# Mahler 6/Firebird



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

So I have been listening to Mahler 6 a lot and it is just great. I really love it, it has entered my top 5 favorite pieces and has made me want to listen to a lot more Mahler. Anyway, like I often do, I noticed a bit of a connection to a part/theme of the finale to Stravinsky's Firebird (specifically the appearance of the firebird and then the infernal dance).

So from around 0:44 to 2:42 us when I am talking about in the Mahler: 




The theme that the tuba plays sounds a lot like the main theme in the infernal dance, and then the string tremolos that ascend later on in that segment and the little oboe part reminds me greatly of segments of the appearance of the firebird (plus other parts throughout the more tension-filled parts of the piece.) - 




Tell me what you guys think of my observation, or if you have noticed anything like I have. I always find myself making little connections of things in pieces to other pieces.


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

Also fun fact! The Tuba's theme and the infernal dance are in the same key :O Stravinsky that dog!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I doubt Stravinsky knew Mahler's Sixth at all. He had heard the Fifth, I believe, but the Sixth never caught on in the repertoire until the 1960s or so, and it was only performed twice during Mahler's lifetime.


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> I doubt Stravinsky knew Mahler's Sixth at all. He had heard the Fifth, I believe, but the Sixth never caught on in the repertoire until the 1960s or so, and it was only performed twice during Mahler's lifetime.


Bah Humbug! The resemblance between those two melodies is really something though. There just must be a possibility that he had somehow seen/heard it. Maybe someone was humming it! :^)


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

When Mahler and Stravinsky resemble each other, my first guess is that they're both stealing from Wagner.


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

Harold in Columbia said:


> You linked to Mahler twice instead of linking to Stravinsky the second time (I always do this).
> 
> When Mahler and Stravinsky resemble each other, my first guess is that they're both stealing from Wagner.


Oh, thank you! I'll fix that.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

Based on comments that Stravinsky made at various points in his life, it seems likely that he would have considered Mahler's music to be bloated and vastly overdone. That being the case it is unlikely that he would have consciously inserted any influence from anything by Mahler in The Firebird, even if he had heard it, as Mahlerian pointed out, especially also since Stravinsky was, at this point, heavily under the influence of his teacher, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. There are a large number of stylistic similarities that can be easily observed between Firebird and Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade, for example.

Mahler's 6th was premiered in Essen in 1906, followed by another performance in Vienna in Jan 1907, and the next performance I can find any mention of is not until it was played in Amsterdam under Mengelberg in 1916, six years after Firebird had already been written and premiered in 1910, so I'm not sure if Stravinsky would have even had the opportunity to be exposed to the 6th at all prior to writing Firebird.


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

dsphipps100 said:


> Based on comments that Stravinsky made at various points in his life, it seems likely that he would have considered Mahler's music to be bloated and vastly overdone. That being the case it is unlikely that he would have consciously inserted any influence from anything by Mahler in The Firebird, even if he had heard it, as Mahlerian pointed out, especially also since Stravinsky was, at this point, heavily under the influence of his teacher, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. There are a large number of stylistic similarities that can be easily observed between Firebird and Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade, for example.
> 
> Mahler's 6th was premiered in Essen in 1906, followed by another performance in Vienna in Jan 1907, and the next performance I can find any mention of is not until it was played in Amsterdam under Mengelberg in 1916, six years after Firebird had already been written and premiered in 1910, so I'm not sure if Stravinsky would have even had the opportunity to be exposed to the 6th at all prior to writing Firebird.


Yeah you are probably right. Guess it the similarity is just purely coincidental.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

dsphipps100 said:


> Based on comments that Stravinsky made at various points in his life, it seems likely that he would have considered Mahler's music to be bloated and vastly overdone.


Well, he said the same thing about his first love, Wagner, so that alone isn't evidence against influence.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

dsphipps100 said:


> Mahler's 6th was premiered in Essen in 1906, followed by another performance in Vienna in Jan 1907, and the next performance I can find any mention of is not until it was played in Amsterdam under Mengelberg in 1916, six years after Firebird had already been written and premiered in 1910, so I'm not sure if Stravinsky would have even had the opportunity to be exposed to the 6th at all prior to writing Firebird.


There is the extremely small chance that he saw the published score, but I wouldn't bet that he did.


----------



## Jeffrey Smith (Jan 2, 2016)

Both the full score of M6 and Zemlinsky's arrangement for piano four hands were published in Liepzig in 1906. So it is theoretically possible that Stravinsky had access to a score and studied it enough for one theme to catch into his head.

The likelihood of that I leave to the decision of those who are more familiar with the lore and learning of Stravinsky. Personally, the Rite of Spring seems far more Mahlerian to me than Firebird, even if there are no overt references.

[Written before I saw Mahlerian's post immediately below]


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

dsphipps100 said:


> Based on comments that Stravinsky made at various points in his life, it seems likely that he would have considered Mahler's music to be bloated and vastly overdone. That being the case it is unlikely that he would have consciously inserted any influence from anything by Mahler in The Firebird, even if he had heard it, as Mahlerian pointed out, especially also since Stravinsky was, at this point, heavily under the influence of his teacher, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. There are a large number of stylistic similarities that can be easily observed between Firebird and Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade, for example.
> 
> Mahler's 6th was premiered in Essen in 1906, followed by another performance in Vienna in Jan 1907, and the next performance I can find any mention of is not until it was played in Amsterdam under Mengelberg in 1916, six years after Firebird had already been written and premiered in 1910, so I'm not sure if Stravinsky would have even had the opportunity to be exposed to the 6th at all prior to writing Firebird.


Yes, R-K would be the place to look. Marschallin Blair used to interject the words: "Hey Stravinsky, R-K called and said he wanted his music from Kashchey the Immortal back" anytime anyone mentioned The Firebird. Never checked out the claim myself.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

dzc4627 said:


> Also fun fact! The Tuba's theme and the infernal dance are in the same key :O Stravinsky that dog!


Just curious, what order do you prefer, scherzo second or third? I much prefer the slow movement second; If I remember correctly, Mahlerian likes the scherzo second.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, R-K would be the place to look. Marschallin Blair used to interject the words: "Hey Stravinsky, R-K called and said he wanted his music from Kashchey (sp?) back" anytime anyone mentioned The Firebird. Never checked out the claim myself.


S's debt to R-K has been pretty extensively documented, most prominently in Richard Taruskin's Stravinsky tome. I've never heard that Mahler had an interest in R-K, though, or heard any connection myself.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Harold in Columbia said:


> S's debt to R-K has been pretty extensively documented, most prominently in Richard Taruskin's Stravinsky tome. I've never heard that Mahler had an interest in R-K, though, or heard any connection myself.


I recall an anecdote where Rimsky-Korsakov had a Mahler score on the piano (Symphony No. 1?) and told his student (Stravinsky?) not to look at it.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

That sounds sort of like the Debussy story in Stravinsky's memoirs.

_At a concert where one of the latter's [Debussy] works was on the programme I asked Rimsky-Korsakov what he thought of it. He answered in these very words: 'Better not listen to him; one runs the risk of getting accustomed to him and one would end by liking him.'_

I haven't heard the Mahler story, but maybe that happened too. Or maybe Stravinsky at various points told two or more different versions of a filthy stinking lie.


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Just curious, what order do you prefer, scherzo second or third? I much prefer the slow movement second; If I remember correctly, Mahlerian likes the scherzo second.


I definitely prefer the Scherzo second. The thematic content is much more coherent between the 1st/Scherzo than the 1st/Adante. Mahler preferred the scherzo third apparently as he went to extensive and expensive lengths to have it changed to that way. I guess Mahlerian and I disagree with the creator on this.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

If you go to this link...

https://books.google.com/books?id=j...62#v=onepage&q=Rimsky-Korsakov Mahler&f=false

...you can see an excerpt from Henry Louis de la Grange's exhaustive (and probably definitive) biography of Mahler, where Stravinsky and Rimsky-Korsakov both express some opinions and sentiments regarding Mahler's music - in both cases very unkind, sadly.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

dzc4627 said:


> I definitely prefer the Scherzo second. The thematic content is much more coherent between the 1st/Scherzo than the 1st/Adante. Mahler preferred the scherzo third apparently as he went to extensive and expensive lengths to have it changed to that way. I guess Mahlerian and I disagree with the creator on this.


This is an argument that will probably never be truly resolved, as there is a good case that can be made for both sides. It's extensive enough that if one looks at this list...

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

...one will find that, while the majority of recordings on the market favor the Scherzo/Andante order, there is certainly an impressive number that also favor the Andante/Scherzo order. The names of conductors on both sides are also equally impressive, with some of them who made multiple recordings of the 6th even switching "sides" from one to the other, including no less than Claudio Abbado and Riccardo Chailly.

Some further discussions of the issue can be found here:

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

So, in this age of digital technology with programmable CDs and computer ripping, it is actually quite easy for each individual listener to simply decide for themselves what their own preference is and to then program their favorite performance(s) in that order.

I would say that, so long as the 1st and 4th movements remain as such, there is otherwise no "wrong" order.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

dzc4627 said:


> I definitely prefer the Scherzo second. The thematic content is much more coherent between the 1st/Scherzo than the 1st/Adante. Mahler preferred the scherzo third apparently as he went to extensive and expensive lengths to have it changed to that way. I guess Mahlerian and I disagree with the creator on this.


There are actually lots of links between the thematic content of the andante and that of the other movements, but they're more subtle. For one, the constant major third to minor third motif is reversed.

Some hear a transformation of the first movement's main theme into the main theme of the andante, but I haven't noticed it.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> There are actually lots of links between the thematic content of the andante and that of the other movements, but they're more subtle. For one, the constant major third to minor third motif is reversed.
> 
> Some hear a transformation of the first movement's main theme into the main theme of the andante, but I haven't noticed it.


If you don't mind me asking: how does the major/minor clash in the first movement manifest itself?

I'm well aware of the major->minor collapse on top of dun... dun... dun-dun dun dun in the exposition and recap. There's also two instances of the major->minor collapse in the brass in the middle of the slow mysterious part of the development section. And, of course, there's the semi-triumphant A major ending with the Alma theme.

But these are just "flagposts". Where exactly does the major/minor tension really manifest itself? I hear a bit of the half-step fall motif not just in the dun... dun... dun-dun dun dun part but also in the chromatically descending woodwind chorale "bridge theme" that not only is the the exposition and recap (twice as fast) but also is quite pervasive in the slow mysterious part of the development, and also the coda as well. But a half-step fall emphasis in melody isn't quite the same particulate thing as major-minor clash... where does major-minor clash come in to play besides the "flagposts" I mentioned?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Harold in Columbia said:


> When Mahler and Stravinsky resemble each other, my first guess is that they're both stealing from Wagner.


You are spot on :tiphat:


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

Here...

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

...is a publication by the Kaplan Foundation (i.e. the Gilbert Kaplan who spent the latter part of his life dedicating himself to conducting Mahler's 2nd Symphony as an amateur and who made recordings of the 2nd with the London Symphony Orchestra and the Wiener Philharmoniker), wherein an exhaustive essay from a historical and also a theoretical viewpoint argues strenuously in favor of the Andante/Scherzo order, which Mahler used at the premiere performance and all other performances that he subsequently conducted for the remainder of his life.

The Scherzo-Andante order used by so many conductors over the last 50 years is, sadly, a result of a serious misunderstanding of the facts by the editor/publisher of the 1963 Critical Edition of the score of the 6th.

There is, based on the research presented in the pdf file I linked above, overwhelming evidence that Mahler's intention, from the moment he conducted the 6th's premiere and for the rest of his life, was that the order of the inner movements should be Andante-Scherzo. He never changed or waivered on that.

As a result I am going through every single ripped copy I have of 6th Symphony recordings, and am re-arranging/re-programming them to play as Andante-Scherzo.

What you choose to do with this information is up to you.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

SeptimalTritone said:


> If you don't mind me asking: how does the major/minor clash in the first movement manifest itself?
> 
> I'm well aware of the major->minor collapse on top of dun... dun... dun-dun dun dun in the exposition and recap. There's also two instances of the major->minor collapse in the brass in the middle of the slow mysterious part of the development section. And, of course, there's the semi-triumphant A major ending with the Alma theme.
> 
> But these are just "flagposts". Where exactly does the major/minor tension really manifest itself? I hear a bit of the half-step fall motif not just in the dun... dun... dun-dun dun dun part but also in the chromatically descending woodwind chorale "bridge theme" that not only is the the exposition and recap (twice as fast) but also is quite pervasive in the slow mysterious part of the development, and also the coda as well. But a half-step fall emphasis in melody isn't quite the same particulate thing as major-minor clash... where does major-minor clash come in to play besides the "flagposts" I mentioned?


In larger scale, it's found in many of the first movement's key relations (D minor/major, C minor/major, A minor/major). The last of these is spelled out at the recapitulation, as a seeming recap in A major plunges into the minor.

Furthermore, the opening itself contains a different and equally important ambiguity between major and minor where the first full harmony is actually a first inversion F major triad, and the oscillation between A minor and F major is played out in the chorale as well as in the larger scale relationship between the major tonal areas of the exposition.

It's all over the last movement, the coda of the scherzo, and you're right to hear it in the chorale theme too. It's also in the chorale in the finale that becomes the seed of the second theme.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Oh yes, that recap of the main theme for just a short time in A major is really creepy. Oh my goodness I forgot about that.

And also the descending chromaticism (and ascending chromaticism!!!) plays a role everywhere, from the main theme to the chorale to all the other movements.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

(post deleted) Please see my earlier post above.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

I love *Stravinsky's *_Firebird_. It is a terrific piece of music.

But I never/still don't hear anything in *Mahler's 6th* resembling that music. Nothing approaches the Sixth. It is indomitable. I am not the first to say this, but I can agree and restate: there is no wrong or spared note in that work.

Your notations, _-dsphipps_, are fair, in your subjective interpretation. Nothing wrong with that.

I have come to appreciate this ambiguity in the order of the Sixth. It gives a certain interest to those who have heard the work so many times, or like Mahler's music, or enjoy debate, etc. Simply, I truly enjoy hearing how one person prefers A/S versus S/A. The explanations and bases are numerous and *so totally fair*.

Despite all of this, my vote: *Scherzo - Andante. How else?(!)*


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Kaplan notwithstanding, the Scherzo-Andante order both makes more harmonic sense and makes the opening of the finale all the more terrifying.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The 88 keys of a concert grand roughly encompass the range the human ear can hear comfortably. Given that, and conventional strictures of diatonic harmony, the likelihood of two or more composers accidentally coming up with similar sounding themes/passages is exponentially greater then, say, two writers accidentally opening a book with "Call me Ishmael."


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

dsphipps100 said:


> What you choose to do with this information is up to you.


Thanks for posting these links. Glad to see the facts agree with my intuition  - always thought it should be Andante-Scherzo. Don't see how anyone could justify the other order given Mahler's unequivocal endorsement of Andante first.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Don't see how anyone could justify the other order given Mahler's unequivocal endorsement of Andante first.


Agreed.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

dsphipps100 said:


> Agreed.


Because it was the composer's first thoughts?


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

Mahlerian said:


> Because it was the composer's first thoughts?


No, because it was his second and final thought.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

dsphipps100 said:


> No, because it was his second and final thought.


No, I meant that there was justification for the order Scherzo-Andante because it represented the composer's first thoughts.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

The finale starts in the airy and remote key of C minor before crashing to A minor.

Why, other than to continue the atmosphere from the Andante, which ends in E flat, as opposed to the Scherzo which ends in A minor?

The Andante is also way to dramatic and gushing to be placed second. The Scherzo, when placed third, is highly underwhelming.

I suspect that Mahler's superstitious nature made him afraid of the violent power of the correct order (notice my lack of air quotes on the word "correct"), and that's why he changed it to Andante-Scherzo.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

Mahler's first thought was indeed Scherzo-Andante. But then during rehearsals for the premiere, when he actually _heard_ the music, he realized, for whatever reasons that mattered to him, that the order should be Andante-Scherzo. He never waivered from that for the rest of his life. He even went so far as to ask his publisher to change it in subsequent scores and to even insert an errata sheet in already-printed scores informing performers about the change/correction. This was no small expense that he was asking his publisher to take on, so he was clearly very serious about it. The only evidence that was used to justify Edwin Ratz changing the inner mvts order in the 1963 edition of the score was a telegram that Alma sent Mengleberg before a 1916 performance, upon which he changed the order for that performance. This is hardly convincing evidence to override Mahler's clearly expressed wishes that he never superseded or withdrew.

And as for the "superstition" thing and the hammer-blows, Mahler originally had _five_ hammer-blows in the finale. Then he reduced it to three, and after the premiere, he reduced it to two. Considering that the three "hammer-blows" that later occurred in his life (his daughter's death, departure from Vienna, and his fatal heart-condition diagnosis) were all still-future (and that there weren't _five_ of them), then unless somebody wishes to ascribe some kind of super-natural clairvoyance to Mahler, his decision regarding the hammer-blows must be viewed, just like the order of the inner movements, as being purely artistic in nature, and therefore deserving the respect of performers who claim to be accurately presenting his music per his wishes during performances!

(But if somebody wants to put on their program "Mahler - Symphony # 6 as his adulterous widow would have wanted it", then by all means, anything goes........)


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

dsphipps100 said:


> Here...
> 
> http://www.posthorn.com/Mahler/Correct_Movement_Order_III.pdf
> 
> ...


I have also read the Gilbert Kaplan research and do the same thing as you: Any recording of the 6th that has the order of the Andante/Scherzo reversed, I immediately change the order and play the symphony as Mahler intended and instructed his publisher. The entire controversay about the order of the middle two movement started at least 10 years after Mahler's death, and it was because of Alma Mahler's meddling that the performances ever went against Mahler's revised score with the Andante before the Scherzo.


----------

