime.


If he spoke to Mahler a number of years prior and Mahler had expressed his indecision, or even not complete confidence, or even anything to suggest that he might later change his mind, then why wouldn't it make sense to turn to the person most likely to know what Mahler's thoughts were just prior to his passing?



MaxKellerman said:


> I'm honestly surprised you only find the evidence slightly more compelling, when I haven't seen any evidence for S-A, just conjecture and speculation about Mahler's supposed indecisiveness.


The reality is Mahler originally intended for it to be S-A, wrote it as S-A, and rehearsed it as S-A, before finally changing it just prior to the premiere. One of Mahler's closest colleagues (Mengelberg) was not clear on Mahler's thoughts on the matter, one of his devout followers only conducted it S-A (Webern), and his wife stated that it should be S-A after his death. None of this is conclusive, on the whole I have already stated I find it less compelling than the other side, but to say there is no evidence is just plain silly.


----------



## SanAntone

MaxKellerman said:


> True, it isn't black and white. But surely there must be certain boundaries that separate interpretation from recomposition. Anyways, as others have said, feel free to arrange the work and perform it as you see fit. Just maintain the intellectual honesty to make it clear thats what you're doing, and not pretend you are actually in line with what the composer wanted.


I had edited my post you quoted -

Your argument is not with me - but with the many conductors who have performed the Scherzo before the Andante movement. Tell them they are not honoring Mahler's wishes and see what they say.


----------



## MaxKellerman

BachIsBest said:


> If he spoke to Mahler a number of years prior and Mahler had expressed his indecision, or even not complete confidence, or even anything to suggest that he might later change his mind, then why wouldn't it make sense to turn to the person most likely to know what Mahler's thoughts were just prior to his passing?


Well, even if true and what Mengelberg believed , turns out that wasn't the case. Alma contradicted herself on the matter.

But you're leaving out the performing it one way and suddenly remembering Mahler's indecision later.



> The reality is Mahler originally intended for it to be S-A, wrote it as S-A, and rehearsed it as S-A, before finally changing it just prior to the premiere. One of Mahler's closest colleagues (Mengelberg) was not clear on Mahler's thoughts on the matter, one of his devout followers only conducted it S-A (Webern), and his wife stated that it should be S-A after his death. None of this is conclusive, on the whole I have already stated I find it less compelling than the other side, but to say there is no evidence is just plain silly.


I know the reality of the situation just fine thank you. Someone not being clear on Mahler's thoughts on the matter does not constitute evidence that Mahler was undecided. It just means they don't know. Sorry to be so silly to you.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Do you not hear a note of desperation in the arguments that are emerging now?


I hear wails of desperation, especially from SanAndante.


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> I've done this repeatedly in several threads including this one. (See #13) For the sake of convenience I'll quote it here:
> 
> The reason S-A doesn't work is that it's incoherent from a narrative-structural perspective. To follow the dramatic assertion of the second theme at the end of the first movement with more pounding based on the principal theme at the beginning of the scherzo negates the dramatic arc of the first movement. It renders its fundamental opposition meaningless. The Adagio following this assertion, by contrast, makes perfect sense; It's a respite won by the concluding action of the first movement.


Edward, I enjoy your well-thought out and well-presented postings....but I disagree with you here regarding the dramatic flow of Mahler 6....I'm not all that concerned with the historical events, Mahler's intent, what is "authentic", and so forth..._Alma was unreliable, Ratz is a jerk, Mengelberg should have/shouldn't have, yada, yada._...that's been beaten to death.....my interest is with what makes the piece work most effectively...what makes it the most meaningful and rewarding to me, as a listener....

I hear it as a struggle between up and down, dark and light, bliss, and tragedy....and Mahler takes us on a wild and intense rollercoaster...I believe that the Scherzo-Andante order works best for me, and allows this work to come across with devastating impact...
We have the initial sinister, dark march tune to open, then the 'up" episodes with the "Alma" theme, and this prevails at the end of mvt I....the upbeat theme sounding forth...
Then the brutal, crunching Scherzo shows the dark side prevailing again....the upbeat ending of mvt I is dashed...
The Andante sings forth, a respite, a song of hope, bliss even, relief from the downside attack - 
Then comes the finale, itself a rollercoaster of up and down emotion....wonderfully, positive sounds come forth, euphoric, blissful, only to be crushed by the harsh hammer blows, again, and again the upswings are negated by the crushing tragedy, which prevails and gets the last word....

I find that the S-A order really brings out that up/down roller-coaster most effectively, much more so than the A-S order, which I have tried several times with different performances...the flow just isn't there for me, at least not as effectively.

Now, that is, of course, just my opinion as a listener, others obviously may differ or agree, there seems to be a fair number of listeners on each side of the issue....some very great conductors have made most convincing cases for the S-A order, and that is difficult to ignore.
As far as authenticity, historical correctness, I stay out of it.....I just think Mahler should have stuck with his original gut feeling. Why he changed it?? who knows....I just think he made a mistake to change it....it clearly can work both ways, it's an awesome work. 
Again, I understand your analysis, and that works for you, and you present it clearly....

What I'm saying is, bottom line - for me, M6 works better, it's more effective, with Mahler's original S-A order.


----------



## BachIsBest

MaxKellerman said:


> Well, even if true and what Mengelberg believed , turns out that wasn't the case. Alma contradicted herself on the matter.
> 
> But you're leaving out the performing it one way and suddenly remembering Mahler's indecision later.


Alma never stated A-S. She once said "however he performed it in Amsterdam", but Mahler never performed it in Amsterdam so this is evidence only of Alma's fallible memory.

And yes, in summarising the evidence for S-A I left out the evidence for A-S (isn't this a sort of obvious).



MaxKellerman said:


> I know the reality of the situation just fine thank you. Someone not being clear on Mahler's thoughts on the matter does not constitute evidence that Mahler was undecided. It just means they don't know. Sorry to be so silly to you.


The fact that one of Mahlers closest musical colleagues, the man who Mahler most respected as a performer in his music, wasn't aware that Mahler was adamant about it being A-S does constitute evidence that Mahler might not have been so adamant. The fact that Webern also performed it S-A is decent as well, and we have that Alma directly stated it should be S-A.

Look, none of this is irrefutable, you can poke holes in it, but to say it doesn't even constitute evidence is too far. Evidence is not proof.


----------



## MaxKellerman

BachIsBest said:


> Alma never stated A-S. She once said "however he performed it in Amsterdam", but Mahler never performed it in Amsterdam so this is evidence only of Alma's fallible memory.
> 
> And yes, in summarising the evidence for S-A I left out the evidence for A-S (isn't this a sort of obvious).
> 
> The fact that one of Mahlers closest musical colleagues, the man who Mahler most respected as a performer in his music, wasn't aware that Mahler was adamant about it being A-S does constitute evidence that Mahler might not have been so adamant. The fact that Webern also performed it S-A is decent as well, and we have that Alma directly stated it should be S-A.
> 
> Look, none of this is irrefutable, you can poke holes in it, but to say it doesn't even constitute evidence is too far. Evidence is not proof.


You forgot about Alma writing in her memoirs that the Scherzo was the third movement of the 6th. So yeah, she did contradict herself. And besides not remembering he never performed it in Amsterdam, she also never spoke up and communicated with anyone at any of the subsequent performances of the 6th she attended that Mahler had told her he was leaning towards reinstating his original conception.

The fact that Mengelberg wasn't aware that Mahler was adament on the having the Andante second is evidence that *he did not know what Mahler's intentions were*. Do you acknowledge that you were factually mistaken, and he never rehearsed or conducted the symphony under Mahler's direction? And if he had a discussion with Mahler, and knew Mahler had doubts, or was indecisive, would he really be surprised by that first edition of the score that was stumbled upon? I mean he had conducted the symphony three years earlier, and according to you he must of known about Mahler's last minute decision and change of heart. One would think his reaction to being presented with an edition of the score where the Scherzo was second would be something more like "oh, yeah, well Mahler wasn't sure, but we talked it out and Mahler was leaning A/S, that's why I performed it that way 3 years ago." I wouldn't think his reaction would be "Whaaat!? Why on earth!? Send a telegram to Alma, pronto. Let's clear this up!"

And why is the fact that Webern conducted it S/A _decent_ evidence? Have you thought to ask why did he conduct it S/A? He was a "disciple" of Mahler? So what!? Erwin Ratz was a a student of Mahler's. That didn't stop him from suppressing the facts to support his theories to publish the edition of the symphony that made more sense to him. Did Webern have a conversation with Mahler too? Man, Mahler was chatting up everyone about this. Except anyone who reported such a conversation, or can corroborate it. Maybe Webern based his decision on what Mengelberg did in 1919. Or maybe he was in in correspondence with the ever reliable Alma as well. Or maybe he discussed the matter with Ratz. Yeah that's legitimate. Man, you have me thinking now. You know what this is really decent evidence of? Mahler's spirit came to Webern in his dreams and told him his true intentions.


----------



## Waehnen

Let me summarize the narratives of the two versions in a most simplistic way.



S-A:

I — Let’s establish some great drama between contrasting elements, the bright side slightly winning in the end

II (Scherzo) — Let’s give another angle on the drama and establish the narrative of trying to balance between anxiety and inner peace

III — Let’s enjoy a well-earned peaceful moment of happiness and forget the anxiety for a little while

IV — Now that we have had some rest, let’s have the final battle of brightness and darkness




A-S:

I — Let’s establish some great drama between contrasting elements, the bright side slightly winning in the end

II (Andante) — Let’s have an undeserved picnic on the beach unrelated to the narrative that was tried to be established

III — Let’s do some rather depressive dancing after the picnic

IV — Let’s have a great battle that springs out after some picnic and some depressing dancing




In order for the movements to be a part of something larger than themselves, they need to establish a narrative. Then the dramatic momentum adds to the whole experience and makes it meaningful. Otherwise it is just unrelated episodes.

I find A-S version ”bearable” only if I listen to it as ”bottom heavy” pure music without a narrative. But of course it lacks a lot then when compared to the S-A.

Please help me to understand the other side and share your insight on the matter, if possible, in somewhat similar terms that I have used.


----------



## Waehnen

EdwardBast said:


> I can't understand why you think the similarity of key and theme between the first and second movements is an argument for why they should be together. That strikes me as weird and counterintuitive, the exact opposite of the obvious default position! Of course you don't put the similar blocks together, you order them so they're separated by a contrasting element. That's why ternary form isn't AAB. That's why sonata form isn't exposition, recapitulation, development. That's why a five part rondo isn't AAABC. As I see it, you're arguing against and contradicted by the most fundamental and universal principle of overall structure in classical music.





EdwardBast said:


> Theme and variations has nothing to do with the process here. This is cyclic thematic transformation, a very different phenomenon.


I must admit I kinda did not like your rejecting reactions at the time for they seemed unnecessary. It resulted in me being defensive -- which is a reaction I do not like any better. Silly me. I should know betta.

From the English wikipedia, just to point out that it is not just my thinking:



> Füssl has also noted the following features of the Scherzo/Andante order:[14]
> 
> The Scherzo is an example of 'developing variation' in its treatment of material from the first movement, where separation of the Scherzo from the first movement by the Andante disrupts that linkage.
> The Scherzo and the first movement use identical keys, A minor at the beginning and F major in the trio.
> The Andante's key, E♭ major, is farthest removed from the key at the close of the first movement (A major), whilst the C minor key at the beginning of the finale acts as transition from E♭ major to A minor, the principal key of the finale. (Füssl, Karl Heinz, "Zur Stellung des Mittelsätze in Mahlers Sechste Symphonie". Nachricthen zur Mahler Forschung, 27, International Gustav Mahler Society (Vienna), March 1992.)


Should the conversation continue, we should establish some basic appreciation towards each other. Nobody here is a music theorist way above everyone else when dealing with a topic like this. Lots of competence to be found, no doubt about that, though.


----------



## Malx

Jings folks just pick your favourite recordings of which ever variety stick it in the player and enjoy it - is that not what music is for?


----------



## Heck148

Malx said:


> Jings folks just pick your favourite recordings of which ever variety stick it in the player and enjoy it - is that not what music is for?


Sounds good to me!!


----------



## BachIsBest

MaxKellerman said:


> You forgot about Alma writing in her memoirs that the Scherzo was the third movement of the 6th. So yeah, she did contradict herself. And besides not remembering he never performed it in Amsterdam, she also never spoke up and communicated with anyone at any of the subsequent performances of the 6th she attended that Mahler had told her he was leaning towards reinstating his original conception.


I was not aware of this and apologise for my mistake. Perhaps you could provide a source?



MaxKellerman said:


> The fact that Mengelberg wasn't aware that Mahler was adament on the having the Andante second is evidence that *he did not know what Mahler's intentions were*. Do you acknowledge that you were factually mistaken, and he never rehearsed or conducted the symphony under Mahler's direction? And if he had a discussion with Mahler, and knew Mahler had doubts, or was indecisive, would he really be surprised by that first edition of the score that was stumbled upon? I mean he had conducted the symphony three years earlier, and according to you he must of known about Mahler's last minute decision and change of heart. One would think his reaction to being presented with an edition of the score where the Scherzo was second would be something more like "oh, yeah, well Mahler wasn't sure, but we talked it out and Mahler was leaning A/S, that's why I performed it that way 3 years ago." I wouldn't think his reaction would be "Whaaat!? Why on earth!? Send a telegram to Alma, pronto. Let's clear this up!"


I never claimed Mengelberg directed the symphony under Mahler's direction. I never said he knew about a last-minute change of heart. I never claimed that Mahler definitely had a last-minute change of heart.

What I did say is that Mahler and Mengelberg were close professional colleagues and Mahler greatly respected Mengelberg (at one point Mahler said Mengelberg was Mahler's favourite conductor in his own music). I then deduced that it seems not entirely unlikely, not certain, mind you, that Mengelberg and Mahler had discussed an issue that we know Mahler had evidently struggled over, as he didn't change it until very late in rehearsals.



MaxKellerman said:


> And why is the fact that Webern conducted it S/A _decent_ evidence? Have you thought to ask why did he conduct it S/A? He was a "disciple" of Mahler? So what!? Erwin Ratz was a a student of Mahler's. That didn't stop him from suppressing the facts to support his theories to publish the edition of the symphony that made more sense to him. Did Webern have a conversation with Mahler too? Man, Mahler was chatting up everyone about this. Except anyone who reported such a conversation, or can corroborate it. Maybe Webern based his decision on what Mengelberg did in 1919. Or maybe he was in in correspondence with the ever reliable Alma as well. Or maybe he discussed the matter with Ratz. Yeah that's legitimate. Man, you have me thinking now. You know what this is really decent evidence of? Mahler's spirit came to Webern in his dreams and told him his true intentions.


We know Webern very much respected Mahler and it seems unlikely he would have knowingly violated his wishes. We also know he knew Mahler and many of those people around him so it seems not entirely unlikely that he knew something we don't.

Of course we don't know all the private conversations of long-dead people. Some things are always lost to time.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> [...]
> 
> What I did say is that Mahler and Mengelberg were close professional colleagues and Mahler greatly respected Mengelberg (at one point Mahler said Mengelberg was Mahler's favourite conductor in his own music). I then deduced that it seems not entirely unlikely, not certain, mind you, that Mengelberg and Mahler had discussed an issue that we know Mahler had evidently struggled over, as he didn't change it until very late in rehearsals.
> 
> We know Webern very much respected Mahler and it seems unlikely he would have knowingly violated his wishes. We also know he knew Mahler and many of those people around him so it seems not entirely unlikely that he knew something we don't.
> 
> Of course we don't know all the private conversations of long-dead people. Some things are always lost to time.


All this supposition about intimate conversations that Mahler may have had with Alma and close associates are pointless. We only know the facts of what happened. I'm particularly unimpressed by the oft-repeated claim that Webern wouldn't have violated Mahler's wishes. Why not? Plenty of close friendships thrive on, or survive in spite of professional differences - and these two were not even friends! Given the number of conductors who happily conducted the 6th S-A, we just add Webern to the list who either knowingly or unwittingly chose to go against the known fact that the public performances of the symphony before Mahler died were A-S and contrary to the second edition and the amended first edition.

We can only speculate why this happened.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> All this supposition about intimate conversations that Mahler may have had with Alma and close associates are pointless. We only know the facts of what happened. I'm particularly unimpressed by the oft-repeated claim that Webern wouldn't have violated Mahler's wishes. Why not? Plenty of close friendships thrive on, or survive in spite of professional differences - and these two were not even friends! Given the number of conductors who happily conducted the 6th S-A, we just add Webern to the list who either knowingly or unwittingly chose to go against the known fact that the public performances of the symphony before Mahler died were A-S and contrary to the second edition and the amended first edition.
> 
> We can only speculate why this happened.


Well, it seems unlikely Webern would have knowingly violated Mahler's wishes because it seemed Mahler was a composer he admired a great deal. Once when Hans Pfitzner criticised Mahler in his presence he stormed out of the private lesson that he was presumably paying for.

The main facts in support of S-A are thus: multiple conductors who worked and knew Malher closely conducted it S-A shortly after his death; Mahler originally wrote it S-A; Mahler's wife stated shortly after his death that it should be S-A.

As I have said before, the A-S side has stronger evidence. However, what I listed above does not constitute "no evidence".


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> Well, it seems unlikely Webern would have knowingly violated Mahler's wishes because it seemed Mahler was a composer he admired a great deal.


It doesn't seem unlikely to me - but we're both just repeating the same speculation.


----------



## Becca

Why keep going on about Webern when there were a number of other conductors associated with Mahler who all performed the 6th as A/S? See my (much) earlier post about that.


----------



## Barbebleu

Malx said:


> Jings folks just pick your favourite recordings of which ever variety stick it in the player and enjoy it - is that not what music is for?


Jings! Brilliant. Lost to those that aren't Scottish I would imagine!:lol:


----------



## Malx

Barbebleu said:


> Jings! Brilliant. Lost to those that aren't Scottish I would imagine!:lol:


..............:tiphat:


----------



## Becca

Barbebleu said:


> Jings! Brilliant. Lost to those that aren't Scottish I would imagine!:lol:


Speaking as a Lancs/Cheshire lass, I'm pleased to say that it meant nothing to me


----------



## HenryPenfold

Becca said:


> Speaking as a Lancs/Cheshire lass, I'm pleased to say that it meant nothing to me


Isn't Manchester in Yorkshire?


----------



## Becca

HenryPenfold said:


> Isn't Manchester in Yorkshire?


No, it's in New Hampshire :lol:


----------



## HenryPenfold

Becca said:


> No, it's in New Hampshire :lol:


:lol:

I hadn't foreseen that answer!


----------



## Waehnen

Just letting you know I acknowledge the first A-S version that actually works for me as a whole: Rattle/CBSO. The key to this performance is to avoid it being bottom heavy by actually avoiding heavyness in all movements from 1-3. Rattle also breathes so much life into Andante that for once it does not sound like a mere unrelated picnic in the second slot. Rattle’s Scherzo also somehow manages to act as a peaceful respite. Like a summer day with some sunshine and some showers.

The narrative is not strong but at least Rattle manages that this works as pure music. Aesthetically this is most pleasing. I am happy with this kind A-S.

(Barbirolli is excellent but I switch the middle movements).


----------



## dko22

Tony Duggan says:
_For the purposes of this survey let me simply state that, whilst I myself prefer Scherzo/Andante as the order of inner movements, I continue to believe, as indeed I always have believed, that an option of choice of inner movement order must be maintained and that it should be that of the conductor to make._

I couldn't have put it better myself! Still, it's fascinating just how much this particular topic seems to irk members.


----------



## Waehnen

dko22 said:


> Tony Duggan says:
> _For the purposes of this survey let me simply state that, whilst I myself prefer Scherzo/Andante as the order of inner movements, I continue to believe, as indeed I always have believed, that an option of choice of inner movement order must be maintained and that it should be that of the conductor to make._
> 
> I couldn't have put it better myself! Still, it's fascinating just how much this particular topic seems to irk members.


And it should! With S-A there is a strong narrative. With A-S this symphony turns into pure music. No wonder this generates so much fuss. And ain't it wonderful? We are dealing with something essential here.


----------



## Triplets

When listening to recordings it isn’t an issue because the listener can determine the order. Otherwise I wish a Conductor would make the order known beforehand so one can decide if they want to commit their time and money .


----------



## EdwardBast

Waehnen said:


> And it should! With S-A there is a strong narrative. With A-S this symphony turns into pure music. No wonder this generates so much fuss. And ain't it wonderful? We are dealing with something essential here.


Your inept parody of narrative analysis in #154 undercuts any chance of taking this seriously. Good parody requires understanding something about the area you are parodying. Understanding requires study and careful critical thought.



Triplets said:


> When listening to recordings it isn't an issue because the listener can determine the order. Otherwise I wish a Conductor would make the order known beforehand so one can decide if they want to commit their time and money .


Yes. This has been one of my main points. Just state whether you are doing Mahler's authorized version or Ratz's fabrication.


----------



## Waehnen

EdwardBast said:


> Your absurd parody of narrative analysis in #154 undercuts any chance of taking this seriously. If you're not even going to try, why are you bothering? Are you that desperate to justify your discredited preference?


If my semianalytical conversational output on this thread is so absurd, why do you bother commenting on it?

Why don't you instead show us your no doubt excellent narrative analysis? I for sure am all eyes and ears.

My posts claim to the be nothing they are not.


----------



## hammeredklavier

S-A:
I - Let's establish some great drama between contrasting elements, the bright side slightly winning in the end.
II (Scherzo) - Let's give another angle on the drama and establish the narrative of trying to balance between anxiety and inner peace, against Mahler's wishes.
III - Let's enjoy a well-earned peaceful moment of happiness and forget the anxiety for a little while, against Mahler's wishes. Follow our own indulgent desires with the work.
IV - Now that we have had some rest, let's have the final battle of brightness and darkness.

A-S:
I - Let's establish some great drama between contrasting elements, the bright side slightly winning in the end.
II (Andante) - Let's have an undeserved picnic on the beach to the narrative that was tried to be established - "hold it back", "avoid the predictable", following Mahler's wishes.
III - Let's do some rather depressive, but emotionally charged dancing after the picnic, following Mahler's wishes. After all, Mahler strove for artistry of ironies, turns, twists, distortions. 
IV - Let's have a great battle that springs out after some picnic and some depressing dancing. Following Mahler's wishes perfectly, we get a far more intriguing narrative.


----------



## SanAntone

dko22 said:


> Tony Duggan says:
> _For the purposes of this survey let me simply state that, whilst I myself prefer Scherzo/Andante as the order of inner movements, I continue to believe, as indeed I always have believed, that an option of choice of inner movement order must be maintained and that it should be that of the conductor to make._
> 
> I couldn't have put it better myself! Still, it's fascinating just how much this particular topic seems to irk members.


Who is Tony Duggan? And while I agree with his statement, why should we care _he_ said it?


----------



## edgiefred

http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/index.html


----------



## SanAntone

edgiefred said:


> http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/index.html


Thank you. :tiphat:


----------



## Barbebleu

I voted S-A for no other reason than to level up the poll? 12 stricken pages of who really cares and a distinct lack of civility on the part of some. Mind you that’s true of a wheen of threads isn’t it?


----------



## Enthusiast

I wonder. If Mahler had lived longer he might have chosen to make the Adagio the Finale. That would have solved all the problems. 

There, now, everyone can get angry with me instead of each other!


----------



## Malx

Enthusiast said:


> I wonder. If Mahler had lived longer he might have chosen to make the Adagio the Finale. That would have solved all the problems.
> 
> There, now, everyone can get angry with me instead of each other!


But where would the finale go second or third?


----------



## dko22

actually, I'd put the finale first, scherzo second and the adagio to conclude like in most great symphonies. We don't actually need the original first movement at all. 

By the way --- it's now a dead heat in the original discussion.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Enthusiast said:


> I wonder. If Mahler had lived longer he might have chosen to make the Adagio the Finale. That would have solved all the problems.


It would make most sense to dispense with the scherzo and have a 3 movement work: 1st movement - Andante - Finale


----------



## Enthusiast

Malx said:


> But where would the finale go second or third?


It would have to go 3rd, after the scherzo.


----------



## Becca

HenryPenfold said:


> It would make most sense to dispense with the scherzo and have a 3 movement work: 1st movement - Andante - Finale


Then someone will 'discover' the sketches of the scherzo and we would end up with a dozen different performing editions of the 4 movement work


----------



## Waehnen

Please inform me or describe what the narrative of the Symphony with A-S version is.

S-A version is the one which establishes a narrative to the extent that this symphony can be described a narrative symphony.

A-S version turns this into pure music and it becomes like a very massive grandchild of the Mozart G-minor Symphony. Rather than a twisted grandchild of the Eroica.

Not that pure music is somehow worse than narrative music. For me the symphony just loses something that originally was planned to be part of it.

Please show me that I am wrong.


----------



## Forster

Waehnen said:


> For me the symphony just loses something that originally was planned to be part of it.


Blame Mahler for that. he either didn't care about the narrative because he was paying attention to something else, or he liked the same narrative, just in a different order.

(oh...or there isn't a narrative).


----------



## Waehnen

Forster said:


> Blame Mahler for that. he either didn't care about the narrative because he was paying attention to something else, or he liked the same narrative, just in a different order.


Sure I thank Mahler for this symphony in both it's versions! I do not argue over the historic issue. As far I know it is a fact that Mahler performed only A-S and that says a lot, right?


----------



## Waehnen

One point though: S-A makes the symphony a much closer relative to the 5th. A-S gives the 6th more of an unique profile.

This would be an argument that I would understand coming from Mahler’s mouth and I would accept it without a question. Maybe he had an unpleasant ”repeating the 5th Symphony again” vibes at the rehearsals and decided that the strong narrative can be sacrificed in order for the 6th to gain a unique profile.

For the similar narrative of the 5th and the S-A 6th could be an objective problem: it is the main critique I had on symphonies 5-7 at the beginning. ”Everything starts off with the same marching from movement to movement, always.”


----------



## Kreisler jr

Mahler was in error either way. Either he was mistaken for a long time about the best order and he only realized the error after scores had been printed and rehearsals were in progress. Or he had been correct earlier and made a mistake by the revision.

One problem that has led (or will eventually lead), I believe, to the historical/evidential A-S winning, is that the narrative or formalist arguments that apparently led musicologists like Ratz to obscuring evidence, can always cut both ways. They are too flexible. There is an argument for having only one tonal clash in the middle, there is an argument for having a minor returning as reminder of the first movement and similarly for the motivic similarites of 1st mvmt. and scherzo. There are always points to make both for continuity and for contrast. 

Same with the parallels to other Mahler symphonies. The 1st and 4th have the scherzo in 2nd position although they are totally different with the 1st having a huge finale and the 4th a slight finale but huge slow movement. The 5th and 7th have both 5 movements and similar but different symmetries. (The 7th is perfectly symmetrical with the scherzo as angle/mirror, the 5th has the overlay of "Abtheilung" with (slow fast) scherzo (slow fast.) The 2nd and 3rd have big first movements and finales with several much shorter and "lighter" movements, scherzandi and lieder, in between.

And while I think that there is an analogue to Beethoven's 9th and Bruckner's 8th and 9th that maybe because of their huge finales and adagios they put the scherzo in 2nd, this is hardly conclusive.


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> Mahler was in error either way. Either he was mistaken for a long time about the best order and he only realized the error after scores had been printed and rehearsals were in progress. Or he had been correct earlier and made a mistake by the revision.
> 
> One problem that has led (or will eventually lead), I believe, to the historical/evidential A-S winning, is that the narrative or formalist arguments that apparently led musicologists like Ratz to obscuring evidence, can always cut both ways. They are too flexible. There is an argument for having only one tonal clash in the middle, there is an argument for having a minor returning as reminder of the first movement and similarly for the motivic similarites of 1st mvmt. and scherzo. There are always points to make both for continuity and for contrast.
> 
> Same with the parallels to other Mahler symphonies. The 1st and 4th have the scherzo in 2nd position although they are totally different with the 1st having a huge finale and the 4th a slight finale but huge slow movement. The 5th and 7th have both 5 movements and similar but different symmetries. (The 7th is perfectly symmetrical with the scherzo as angle/mirror, the 5th has the overlay of "Abtheilung" with (slow fast) scherzo (slow fast.) The 2nd and 3rd have big first movements and finales with several much shorter and "lighter" movements, scherzandi and lieder, in between.
> 
> And while I think that there is an analogue to Beethoven's 9th and Bruckner's 8th and 9th that maybe because of their huge finales and adagios they put the scherzo in 2nd, this is hardly conclusive.


Not seeing just one right order of middle movements in a symphony is not a mistake by the composer.

What matters to me the most here is that now I actually claim to understand the decision Mahler made. The decision cannot be understood only from "inside the 6th" but in comparison to the 5th. Mahler understood that with S-A the two symphonies were too much alike and it resulted in diminishing the shine of both.

The point of not repeating oneself could also be the main reason behind Mahler sketching the Nachtmusik I and II the next. He made sure not to face a similar problem again.

I have now turned into a supporter of A-S. Laugh all you like!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> There is an argument for having only one tonal clash in the middle, there is an argument for having a minor returning as reminder of the first movement and similarly for the motivic similarites of 1st mvmt. and scherzo. There are always points to make both for continuity and for contrast.
> And while I think that there is an analogue to Beethoven's 9th and Bruckner's 8th and 9th that maybe because of their huge finales and adagios they put the scherzo in 2nd, this is hardly conclusive.


The argument about tonal clash is bogus, as EB points out. Btw, the term, tonal clash usually means things like tonal ambiguity, which is not we're concerned about in this thread. The ordering of Beethoven and Bruckner's final symphonies is also irrelevant cause there's no basis Mahler's has to follow the same narrative as theirs.


----------



## Aries

Waehnen said:


> What matters to me the most here is that now I actually claim to understand the decision Mahler made. The decision cannot be understood only from "inside the 6th" but in comparison to the 5th. Mahler understood that with S-A the two symphonies were too much alike and it resulted in diminishing the shine of both.


I think if that was the reason, it was a really bad reason, because the symphonies are so different, and this shouldn't matter anyway.

The more I listen to the S-A order the more I like it. A-S just does not work for me. I dont want to hear the Andante after the first movement. I'm not in mood for it. There is to much excitement for peaceful internalization. And after the Andante I don't want the Scherzo. The Andante makes the Scherzo sound badly cobbled together. Both movements are so misplaced with A-S. It is terrible. There are tons of symphonies where it is easier to swap the inner movements but here? Mahler made a huge mistake imo. Alma knew it, Ratz knew it, many great conductors knew it.


----------



## Waehnen

Aries said:


> I think if that was the reason, it was a really bad reason, because the symphonies are so different, and this shouldn't matter anyway.


I am convinced because it is the only weighty enough reason for the consequent actions by Mahler. Had it been just a matter of tempo or the two first movements being too similar, as a conductor he sure had everything it takes to interpret the two movements with different moods - like many have done after him.

This explanation is also viable because the first impression you get of the symphonies 5 and 6 if you hear them right after the other is the similarities of the first two movements within each symphony. And then a slow atmospheric movement before a finale.

My initial dislike of the both works probably would not have surfaced had Andante followed the 1st Movement in the 6th. The structural similarities between 5th and S-A 6th are so obvious Mahler must have understood it in shock at the rehearsals. It is a similarity that annoys me even today - luckily I now have the A-S. Even though I enjoy the 6th on it's own more in the form of S-A.

Mahler had to save his both symphonies from the excessive symmetry. That is why he was so convinced and did everything he could to change the order of the movements.

Because the answer to this mystery lies not only within the 6th Symphony so many have been puzzled over the issue over the years.


----------



## Aries

Waehnen said:


> This explanation is also viable because the first impression you get of the symphonies 5 and 6 if you hear them right after the other is the similarities of the first two movements within each symphony. And then a slow atmospheric movement before a finale.


Mahler subdivided the 5th symphony into 3 parts: 1) I. and II. movement, 2) the III. movement and 3) IV. and V. movement.

The first movement of the 5th is much shorter than the first movement of the 6th, it is less polyphonic, more simple and tidied up. The ending is quiet rather like the first movement of Bruckners 8th. The 2nd movement of the 5th is not the Scherzo. The 5th is a fate symphony like the 6th but but the victory in the 5th seems to be already achieved at the end of the 2nd movement, while it is never achieved in the 6th. The coda of the finale quotes the end of the 2nd movement. What follows after the second movements in the 5th are really other parts, what is intressting and unique: Letting a symphony happily go on after the victory. What a joyful symphony.

The Scherzo of the 5th is an heavy weight Scherzo while the Scherzo of the 6th is leight weight. The Scherzo of the 5th is the longest movement of the symphony and is just by itself an entire part, while the Scherzo of the 6th is more of a transition between first movement and Andante.

The slow movements are comparable, but the Finale of the 5th is a short positive ending, while the Finale of the 6th is a long negative ending. The Finale of the 5th is like a happy awakening in the morning after a dream in the night which is the Adaghietto. The Finale of the 6th is a long, long struggle.

So the number and weight of the movements are different and the overall story also.


----------



## Waehnen

Aries said:


> Mahler subdivided the 5th symphony into 3 parts: 1) I. and II. movement, 2) the III. movement and 3) IV. and V. movement.
> 
> The first movement of the 5th is much shorter than the first movement of the 6th, it is less polyphonic, more simple and tidied up. The ending is quiet rather like the first movement of Bruckners 8th. The 2nd movement of the 5th is not the Scherzo. The 5th is a fate symphony like the 6th but but the victory in the 5th seems to be already achieved at the end of the 2nd movement, while it is never achieved in the 6th. The coda of the finale quotes the end of the 2nd movement. What follows after the second movements in the 5th are really other parts, what is intressting and unique: Letting a symphony happily go on after the victory. What a joyful symphony.
> 
> The Scherzo of the 5th is an heavy weight Scherzo while the Scherzo of the 6th is leight weight. The Scherzo of the 5th is the longest movement of the symphony and is just by itself an entire part, while the Scherzo of the 6th is more of a transition between first movement and Andante.
> 
> The slow movements are comparable, but the Finale of the 5th is a short positive ending, while the Finale of the 6th is a long negative ending. The Finale of the 5th is like a happy awakening in the morning after a dream in the night which is the Adaghietto. The Finale of the 6th is a long, long struggle.
> 
> So the number and weight of the movements are different and the overall story also.


I actually agree with your analysis totally. But I cannot deny what I have intuitively realized. If I was Mahler the composer, no way I could hold on to S-A in the 6th while vividly remembering the overall structure and constellation of the 5th.

I will never listen to S-A again because I do not want to attach the 5th and the 6th experiences together ever again. Never again do I want to think that ”Mahler is repeating himself, what a mediocre composer.”


----------



## SanAntone

Waehnen said:


> I actually agree with your analysis totally. But I cannot deny what I have intuitively realized. If I was Mahler the composer, no way I could hold on to S-A in the 6th while vividly remembering the overall structure and constellation of the 5th.
> 
> I will never listen to S-A again because I do not want to attach the 5th and the 6th experiences together ever again. Never again do I want to think that ”Mahler is repeating himself, what a mediocre composer.”


I have no intention trying to change your mind, but I just find your logic mystifying. Not only do I not relate these two symphonies in my mind, much less auditory memory, but I fail to see any similarity in the ordering of the movements. 

I am also surprised at your animosity now towards the S-A ordering. 

That kind of all or nothing thinking is foreign to me; I prefer to remain open to either version.


----------



## Waehnen

SanAntone said:


> I have no intention trying to change your mind, but I just find your logic mystifying. Not only do I not relate these two symphonies in my mind, much less auditory memory, but I fail to see any similarity in the ordering of the movements.
> 
> I am also surprised at your animosity now towards the S-A ordering.
> 
> That kind of all or nothing thinking is foreign to me; I prefer to remain open to either version.


Neither do I try to make other people think the way I do. Nevertheless I do believe there are some people out there who understand what I am trying to say.

I listen to music not as an ”outsider observer” but as though I was the composer myself. I cannot help it. So I am driven to find the versions that make sense and make musical elements fall into their places so that I can ”accept” the composition as if it were my own.

Really, the combination of the 5th Symphony + 6th S+A made me initially very strongly think/feel Mahler was a mediocre composer. This danger vanished with 5th + 6th A-S. So I will stick to that, out of respect for Mahler. Now that I eventually understand why he changed the order of the movements.

I am sorry for possibly appearing rather strange.


----------



## Becca

Waehnen said:


> Really, the combination of the 5th Symphony + 6th S+A made me initially very strongly think/feel Mahler was a mediocre composer. This danger vanished with 5th + 6th A-S. So I will stick to that, out of respect for Mahler. Now that I eventually understand why he changed the order of the movements.
> 
> I am sorry for possibly appearing rather strange.


There is no way to understand why he changed his mind, he left no such information, rather what you are doing is finding a rationale that works for you. That isn't a problem so long as you recognize that that is what you are doing.


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> There is no way to understand why he changed his mind, he left no such information, rather what you are doing is finding a rationale that works for you. That isn't a problem so long as you recognize that that is what you are doing.


As a subjective experience, it is not a rationale but a deeply felt realization or a sort of an epiphany even. Such experiences and realizations leave a mark.

From an objective point of view, sure I am just yet another fellow producing some mindless babble.


----------

