# 20th Century Symphonic Masterpieces: Part Two - Mahler's Symphony No. 6



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

20th Century Symphonic Masterpieces: Part Two - Mahler's _Symphony No. 6_



















As with his Fifth Symphony, this work is exclusively instrumental. It is also Mahler's most "Classical" symphony in its form and layout. Although the Sixth Symphony has no specific program, much has been written about the "tragic" aspects of the work that gave rise to its subtitle, which, by the way, was withdrawn by Mahler before publication. The prevailingly dark mood is not unusual for Mahler, but there is no transformation into a glorious ending or peaceful resignation. It is his only symphony to end unremittingly in the minor. As for the autobiographical elements, it is known from Alma Mahler's memoirs that it may have been Mahler himself upon whom three hammer strokes of fate fall in the Finale, which seems strangely prophetic of the following year when Mahler lost his Vienna Opera position, lost his daughter, and was diagnosed with heart disease. The song quotes, Ländlers, country tunes, bird calls, and military marches are all gone. In their place is a powerful and stark contrapuntal texture, certainly not devoid of soaring melodies and lush harmonies, but lacking in the referential styles of the early symphonies. The entire symphony is unified by a motto theme that consists of a major moving to minor triad over a characteristic rhythm. It carries particular significance in the Finale, as it is linked with the aforementioned hammer strokes of fate. Many commentators believe this to be Mahler's most cohesive and tautly organized symphony.

Allegro energico, ma non troppo. Heftig, aber markig. (Not too fast. Vigorous, but marked). This is a standard sonata form with repeated exposition. The opening theme is harsh and march-like, while the sweeping second subject, written specifically as a portrayal of Mahler's wife, Alma, is in sharp contrast. The themes are developed imaginatively, and the movement closes triumphantly with the "Alma theme."

Scherzo. Wuchtig. (Forcefully). This movement is usually performed second, but Mahler seems to have always placed it after the Andante. This is the first of Mahler's really diabolical scherzos. It is a bizarre, grotesquely stamping dance full of percussive strokes and shrieking woodwinds. This alternates with a strange little trio to which Mahler gives the marking Altväterisch (Old-fashioned). It is full of rhythmic ingenuity in its timid and hesitant manner.

Andante moderato. (Moderately moving). Alma reported in her memoirs that this pastoral and nostalgic movement was a musical depiction of their children at play. It is simple in form, and rather yearning and plaintive in mood.

Finale. Sostenuto. (Sustained). This huge sonata-form movement is one of Mahler's most epic in scope and conception. It nearly dwarfs the rest of the symphony and certainly represents its cornerstone, both structurally and emotionally. It opens with an impressionistic sweep that extends out to the somber introduction. After this, the main material is a powerful march that three times rises to exultation, only to be overcome by the motto theme and each of the three hammer strokes. The movement concludes with a long and mournful coda, unremitting to the end.

[Article taken from All Music Guide]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

My favorite Mahler symphony and one that I continue to come back to and find something completely new within the music. There's so many layers to this symphony and such emotional depth. As for the _Scherzo_ - _Andante_ or _Andante_ - _Scherzo_ ordering of movements, I believe that Mahler had it right the first-time as structurally it makes more sense to have the slow movement before the last movement, which lasts around 30 minutes or so --- just my two cents. What do you guys think of this symphony? Favorite performances?

I have several favorite performances, but if I had to pick just one, it would be Karajan and the Berliners on DG.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

For me this symphony is the greatest Mahlerian disappointment -- but only because it would have been so much better had it been shorter and more concise. For me it is a prime example of brilliant ideas, material and execution ruined by excessive length and too much repetition.

1. Repetition off from the 1st Movement
2. Andante (perfect!)
3. Scherzo (perfect!)
4. The last huge heroic wave cut from the finale, telling the story with 2 huge waves instead of 3

^^ That way it would have been just perfect. 

I cannot listen to the symphony the way it is, so I listen to it with the finale from the 7th providing the necessary balance. I listen to the finale of the 6th as a separate tone poem. So I had to cut the symphony to pieces in order to enjoy it. It is a pity.

My favourite recordings are Rattle/Berliner, Karajan/Berliner and Haitink/Concertgebouw!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Hmmm. I thought it was the second movement, the scherzo, that depicted the Mahler children at play which is why the stark, negative ending is even more disturbing. The 6th as a whole is a great symphonic gesture with Mahler's skill at its highest. A great performance or recording should be a harrowing experience. 

There are so many excellent versions on disk, but if I had to keep one it would have to be Barbirolli with the Philharmonia. Bernstein on DG or Maazel on Sony as close seconds.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> For me this symphony is the greatest Mahlerian disappointment -- but only because it would have been so much better had it been shorter and more concise. For me it is a prime example of brilliant ideas, material and execution ruined by excessive length and too much repetition.
> 
> 1. Repetition off from the 1st Movement
> 2. Andante (perfect!)
> ...


I disagree that the music needed to be more concise. Perhaps you need to stop being so critical and appreciate the music as it unfolds? As with all of Mahler's symphonies, there's rhyme and reason for the length. He's not of the Sibelius school of symphonic thinking where this composer strove for more of a streamlined approach, so forget about it. Anyway, I can listen to the 6th from start to finish and love every minute of it. I don't feel the need to it in half to enough it nor do I feel the particular need to criticize it. Why not do the same thing to a Wagner opera or cut Debussy's _Pelléas et Mélisande_ in half? The 6th, as with any Mahler symphony, is special despite whatever criticism someone may have with it.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> What do you guys think of this symphony? Favorite performances?


You asked that and I answered just that. That´s all, isn´t it? 



Neo Romanza said:


> Perhaps you need to stop being so critical and appreciate the music as it unfolds?


It has to be acknowledged that Mahler symphonies are amongst the longest in the standard repertoire and for that reason alone, there are people who will find it problematic. The average length of the symphonies in general (and also other music albums) tells us something significant about us humans as listeners. One hour of intensive listening already challenges and changes the mental state of the listener. The level of focus will undoubtedly change, too, as the time runs... So somewhere there is a limit after which the music starts to become overwhelming, and after which the music really needs to have great contrasts to keep the attention level high. Overwhelming and at the same time not giving the listener enough of new contrasting things to get excited about is not totally unproblematic. Otherwise there would undoubtedly be more 2 hour symphonies (or 2 hour pop albums).

There are certain limits and boundaries to the musical personalities we all are. I don´t think I need to stop being critical. What I have to do is hold other people´s feelings and views on these matter in value. And I need to respect other people and their love for music, even the totally uncritical and praising views on the 6th Mahler symphony. So it is a balance thing -- of course I sometimes think whether I should just shut up already.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> You asked that and I answered just that. That´s all, isn´t it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But my point is that being critical of Mahler's "excessive length" symphonies just because they don't suit your own tastes isn't being particularly fair to the composer. He wrote the music he wanted and if you don't have the mental stamina for the music, then that's fine, but just accept that this is a flaw within your own listening. He poured his heart and soul into his music and, for this, I'm eternally grateful.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> But my point is that being critical of Mahler's "excessive length" symphonies just because they don't suit your own tastes isn't being particularly fair to the composer. He wrote the music he wanted and if you don't have the mental stamina for the music, then that's fine, but just accept that this is a flaw within your own listening. He poured his heart and soul into his music and, for this, I'm eternally grateful.


Why would we have to point flaws either in Mahler, me or someone else? In this instance he created something that goes against my aesthetic views, subjective and objective. Undoubtedly, if we could ask him, he´d say my aesthetic values would at certain places go against his.

It is my opinion, in all it´s subjectivity and objectivity, that Mahler ruined this symphony. Many others have different views on the matter. Are they more right than I am? Of course not!

There is no objective flaw in the symphony or me as a listener (although at the length of this symphony and the level of repetition we are bordering on it). There is a symphony and certain listeners -- and a clash of aesthetic values and views because of it.

This world would be a bad place if we always had to try to find the flaws in the mirror -- as though that was somehow always the wisest thing to do, the great secret wisdom of the world.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Great piece...I agree that a fine performance of this work should be a harrowing experience....that fits Solti/CSO all the way.....brutal, violent, crushing.....no break for the unfortunate...I don't listen to this work too often for that reason...it is heavy going when done right...
I heard Nelsons/BSO do it live a few years back - very fine performance....very powerful and moving, just the way it should be....
I prefer the S-A order [not intending to inflame this topic again ] - it just makes more sense to me, and fits better with the dramatic flow, at least for me....


----------



## REP (Dec 8, 2011)

I consider the slow movement of this symphony to be one of Mahler's best pieces of music, even preferring it to the far more famous Adagietto of the 5th. The way it builds slowly over time, ebbing and flowing with many digressive passages, is almost Brucknerian.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> For me this symphony is the greatest Mahlerian disappointment -- but only because it would have been so much better had it been shorter and more concise. For me it is a prime example of brilliant ideas, material and execution ruined by excessive length and too much repetition.
> 
> 1. Repetition off from the 1st Movement
> 2. Andante (perfect!)
> ...


While I disagree with your views,* Scherchen's Leipzig recording* does make a lot of cuts, the total time being 54 minutes, and it's also generally interesting because of the often unusually fast tempi and feverish, high-octane style. Some say that his cuts were due to a limited rehearsal time, however.
One of my own favourite recordings is that of Currentzis, very spacious sonically, which really opened my eyes for the qualities of that magnificent symphony.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> Why would we have to point flaws either in Mahler, me or someone else? In this instance he created something that goes against my aesthetic views, subjective and objective. Undoubtedly, if we could ask him, he´d say my aesthetic values would at certain places go against his.
> 
> It is my opinion, in all it´s subjectivity and objectivity, that Mahler ruined this symphony. Many others have different views on the matter. Are they more right than I am? Of course not!
> 
> ...


Fair enough. We all have our preferences. But, to my mind, your aesthetic values seem to be coming from the Sibelian world of conciseness and "trimming the fat" so to speak. Well, that's fine, but some of us are fine with the "fat" in Mahler's symphonies just like we're fine with the fat that is found in Wagner or Bruckner.

Anyway, the 6th is an acknowledged masterpiece and it moves many listeners deeply. That's all that matters at the end of the day.


----------



## Lisztianwagner (2 mo ago)

A true masterpiece, one of my favourite pieces of all time! Very dense in the contrapuntal weaving, but also so full of intensity, as well as incredibly rich of possibilities in the orchestration and the harmonic texture that it is impossibile not to be moved; I've always been very impressed by the varied, contrasting atmospheres it can evoke, so changeable, from the stormy, powerfully passionate first movement to the restless, rhythmically grotesque Scherzo, from the contemplative, nostalgic Andante to the tense, overwhelming finale. To quote Mahler himself, it really contains everything, like the world; absolutely outstanding. 😊
Maybe because of the experience with Wagner's operas, I have never felt Mahler's music as too long or heavy. 

My favourite recording is the Karajan, but DG Bernstein, Chailly and Tennstedt are magnificent too.


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

Waehnen said:


> For me this symphony is the greatest Mahlerian disappointment -- but only because it would have been so much better had it been shorter and more concise. For me it is a prime example of brilliant ideas, material and execution ruined by excessive length and too much repetition.
> 
> 1. Repetition off from the 1st Movement
> 2. Andante (perfect!)
> ...


We know


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> Fair enough. We all have our preferences. But, to my mind, your aesthetic values seem to be coming from the Sibelian world of conciseness and "trimming the fat" so to speak. Well, that's fine, but some of us are fine with the "fat" in Mahler's symphonies just like we're fine with the fat that is found in Wagner or Bruckner.


My aesthetic values do not limit to Sibelian thinking. The Mahler symphonies 2 and 3 are perfect in my opinion, and they are put together in exactly the way I think a huge and long symphony should. There is enough of highly inspired and deeply contrasting material while the music at the same time has a direction and is moving towards a high profile, thought out resolution. Most importantly, in symphonies 2 and 3 Mahler never lets the listener get bored. With these symphonies I am satisfied, content, happy, inspired, moved and convinced.

Mahler himself wrote that at the time of the 5th symphony the level of inspiration was not as high as it was before but hoped that his skills would compensate. Unfortunately I sense the level of inspiration diminishing in the 5th symphony´s 2nd and 3rd movements already. Furthermore, later on he even seemed to compensate the lack of inspiration by repeating variations of the dotted rhythm TAT-TA-TAA in symphonies 6-7-8 to an unbelievably high level. For a person like me, who lives for new musical ideas, the continuous TAT-TA-TAA is unbelievably irritating. It is like: "Really? Do you think we are that stupid?"

One of the reason I love the 9th symphony so much is that it is late Mahler but still has less to do with the endless TAT-TA-TAA TAT-TA-TAA than symphonies 6-8.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Neo Romanza said:


> But my point is that being critical of Mahler's "excessive length" symphonies just because they don't suit your own tastes isn't being particularly fair to the composer. He wrote the music he wanted and if you don't have the mental stamina for the music, then that's fine, but just accept that this is a flaw within your own listening. He poured his heart and soul into his music and, for this, I'm eternally grateful.


Fairness is an interesting concept here. I have tastes - things I love, enjoy, cringe to, hate - and they change over time. They reflect what I like and I can even justify them (give the reasons I feel make me feel that way) but they are not an attempt to be fair to the composer, only to me!


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

“For me this symphonythis discussion about this symphony is the greatest MahlerianTalk Classical disappointment -- but only because it would have been so much better had it been shorter and more concise. For me it is a prime example of brilliant ideas, material and execution ruined by excessive length and too much repetition.”

OK. Sorry @Waehnen, I'm not trying to be too cheeky here by corrupting your quote, but really this discussion has spilled over into a few threads and the whole thing is getting tiresome for me. There's been quite a lot of length and repetition in the _discussion_ over Mahler's Sixth and clearly nobody is going to change anyone else's mind. 

I love Mahler's Sixth. I'd recommend Abbado with the Berlin Philharmonic, though I also enjoy Abbado/Chicago. Boulez and Barbirolli are two diametrically opposed takes on it, but I love both. Kubelík is another conductor I'd mention. And all of the others who have been mentioned, particularly Haitink. Maybe I'll listen to it today! Mahler seems receptive to a bunch of different interpretative approaches, which is nice because I can learn a little from each performance.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I would call Mahler's Sixth Symphony among his middle to bottom group. It has a number of obvious flaws, the first being it can end in two different ways. The two middle movements can also be reversed. This is not to comment in any way on the contents of the music which I believe inferior to his best symphonies -- Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 9.

I ask that you apply either of the above standards to any symphony of Beethoven or Brahms to gain perspective on what I am saying. Imagine the Beethoven Eroica symphony ending differently than you've ever known ... or imagine the two middle movements of the Fifth Symphony being reversed sometimes at the will of a conductor. Would they still be the greatest masterpieces of their kind?


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

How does it end in two different ways? Are you referring to the third hammer-blow? If so, I'd say that it is a minor revision among _many_ that Mahler made, and it's improper to include the third hammer-blow because it neglects the other changes in balance, instrumentation, and dynamics that Mahler made concurrently (creating an artificial hybrid between the different versions which Mahler never endorsed). While it _can_ proceed with Andante/Scherzo or Scherzo/Andante, Mahler clearly endorsed Andante/Scherzo, revoked any endorsement of Scherzo/Andante, and this was his final position when he died; I blame Erwin Ratz and his borderline unethical “scholarship” for most of the subsequent confusion. One _could_ play Beethoven's Ninth with the Adagio before the Scherzo; it’s physically possible but goes against the composer’s intentions and doesn’t make sense. Obviously the Mahler case is more ambivalent because of Mahler’s initial ordering but I think the “proper” order, endorsed by Mahler, is clearly Andante/Scherzo. This puts the structure in line with most Classical symphonies (Beethoven’s Ninth being a prominent exception).


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Monsalvat said:


> “For me this symphonythis discussion about this symphony is the greatest MahlerianTalk Classical disappointment -- but only because it would have been so much better had it been shorter and more concise. For me it is a prime example of brilliant ideas, material and execution ruined by excessive length and too much repetition.”
> 
> OK. Sorry @Waehnen, I'm not trying to be too cheeky here by corrupting your quote, but really this discussion has spilled over into a few threads and the whole thing is getting tiresome for me. There's been quite a lot of length and repetition in the _discussion_ over Mahler's Sixth and clearly nobody is going to change anyone else's mind.


You are of course right, I have made my point numerous times. Then again I have thought that just as people have the right to voice their praise multiple times, I have the right to voice my own opinion multiple times. So I have not restricted myself.

Some people have written here that it would be more appropriate not to voice one´s dislike on something. That would mean that the forum environment is more suitable for praise than criticism. We should talk more about what we like than what we dislike, is the idea. Maybe there is some truth to that "talk about the positive" thinking.

But there is nothing complicated to why I behaved like I did: I saw that @Neo Romanza asked a question and I decided to answer for some reason. I did not think it would raise conversation yet again. And there you are, complaining about me repeating myself, and I understand totally. Yet I do not know whether I should shut up already or not. Because I do not see this as a big problem, maybe? I dunno. I do not feel like defending myself, nor scolding myself -- or anyone else for that matter.

I think we are doing just fine, to be honest.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

@Waehnen allow me to extend an apology and say that my posts were unfair. You, like myself or anyone else, has a right to your opinions no matter how unjust they may seem to someone else. I just get so tired of listeners attacking the length of Mahler's symphonies and using it as a basis of criticism (of course, you went into more detail than merely criticizing the length). I'm sure if Mahler wanted to have shorten his music, he would have done so, but this isn't what he intended. Anyway, no hard feelings and I'm glad that you enjoy _some_ of the 6th.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> @Waehnen allow me to extend an apology and say that my posts were unfair. You, like myself or anyone else, has a right to your opinions no matter how unjust they may seem to someone else. I just get so tired of listeners attacking the length of Mahler's symphonies and using it as a basis of criticism. I'm sure if Mahler wanted to have shorten his music, he would have done so, but this isn't what he intended. Anyway, no hard feelings and I'm glad that you enjoy _some_ of the 6th.


No need to apogize, at all! I enjoy when people voice their opinions, even concerning my opinions. I do not feel attacked at all. No worries. I welcome feelings towards music and towards the talk about music. I know for sure that I am rather strong in my expression myself.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Yeah I didn't mean to criticize you alone, or suggest that viewpoints shouldn't be heard. But it often seems like we are going in circles. That was really what I meant.

Interesting point about the positivity/negativity of viewpoints. If your viewpoints are always positive, they won't offend people, so they won't be controversial. Here you have a negative view of a work which attracts more scrutiny. As with Neo Romanza, no hard feelings meant. I think I will give Boulez's Mahler Sixth a listen later today.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Just to make things clear I want to point out that I am rather obsessed with the Andante -- I think it is one of the finest symphonic movements ever created. For that movement alone I am grateful that this symphony was composed. 

(Who cares if I have some issues with the length and tat-ta-taa of the finale when compared to the magnificent Andante?)


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I don't get this symphony. I've tried and tried to like it but to no avail. For reference, I love the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th symphonies.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> Just to make things clear I want to point out that I am rather obsessed with the Andante -- I think it is one of the finest symphonic movements ever created. For that movement alone I am grateful that this symphony was composed.
> 
> (Who cares if I have some issues with the length and tat-ta-taa of the finale when compared to the magnificent Andante?)


It's certainly a mesmerizing movement for sure and one of my favorites from Mahler.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I don't get this symphony. I've tried and tried to like it but to no avail. For reference, I love the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th symphonies.


Howabout this - the 6th vs. the vocal part of the 2nd


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> Howabout this - the 6th vs. the vocal part of the 2nd


The 6th (the first movement is actually quite good). Vocals have no business in a symphony.


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> The 6th (the first movement is actually quite good). Vocals have no business in a symphony.


Is that your opinion or a statement of fact?


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Vocals have no business in a symphony.


Absolute nonsense.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

golfer72 said:


> Is that your opinion or a statement of fact?


It's truly amazing how many can't see the difference between an opinion and a fact. How does one even begin to make a factual statement about what I expressed?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> Absolute nonsense.


Well, that's just your opinion. Clearly you have good company as Beethoven and Mahler agree with you. I have Brahms and Sibelius on my side.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Well, that's just your opinion. Clearly you have good company as Beethoven and Mahler agree with you. I have Brahms and Sibelius on my side.


Brahms, yes, Sibelius, no. Sibelius did compose _Kullervo_ after all.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> Brahms, yes, Sibelius, no. Sibelius did compose _Kullervo_ after all.


You are correct, although he did learn after this and never used vocals in any of his officially numbered symphonies, 1 through 7.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> You are correct, although he did learn after this and never used vocals in any of his officially numbered symphonies, 1 through 7.


I'm not sure if he "learned" anything --- this is merely speculation on your part.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm not sure if he "learned" anything --- this is merely speculation on your part.


Well, if he thought it was a good idea, he would have done it in at least one of his 7 official symphonies, don't you think? He did call Kullervo a symphony, although it is telling he didn't think of it high enough to officially call it his symphony number 1. He wrote Kullervo (Op. 7) very early in his career.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Well, if he thought it was a good idea, he would have done it in at least one of his 7 official symphonies, don't you think? He did call Kullervo a symphony, although it is telling he didn't think of it high enough to officially call it his symphony number 1. He wrote Kullervo (Op. 7) very early in his career.


Well, sure, but there's no evidence to point any of us to his inner thoughts on the matter other than to remain speculative about it. Anyway, I don't mind vocals in symphonies and you do. We'll leave it at that.


----------

