# Mahler's Sixth Symphony



## Almaviva

I just got home from a performance of Mahler's 6th ("Tragic"), by the Mariinsky Orchestra, conducted by Gergiev. I had never listened to this symphony.

I very much liked it. I found it to be vigorous and expressive. The unconventional percussion with the huge wooden mallet, the square drum, the cowbells, etc, certainly makes it interesting and different. 

The first movement starts stormy, dissonant, then turns lyrical (supposedly representing his wife Alma), and ends in a triumphant mood. The second movement is a gentle andante moderato that gives respite to all the turbillion of the first. Next, the Scherzo, with shrieks and pounding percussion, anticipating the incoming tragedy. Then, the fourth movement is chilling and - of course - tragic, with the very impressive orchestration ending with the three blows of the big wooden mallet, apparently signifying death.

This symphony was curiously composed right before three (or maybe four) tragedies in Mahler's life: the death of his daughter, his being diagnosed with a fatal heart condition, and his being driven away from his dream job in Vienna thanks to anti-semitism, not to forget the troubles with his wife's infidelity. In this sense, it seems strangely prophetic.

The huge Mariinsky orchestra, as required by Mahler, had 100 musicians, and Gergiev's conducting was inspired. The ovation at the end went on and on and on, Gergiev went out and came back in several times. It was a spectacular evening, and my only regret is that he didn't give us an encore.

What do you guys think of Mahler's 6th?


----------



## World Violist

Mahler 6th was my favorite of all of his symphonies for a long while. I've got a lot of great memories hearing various recordings of it and I'd still love to see it live (Minnesota Orchestra's also doing a performance this year, with Osmo Vanska conducting; doubtful I can go, but I'll try).

The order of movements is a bit of a controversy; I say only "a bit" because there's a way that represents musical/dramatic sensibility, another that represents adherence to tradition/"composer's wishes." the middle two movements are the movements in question, and the way people tend to do them is Andante before Scherzo. However, there are a plethora of reasons against it being done this way, the most convincing of them being that the Andante ends in E-flat while the Finale begins with a C 7 chord and proceeds to A minor. The Scherzo already ends in A minor so it's redundant to start somewhere else just to end up back there again. Etc. etc. I could go on but won't.

Regardless of any controversy, this symphony is the most formally balanced of all Mahler's symphonies. Basically, it's a classical symphony put on steroids and ending in a minor key, inflated to an hour and a half's duration. It has a strange inner logic to it that I find in few other symphonies of his (except the 8th, and I realize I'm a minority in thinking this) and it's very dramatic in a way that harks back to Brahms' monumental struggles with the symphonic form.

As for the whole "three tragedies" thing, I don't put any store in it. Three is a remarkably stable number and there are tons of examples that precede this symphony and come after it. Prophetic? Hardly; I'd rather call it coincidental.

Anyway, I'm glad you liked the symphony! It's really a remarkable creation.


----------



## Almaviva

World Violist said:


> Mahler 6th was my favorite of all of his symphonies for a long while. I've got a lot of great memories hearing various recordings of it and I'd still love to see it live (Minnesota Orchestra's also doing a performance this year, with Osmo Vanska conducting; doubtful I can go, but I'll try).
> 
> The order of movements is a bit of a controversy; I say only "a bit" because there's a way that represents musical/dramatic sensibility, another that represents adherence to tradition/"composer's wishes." the middle two movements are the movements in question, and the way people tend to do them is Andante before Scherzo. However, there are a plethora of reasons against it being done this way, the most convincing of them being that the Andante ends in E-flat while the Finale begins with a C 7 chord and proceeds to A minor. The Scherzo already ends in A minor so it's redundant to start somewhere else just to end up back there again. Etc. etc. I could go on but won't.
> 
> Regardless of any controversy, this symphony is the most formally balanced of all Mahler's symphonies. Basically, it's a classical symphony put on steroids and ending in a minor key, inflated to an hour and a half's duration. It has a strange inner logic to it that I find in few other symphonies of his (except the 8th, and I realize I'm a minority in thinking this) and it's very dramatic in a way that harks back to Brahms' monumental struggles with the symphonic form.
> 
> As for the whole "three tragedies" thing, I don't put any store in it. Three is a remarkably stable number and there are tons of examples that precede this symphony and come after it. Prophetic? Hardly; I'd rather call it coincidental.
> 
> Anyway, I'm glad you liked the symphony! It's really a remarkable creation.


Yeah, I knew about the controversy regarding the order of the second and third movements, and this symphony seems to be the exception in his progressive tonality system since it starts *and* ends in A minor. I liked the fact that Gergiev went with the andante-scherzo order, though, because I think the andante does a nice peaceful transition between the triumphant mood at the end of the first movement and the impending doom of the third movement, culminating with the tragic fourth. I hear your musical arguments regarding the transition between the end of a movement and the beginning of the next one, but I think that overall, the order in which I heard it today makes global sense in terms of overall progression of the symphony, even though it causes some problems in terms of keys.

Yes, sure, it must be a coincidence... but it's interesting to think of some sort of premonition... but even when I dream of something like this which adds a romantic touch to it, I end up being my rational self and saying, yeah, coincidence.


----------



## Delicious Manager

I think it was Alban Berg who described Mahler's Sixth as 'the only Sixth apart from Beethoven's' which, I think was his way of saying he liked it! It is the most 'classical' of Mahler's symphonies in structure (although not in scale and emotional content) - even more so than the First Symphony I would argue. It even has an exposition repeat in the first movement (although so does the First). Criminally, there are still some conductors who leave this out.

While I would find it very difficult (if not impossible) to name a 'favourite' Mahler symphony (I don't like 'favourires'), this one is high on the list.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I've become desensitised to the inner movement order and can happily let it play either way. I try not to favour one work above another but, right or wrong, I always get the feeling that there is some kind of common ground running through the 2nd, 6th, 9th and 10th. That said, I love them all to the extent that I can rarely, if ever, play them in isolation - I always try to find time over a period of two days to listen to them (plus DLvdE) as a complete cycle.


----------



## Aramis

The slow movement of 6th is so much more beautiful than Adagietto from 5th. From all typical slow movements by Mahler this is my favourite.

I'm not big fan of the sherzo though - if there is anything that I can say I dislike about Mahler it's the way he write long and sometimes annoying scherzos. This one is worst of them all.

It's not my favourite symphony by Mahler, that's for sure, but it's great work, even if it lacks more cowbell.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I love this one!
Going to see the Royal Conceertgebouw Orchestra perform this under Lorin Maazel next wek!


----------



## World Violist

Aramis said:


> The slow movement of 6th is so much more beautiful than Adagietto from 5th. From all typical slow movements by Mahler this is my favourite.
> 
> I'm not big fan of the sherzo though - if there is anything that I can say I dislike about Mahler it's the way he write long and sometimes annoying scherzos. This one is worst of them all.
> 
> It's not my favourite symphony by Mahler, that's for sure, but it's great work, even if it lacks more cowbell.


Yes, I heard the 6th before the 5th, so I might be a bit biased, but the 6th's slow movement is definitely one of his best (and that's really saying a lot; last movement of the 3rd, 9th, DLvdE all also have some of Mahler's best).

I've always found Bruckner's scherzi a lot more annoying than Mahler's. At least Mahler changes things around a bit when he goes back to A theme.

Amongst Mahler symphonies... I thought only the 7th had more cowbell! That can't be a criterion for greatness in Mahler's symphonies, since almost none of his symphonies have them!


----------



## Aramis

> Yes, I heard the 6th before the 5th, so I might be a bit biased, but the 6th's slow movement is definitely one of his best (and that's really saying a lot; last movement of the 3rd, 9th, DLvdE all also have some of Mahler's best).


I think those from 9th and DLvE do not qualify as slow movements in traditional meaning since the whole symphonies have no traditional structure - in 6th and 5th is all more or less traditional and you can distinguish one, particular movement which can be described as "slow" and everyone will know what you're referring to. In 9th you have both first and last movements in tempis that can be called slow.

That's why I said "typical" in my previous post, I can't think of finale of 9th or Das Lied as a slow movement just like I do in case of earlier romantic and classical symphonies.


----------



## World Violist

Aramis said:


> I think those from 9th and DLvE do not qualify as slow movements in traditional meaning since the whole symphonies have no traditional structure - in 6th and 5th is all more or less traditional and you can distinguish one, particular movement which can be described as "slow" and everyone will know what you're referring to. In 9th you have both first and last movements in tempis that can be called slow.
> 
> That's why I said "typical" in my previous post, I can't think of finale of 9th or Das Lied as a slow movement just like I do in case of earlier romantic and classical symphonies.


Oh, ok. In that case, yes, Mahler 6 does have his best normal symphonic slow movement.


----------



## tahnak

Almaviva said:


> I just got home from a performance of Mahler's 6th ("Tragic"), by the Mariinsky Orchestra, conducted by Gergiev. I had never listened to this symphony.
> 
> I very much liked it. I found it to be vigorous and expressive. The unconventional percussion with the huge wooden mallet, the square drum, the cowbells, etc, certainly makes it interesting and different.
> 
> The first movement starts stormy, dissonant, then turns lyrical (supposedly representing his wife Alma), and ends in a triumphant mood. The second movement is a gentle andante moderato that gives respite to all the turbillion of the first. Next, the Scherzo, with shrieks and pounding percussion, anticipating the incoming tragedy. Then, the fourth movement is chilling and - of course - tragic, with the very impressive orchestration ending with the three blows of the big wooden mallet, apparently signifying death.
> 
> The huge Mariinsky orchestra, as required by Mahler, had 100 musicians, and Gergiev's conducting was inspired. The ovation at the end went on and on and on, Gergiev went out and came back in several times. It was a spectacular evening, and my only regret is that he didn't give us an encore.
> 
> What do you guys think of Mahler's 6th?


This being your first ear must have been quite an experience. Gergiev is a focused and a conductor with punch. I don't know much about the orchestra. I am sure the performance must have been an invigorating one.
As far as the order of the movements is concerned, there is no controversy. Mahler intended the Scherzo to precede the Andante Moderato and it is after the serenity of the Andante that the death knoll on the timpani is to follow.
As far as an encore's expectation is concerned, it is blasphemy to expect an encore after the death mallets of the finale.
The performance that stands out for me of the Tragic and its magnificent finale is Solti and Chicago.


----------



## handlebar

I adore the M6 as well with preference of Andante-Scherzo order in place. On the Mahler list we have discussed this ad nauseum for many years and it always rears it's ugly head each year. Whether it was GM's last order or not seems to make no difference to most of us.

Gergiev is NOT a Mahler conductor IMHO but he does appeal to some. I own 10+ versions of the M6 and have my favourites of course. It is a delightful work and should be heard more often than it is.
In structure, Mahler was not always one that conformed to strict definitions.He composed his own way and left it to the world to make their own decisions. Thats what makes GM so enlightening and popular.

He is far and away my favourite composer of all time.

Jim


----------



## Comus

I personally find the Andante the most tragic of the whole symphony. The rest is turbulent and all, but I don't find it particularly tragic or sad. My knowledge of form is lacking, but I favor the Andante third; it just seems right to me. Perhaps it is because I first heard it in this order. I wonder if this is a deciding factor psychologically. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the order was Scherzo/Andante when he first composed it too, not just before he died.


----------



## World Violist

Comus said:


> I personally find the Andante the most tragic of the whole symphony. The rest is turbulent and all, but I don't find it particularly tragic or sad. My knowledge of form is lacking, but I favor the Andante third; it just seems right to me. Perhaps it is because I first heard it in this order. I wonder if this is a deciding factor psychologically. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the order was Scherzo/Andante when he first composed it too, not just before he died.


The whole thing about Scherzo/Andante vs. Andante/Scherzo is that he originally composed it S/A, but performed it A/S and published the parts in that order. A/S I think is OK as long as the conductor interprets the whole symphony differently than he would with S/A, as it really does make a difference. I for one prefer S/A, partly because, yes, I heard it that way first. Whatever, I'll let people think what they want. It does seem to turn up every year, doesn't it...

As for an encore... nothing can come after M6. It would just sound tiny and weak. Same with any Mahler symphony, really (although there's a famous story about Stokowski conducting the entire finale of M2 after an already thrilling performance of the whole symphony... one hell of an encore!). It seems very odd that Mahler demanded his symphonies be played first in a program so the players wouldn't be tired out; nothing can follow up on any of them except perhaps the 4th!


----------



## Almaviva

tahnak said:


> As far as an encore's expectation is concerned, it is blasphemy to expect an encore after the death mallets of the finale.


Good point, but you know, I live in a small metropolitan area in the United States and it is not everyday that we have a world class maestro like Gergiev here, so I was just hungry for more.


----------



## Almaviva

World Violist said:


> It seems very odd that Mahler demanded his symphonies be played first in a program so the players wouldn't be tired out; nothing can follow up on any of them except perhaps the 4th!


The Mariinsky Orchestra came to town for two concerts,;the one I attended was the second one on Thursday, with the entire 6th and nothing else, no intermission, total duration 80 minutes. However the one on Wednesday (just one day earlier) had Mahler's first, intermission, then Mahler's fourth (I think that's what it was, I'm sure about the fourth, not sure about the first but if it wasn't the first it was another one of Mahler's symphonies). I guess these Russians are work horses.:lol:


----------



## Almaviva

tahnak said:


> I don't know much about the orchestra.


It's the orchestra previously known as the Kirov Orchestra - they were renamed Mariinsky (the original name before the Communist era - well, not properly the original name since it was also briefly known as the Russian Imperial Opera Orchestra) just like St.Petersburg got rid of the name Leningrad. They are a very ancient and prestigious orchestra, founded in the 18th century. Of course, being headquartered in the Mariinsky Theather of St. Petersburg, they do a lot of opera and ballet, but do engage in significant symphonic concerts and recordings. They have had as conductors a long list of great names including Mahler himself and Wagner. The historical importance is hightened by the fact that many essential operas and ballets have had their world premieres there, including Boris Godunov, Pique Dame, The Golden Cocquerel, Spartacus, Cinderella, etc, and even Verdi's La Forza del Destino.


----------



## sospiro

Almaviva said:


> It's the orchestra previously known as the Kirov Orchestra - they were renamed Mariinsky (the original name before the Communist era - well, not properly the original name since it was also briefly known as the Russian Imperial Opera Orchestra) just like St.Petersburg got rid of the name Leningrad. They are a very ancient and prestigious orchestra, founded in the 18th century. Of course, being headquartered in the Mariinsky Theather of St. Petersburg, they do a lot of opera and ballet, but do engage in significant symphonic concerts and recordings. They have had as conductors a long list of great names including Mahler himself and Wagner. The historical importance is hightened by the fact that many essential operas and ballets have had their world premieres there, including Boris Godunov, Pique Dame, The Golden Cocquerel, Spartacus, Cinderella, etc, and even Verdi's La Forza del Destino.


A great opportunity to see such a wonderful orchestra & conductor. I would have gone even if they'd only played 'pop goes the weasel'


----------



## Meaghan

"Good lord, I've forgotten the motor horn! Now I can write another symphony."


----------



## Almaviva

Meaghan said:


> "Good lord, I've forgotten the motor horn! Now I can write another symphony."


LOL, very funny!:lol::tiphat:


----------



## superhorn

I've always preferred the symphony with scherzo first and andante second,and most conductors have done it this way,both live and on recordings. 
Why? The andante is the calm before the storm of the finale. It's gentle and wistful, and is a very effective preparation for the agony of the last movement. 
I'm not happy with the way that more and more conductors have been recording it andante first and scherzo second,but of course on CD,you can always reverse it easily.
As far as I am concerned,the Solti/Chicago recording on Decca has never been surpassed.
It's almost terrifying in its intensity and headlong sweep, and even though some of this conductor's detractors have accused his performances of being merely loud and insensitive,
the andante in this recording could not be more tenderly lyrical. I've never agreed with with this accusation,though. I have this in the Decca set of all nine completed Mahler symphonies with Solti/Chigao,and I recommend the whole set highly.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Andante-Scherzo:

Dmitri Mitropoulos 
John Barbirolli 
Claudio Abbado 
Simon Rattle 
Charles Mackerras 
Mariss Jansons 
Lorin Maazel 
Charles Adler
Iván Fischer 
Yannick Nézet-Séguin
Valery Gergiev 
Thomas Dausgaard 
Alan Gilbert

Scherzo-Andante:

Herbert von Karajan
Georg Solti
Jascha Horenstein
Pierre Boulez
Leonard Bernstein
Michael Tilson Thomas
Benjamin Zander[14]
Bernard Haitink
Seiji Ozawa
Klaus Tennstedt
Thomas Sanderling
Gary Bertini
Günther Herbig
Rafael Kubelik
Riccardo Chailly
Eliahu Inbal
Giuseppe Sinopoli
George Szell
Michael Gielen
Yoel Levi
Zubin Mehta
Erich Leinsdorf
Neeme Järvi
James Levine
Harold Farberman


----------



## DarkAngel

Besides all the CD vesions available there is a great Mahler 6 on blu ray by Abbado with his hand picked Lucerne Orchestra.....










If you have a good 5 channel sound system with TV you will be amazed at the sound quality here.....

Also besides the 2 & 3rd movement order controversy there is some variation in how many wood mallet whacks occur in final movement, some have 2 and some have 3


----------



## Almaviva

DarkAngel said:


> Besides all the CD vesions available there is a great Mahler 6 on blu ray by Abbado with his hand picked Lucerne Orchestra.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a good 5 channel sound system with TV you will be amazed at the sound quality here.....
> 
> Also besides the 2 & 3rd movement order controversy there is some variation in how many wood mallet whacks occur in final movement, some have 2 and some have 3


Oh my God, there goes the spending spree again. The way things are going, I'll have to place you on ignore, Dark Angel. (Just kidding of course, I would miss your posts if I did it).

In my understanding, Mahler wrote 3 mallet whacks and then later deleted one of them. In the Gergiev version that I attended, there were 3 whacks. That thing was huge. The percussionist had lots of trouble lifting it.:lol:


----------



## World Violist

emiellucifuge said:


> Benjamin Zander[14]


Wikipedia for the win.

I bet the [14] was because Zander only prefers S/A; he recorded it this way on his 3-CD set but told people in his talk CD that they program it whatever way they liked.

As for hammer-blows... I won't even go there.


----------



## Aramis

Mahler on DVD is failure - his music is of this kind that requires fucusing on nothing more than the music itself, digging every single note with your eyes closed; what can DVD offer in such case? I remember watching Bernstein cycle and it was my worst Mahler experience ever, not because Bernstein's Mahler is bad (quite contrary) but because I was both listening to most divine music and at the same time watched it's performers and there is no association between these two things, perhaps it's good to watch orchestra performing Mozart because Mozart's music is very musical, but Mahler music is not that musical and listener should forget everything mundane and prosaic about it in order to experience it.


----------



## Almaviva

Aramis said:


> Mahler on DVD is failure - his music is of this kind that requires fucusing on nothing more than the music itself, digging every single note with your eyes closed; what can DVD offer in such case? I remember watching Bernstein cycle and it was my worst Mahler experience ever, not because Bernstein's Mahler is bad (quite contrary) but because I was both listening to most divine music and at the same time watched it's performers and there is no association between these two things, perhaps it's good to watch orchestra performing Mozart because Mozart's music is very musical, but Mahler music is not that musical and listener should forget everything mundane and prosaic about it in order to experience it.


Well, you can always close your eyes. Often a blu-ray disc will offer unsurpassed sound quality with master DTS 7.1 tracks, etc., with a sort of total immersion in the surround sound experience. Mahler's 6th coming from all cornes of the room with you in the middle must be quite an experience.


----------



## DarkAngel

Almaviva said:


> Well, you can always close your eyes. Often a blu-ray disc will offer unsurpassed sound quality with master DTS 7.1 tracks, etc., with a sort of total immersion in the surround sound experience. Mahler's 6th coming from all cornes of the room with you in the middle must be quite an experience.


All true but big advantage for me of blu ray Mahler is watching from a different and "better" point of view.....orchestra view

You get to see conductor's face and body using various ways of directing music, also with multiple camera angles editors know when to catch fine details of individual members playing a solo or difficult section showing details you could never see from audience even front row seat. Sometimes you even have some bonus interviews, backgound, documentaries etc

I can watch from my easy chair as often as I please.....it is mine!


----------



## Almaviva

DarkAngel said:


> All true but big advantage for me of blu ray Mahler is watching from a different and "better" point of view.....orchestra view
> 
> You get to see conductor's face and body using various ways of directing music, also with multiple camera angles editors know when to catch fine details of individual members playing a solo or difficult section showing details you could never see from audience even front row seat. Sometimes you even have some bonus interviews, backgound, documentaries etc
> 
> I can watch from my easy chair as often as I please.....it is mine!


Agreed. I like symphonic performances on DVD or blu-ray. Aramis doesn't, I was just telling him about one of the advantages - better sound - but there are other advantages like you said.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Wikipedia ftw indeed!

As i said earlier, friday ill be witnessing Maazel and the RCO perform this, most likely in the A/S order. Im more familiar with Solti's CSO recording which is S/A - should be slightly odd to hear it reversed.


----------



## World Violist

emiellucifuge said:


> Wikipedia ftw indeed!
> 
> As i said earlier, friday ill be witnessing Maazel and the RCO perform this, most likely in the A/S order. Im more familiar with Solti's CSO recording which is S/A - should be slightly odd to hear it reversed.


It was rather odd when I first heard James Levine's BSO recording of the 6th; it had the A/S order as opposed to basically every recording I've heard otherwise. He made it work though, and when Levine gets an idea to work, he really brings the house down. So I liked it then.


----------



## tahnak

World Violist said:


> It was rather odd when I first heard James Levine's BSO recording of the 6th; it had the A/S order as opposed to basically every recording I've heard otherwise. He made it work though, and when Levine gets an idea to work, he really brings the house down. So I liked it then.


I have heard this recording. For me, it does not work. This is the weakest performance of the sixth I have heard. He may be a showman but does not know his Mahler at all.


----------



## handlebar

tahnak said:


> I have heard this recording. For me, it does not work. This is the weakest performance of the sixth I have heard. He may be a showman but does not know his Mahler at all.


I have to agree. Levine is a weak Mahler interpreter IMHO. Just my personal feelings but I have never agreed with his liberal uses of tempo and orchestral change.

Jim


----------



## ChamberNut

The 6th is currently my favorite of Mahler's symphonies, and the 'Andante' is my favorite of all his slow movements, with the Final movement of Symphony #3 coming a close second.

I much prefer hearing #6 with the Scherzo/Andante order. I really, really need that lovely, uplifting Andante before all hell breaks loose in the Finale. 

I've yet to hear a version of the 'Andante' that beats Tennstedt with London Philharmonic. I find he interprets it perfectly, that is, perfectly that way I want it to be played. I find most interpretations rush through it, and play it too fast. Perhaps they take the meaning of 'Andante' too literally. Anyways, that's my two cents. 

A phenomenal work, and an absolute must experience to hear live. My city's orchestra (Winnipeg Symphony) played it a few years ago (Andante/Scherzo and two hammerblows), and it was marvelous!


----------



## emiellucifuge

Same I love this symphony so incredibly much right now.

Seeing Maazel and KCO last night was an incredible experience that left my palms sweating.

The last movement especially is incredible. There is one moment where he approaches the tonic, in any other circumstances a rather boring occasion - however mahler approaches it with huge intervals. For me this is one of the most amazing parts of the symphony


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

And what do you think about *Christopher Eschenbach's* Mahler Sixth with the Philadelphians? I quite like it.

It's interesting that you said here about *Levine*. Still, hope he is good, because I'm going to visit *Berlin* on May 2011 and decided to arrange it so I can hear his Mahler Sixth with Staatskapelle Berlin live. We still don't have much Mahler in Moscow. Last May I heard the Second with Valeriy Poliansky - the chorus was good, but the orchestra was so-so.

***
Suprisngly, in Sixth (and in Fifth) I like *Karajan more than Solti* (but he has great 2 with LSO). In my opinion Abbado with Lucerne and Jansons with RCO both are better in their recordings of the Fifth than in the Sixth, where they are a little bit "soft".... I say, suprisingly because I mostly like Solti (even in Also Sprach Zaratustra by Strauss e.g. where Karajan's-73 recording is too much cold and too much "beautiful"). But here I don't find Karajan too cold, but he have the right balance between the agression and the structure. In Strauss he was too much "beautiful" and frozen (so e.g. I found Heather Harper with Hickox more involving with Gundula J. and HvK). But it's offtopic...


----------



## emiellucifuge

I like Soltis 6th more than most other versions including Karajan. People often think/say that a slower more restrained approach is necessary to bring out the darker shases. Well ive heard that with Maazel, sure its dark but theres no contrast between the marching 1st movement/scherzo and the dark andante/finale. The best recording are the ones that accentuate these contrasts and make the eventual tragic ending even more so.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Maybe, I will re-listen to it!


----------



## tdc

The 6th is definetely one of my favorite symphonic works for sure, if not my favorite- by any composer. I definetely prefer the slower tempos for it though. So far for me I really like Chailly and Abbado as conductors for Mahler symphonies. But admittedly there are plenty of recordings of it I haven't yet heard. Bernstein and Gergiev both seemed way too fast for my tastes though on the 6th.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Sorry, for offtopic again... It's very difficult to find the ideal recording of Mahler, but for me *Chailly* is too much slow and too much "anti-romantic" in his whole box-set (and his Sixth is one of the better pieces of the set - I think DECCA shouldn't delete the twoofer - I hate their politics of printing box-sets only and deleting single discs!).

For example in the First and the Ninth *David Zinman* is more dramatic and Zinman for example faster in the inner movements of the 9th, in the Eighth Boulez has more suitable tempos: Boulez starts with more quick tempo then Chailly and then slows down. Chailly is too much constantly slow for me. So for the Mahler with "dry eyes and cold heart" I will prefer Zinman and sometimes Boulez, despite my love for Concetrgebouw' strings and woodwinds.

Certainly, it's just my IMHO and I'm not a musician nor a musicologists.

I love very much Chailly's Hindemith, btw. And his Brahms Concertos with the Gewandhaus too. Hope he will return to Mahler again.

BTW, have anyone heard *Michael Gielen's * Sixth (and his whole box-set)? I haven't.


----------



## World Violist

Moscow-Mahler said:


> BTW, have anyone heard *Michael Gielen's * Sixth (and his whole box-set)? I haven't.


I've heard his 6th, and it's something special, if somewhat odd. It's been a while since I've heard it, so don't press me for details, but I remember it being my favorite.


----------



## tdc

Moscow-Mahler said:


> Sorry, for offtopic again... It's very difficult to find the ideal recording of Mahler, but for me *Chailly* is too much slow and too much "anti-romantic" in his whole box-set (and his Sixth is one of the better pieces of the set - I think DECCA shouldn't delete the twoofer - I hate their politics of printing box-sets only and deleting single discs!).
> 
> For example in the First and the Ninth *David Zinman* is more dramatic and Zinman for example faster in the inner movements of the 9th, in the Eighth Boulez has more suitable tempos: Boulez starts with more quick tempo then Chailly and then slows down. Chailly is too much constantly slow for me. So for the Mahler with "dry eyes and cold heart" I will prefer Zinman and sometimes Boulez, despite my love for Concetrgebouw' strings and woodwinds.
> 
> Certainly, it's just my IMHO and I'm not a musician nor a musicologists.
> 
> I love very much Chailly's Hindemith, btw. And his Brahms Concertos with the Gewandhaus too. Hope he will return to Mahler again.
> 
> BTW, have anyone heard *Michael Gielen's * Sixth (and his whole box-set)? I haven't.


This is good information, thanks. I think I'm a little biased towards Chailly because its the first set I heard. I'm honestly still absorbing all the symphonic works in his box set, at which point I will start searching out some of the other recommended recordings.


----------



## Vaneyes

I don't care about two or three hammer blows, but I do care about the Scherzo-Andante order. My preferences are the Barbirolli (less disciplined) and Boulez recordings.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Whats your preferred order and why?


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

World Violist said:


> I've heard his 6th, and it's something special, if somewhat odd. It's been a while since I've heard it, so don't press me for details, but I remember it being my favorite.


Well, thanks anyway. I think I will try Gielen's Sixth. And maybe his *Ninth* or something else. None of my friends has it (because Haensller doesn't distribute in my country) so I will be the first.


----------



## tdc

emiellucifuge said:


> Whats your preferred order and why?


I'd like to ask you the exact same question. The version i'm used to has the scherzo as the 2nd movement, but I'm beginning to wonder now if that movement would sound better pushed back, it might kind of space out the action a bit in the symphony...interesting question.


----------



## World Violist

To my mind, as to the order of the two inner movements, there's no doubt in my mind that Scherzo-Andante is the best way. For one thing, I really don't care that Mahler himself conducted it Andante-Scherzo, because that's bowing to tradition in which I don't believe. Besides, there's every reason musically and structurally to put the Andante immediately before the finale, not least of which is the fact that the Andante ends with a chord related to the chord at the beginning of the finale, whereas the Scherzo's last few bars have absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the finale.

And as for this whole "variety" thing... the first two movements of the fifth are very similar if my memory isn't shot, and the first two movements of the sixth aren't anywhere near as "identical" as people make them out to be. I find they are wholly convincing as the first two movements.

And there is more continuity between the movements in Scherzo-Andante order. Violently raucous ending of movement 1 goes to violent opening to movement 2, soft ending of 2 turns to soft beginning to mvmt 3, same to mvmt 4.

In short, I don't see any reason to use Andante-Scherzo order apart from the fact that Mahler performed it that way, which, with a symphony about which Mahler was so prone to read details into his personal life and make crack decisions about, is absolutely no reason at all.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I agree with WV,

Harmonically it makes more sense Scherzo/Andante. Also in my opinion Mahler manages to make the work so depressing by contrasting the darkness with the preceding 'marches'. Having the Andante paired with Finale achieves this.


----------



## TxllxT

When I listen to Mahler's 6th for me the most critical passage is that of the cowbells. Many conductors just let them ramble, clatter as exotic outside-the-music clammerings. Herbert von Karajan however makes these cowbells the most intense musical message (*inside* the Mahler compostion), that I sometimes literally feel it resounding in my heart. He also knows how to march the dark marchings. The same magic with exotic outside-the-music banging I observed in Karajan's Rheingold: just hear these underworld hammers going into fanatic frenzy!


----------



## emiellucifuge

True but I think theyre kind of meant to be outside the music. Its like a sudden and brief respite from the turmoil, thinking back to the childhood-dreams and simple roots in the countryside.

Besides Mahler doesnt really want/expect any kind of regularity in their playing:


----------



## TxllxT

Fascination with Mahler's music & fascination with a conductor's interpretation of Mahler's music go together. When I hear music I know well during a _live_ performance, I hear both this _live_ performance & the performance that touched my heart. When I hear the cowbells sounding like an advertisement for Swiss chocolate I immediately fall out of the musical intensity. Yes, Karajan 'composed' the cowbells so that they tighten up the tragic grip on the listener (me). Other conductors just follow the notes. In other words: cowbells at present evoke different associations than cowbells in the past. Do you want to hear Milka cows in Mahler's 6th? That's why Karajan composed them to save the tragic inside Mahler's 6th IMHO.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I think the tragedy becomes greater when you are reminded of a nostalgic and innocent past. For the same reason Mahler composed the chorale in the first and last movement, to transcend the tragedy and induce a religious feeling, I wouldnt want a conductor to 'ruin' this by making everything sound tragic.


----------



## TxllxT

The first time the cowbells sound like cowbells, without any speciality. The second time they sound urgent, alarming. The third time they resemble churchbells in the distance, death-bells if you wish. I'm still not sure, whether Karajan here inserted actually a recording of church-bells (he was a recording freak), but these transformations work highly effective, on me at least.


----------



## tdc

emiellucifuge said:


> I think the tragedy becomes greater when you are reminded of a nostalgic and innocent past. For the same reason Mahler composed the chorale in the first and last movement, to transcend the tragedy and induce a religious feeling, I wouldnt want a conductor to 'ruin' this by making everything sound tragic.


I agree with this. I also generally don't agree with conductors changing around original scores too much to suit _their _ artistic purposes.


----------



## TxllxT

tdc said:


> I agree with this. I also generally don't agree with conductors changing around original scores too much to suit _their _ artistic purposes.


Well, here we are in the grey area that the conductor remains true to the original score, but does something with loose bungling noise-makers, a.k.a. cow-bells. Mahler didn't write anything about how the cowbells should be played, did he?


----------



## tdc

TxllxT said:


> Well, here we are in the grey area that the conductor remains true to the original score, but does something with loose bungling noise-makers, a.k.a. cow-bells. Mahler didn't write anything about how the cowbells should be played, did he?


Basically I like the sound of the bells feeling somewhat outside the music, its like a passage of mixed emotions, slightly chaotic. I agree the conductor remaining true to the original score is a bit of a grey area. My comment was generalized not necessarily specifically directed at Karajan's Mahler 6.


----------



## NightXsenator

Sixth is my favourite, too. The first and the third (Andante) movements, especially. Strange, but the first movement greatly inspires me for hard work, for "rushing forward", "pushing on anyway". At first, my favourite recording was Vaclav Neumann's, but then I changed my mind to Thomas Sanderling's one with Spb. Philarmonia Orch. Also admire all Simon Rattle's recordings, but Gergiev's interpretation with LSO really disappointed me. Too fast, for example. And yeah, maybe it sounds barbaric, but I've always listened to Mahler's symphonies as to audio only, with headphones  What do you think about it?


----------



## tdc

^ Completely agree with you about Gergiev's Mahler 6 - too fast! Bernstein's I also find too fast. I like Chailly's version a lot - nice and slow. I also like Abbado's Mahler 6.


----------



## Mahlerian

World Violist said:


> And as for this whole "variety" thing... the first two movements of the fifth are very similar if my memory isn't shot, and the first two movements of the sixth aren't anywhere near as "identical" as people make them out to be. I find they are wholly convincing as the first two movements.


First, I agree with you, Scherzo-Andante is the better way. It's Mahler's first thoughts, and in this instance, even if he changed his mind, I think the original inspiration is the right one. Furthermore, the sequence of keys used in the work makes for a smoother transition from 3rd mvt to finale if the Andante is in that position, as its ending E-flat major chord resonates with the C bass pedal to not make the diminished sonority that follows (including the note E-flat) as surprising. The opening of the second movement is always going to sound "wrong" in one way or another, whether it's the subtly jarring shift of tonality to the extremely distant E-flat, or the immediately jarring return of A minor after a climax in A major.

On the other hand, the Scherzo has a whole bunch of similarities to the first movement. Their first themes are variations on each other, they both open with unharmonized As in the bass, and their sequence of keys is related (a-F-a-D-A), (a-F-a-D-a).

A note: despite my preferring the Scherzo second, I've been listening to the Abaddo recording the most in recent years, which puts it third, and I don't like to change the programming order. Oh well.

A second note: I now realize that the person I'm responding to probably won't see this.


----------



## fchekani

There is a tendency to slaughter Mahler’s symphonies. Some audiences are exclusively interested in Andante of Symphony 6 but this symphony is an integrated artistic work. The title “tragic” is a cliché in terms of naming. This is a burlesque tragedy which is the whole life. The sonata form, first movement starts with the imagination of soldiers march; then the romantic theme (the portrait of Alma Mahler) comes. You can hear some dialogues about torturing at the development of 1st movement. Then a noble psychological experience (insanity) is depicted in the re-exposition of 1st movement. Scherzo Wutchtig and Andante are pertained to some aspects of life again (they are clear). The Finale of symphony 6 is like a helical ladder. You climb it and you stand over the previous points several times. Ultimately you fall down from the ladder of life with three hammer strokes. I do not have any reference for my ** but it can be helpful to have some guidance for listening to this great symphony.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I am not familiar enough with Mahler 6 to really take a side on this, but my four sets all have S-A. I guess until I hear A-S in a recording and compare the experience with an S-A recording, I'll not be able to determine which I like better. This might give me reason to shop for a Mahler 6 in A-S next time I am at my local music store.


----------



## Merl

Fritz Kobus said:


> I am not familiar enough with Mahler 6 to really take a side on this, but my four sets all have S-A. I guess until I hear A-S in a recording and compare the experience with an S-A recording, I'll not be able to determine which I like better. This might give me reason to shop for a Mahler 6 in A-S next time I am at my local music store.


Just swap the track order round on the CD player next time you play it. It does make a difference, Fritzy! Although I'm less bothered than others I agree fully that it makes more sense in the A-S order. For that reason, when I can be bothered, I swap it around on whatever media I'm using. Actually, when I come to think of it, it does bother me cos I nearly always swap it around these days.


----------



## Kiki

Even though there are far fewer A-S recordings than S-A, the market is flooded with Mahler 6s, there are more than plenty of A-S to choose from. E.g. Among recent ones recorded after 2010, Harding, Chailly, Ashkenazy all did it in the A-S order.

I suppose I belong to the wrong-order camp (feels more intense overall) but I don't avoid the right-order nor would I swap the order in those recordings. Just like to take it the way that the performers want to present it. I thought I had a strong preference about the order but probably I'm even less bothered than most folks here. :lol:


----------

