# Where to place the scherzo in Mahler 6?



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I imagine this has been discussed before but my rather lazy search couldn't find it anywhere.

I wonder what you all think about the ordering of movements in Mahler 6? Mahler himself was in doubt. The trouble is that the first movement can be quite tough and brutal, and the scherzo is in a somewhat similar vein. Some conductors place the slow movement between them for this reason. Barbirolli wanted to but HMV thought he had made a mistake and corrected it! 

I'm not sure which way is best. Mahler 5 starts with two similar movements as well but follows these with a delightful scherzo before the heavenly slow movement. 6's scherzo is not delightful. I do think a lot is lost if the slow movement is brought forward to be a mere interlude between the two "brutal" movements as it leaves us with the second of these and then the rather grueling finale.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

It was discussed at some length just this past week...

Mahler 6 Order of Movements?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure which way is best. Mahler 5 starts with two similar movements as well but follows these with a delightful scherzo before the heavenly slow movement. 6's scherzo is not delightful. I do think a lot is lost if the slow movement is brought forward to be a mere interlude between the two "brutal" movements as it leaves us with the second of these and then the rather grueling finale.


The 5th is in 5 movements vs 4 for the 6th and that alone makes it impractical to draw too many analogies in ordering.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Becca said:


> It was discussed at some length just this past week...
> 
> Mahler 6 Order of Movements?


Oh dear. So much for my search .. or even my memory, it seems. I suggest that anyone wanting to post on this subject sticks to that thread and lets this one sink without trace!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I've always preferred to have the scherzo first . The slow movement is a kind of calm before the storm .


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I prefer the andante first. The slow movement is the calm after the storm.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I think the scherzo first makes more harmonic sense. Having the Andante third makes then opening of the finale all the more hair-raising. (But ultimately, I suspect most individuals' preference hinges more on which way you learned the work.)


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

MarkW said:


> I think the scherzo first makes more harmonic sense. Having the Andante third makes then opening of the finale all the more hair-raising. (But ultimately, I suspect most individuals' preference hinges more on which way you learned the work.)


Ditto.

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


----------



## Byron (Mar 11, 2017)

MarkW said:


> (But ultimately, I suspect most individuals' preference hinges more on which way you learned the work.)


Right. Of course if the order had not been erroneously switched in the first place, this wouldn't even be a debate and no one would give a second thought as to what makes more harmonic sense. I mean if we can rearrange the order of movements based on our own criteria, why stop at Mahler? All composer's works should be fair game.

There's everyone's preferences, and then there's Mahler's final conception.


----------



## Chromatose (Jan 18, 2016)

Becca said:


> I prefer the andante first. The slow movement is the calm after the storm.


Yes.. this.. ^^^


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Mahler’s symphonies we’re not always written in the order of movements in which they finally appeared. He sketched the second and fourth movements of his 7th after he had finished his 6th and then later mapped out the rest of the 7th, working on the first, third, and fifth movements during the following summer and completing them within four weeks. I believe it was Mahler at the full height of his power, perhaps because it was such a happy time in his life. 

In the 6th, I find the more quiescent ending of the Scherzo as a perfect introduction to the explosive turbulence of the Finale, and consider that one more reason why he may have finally put it in that position. I reject the idea that he tried to organize everything on the basis of key relationships, because he wasn’t bothered by finally putting the Scherzo where he did. Symphonies are not always composed in the final order in which the movements appear. But in the matter of the 6th, it looks like it took him about two years to decide his final ordering, most likely with some doubt, the ordering of which he never went back on for the remaining five years of his life. And rather than having the Scherzo reminding some listeners as a continuation of the first, with the Andante there the symphony had four clear separate movements, and I believe the same could be said for the contrast between the Scherzo in the third position leading in to the Finale. The changes in mood and contrast were clear. Two fascinating symphonies.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Gee, maybe the composer got it wrong....


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I first knew it as Scherzo-Andante, long before I heard there was controversy. So that familiarity no doubt affects my judgement on whether it's better that way.
I like the symmetry presented by the first three movements (violence-violence-calm) versus the hammer blows of the fourth (violence-violence-devastation).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Becca said:


> I prefer the andante first. The slow movement is the calm after the storm.


I hear it as a respite won by the struggle of the first movement, which ends optimistically. To follow the first movement's triumphant finish on its second theme by reopening the conflict in the scherzo with more pounding makes no sense. It is a dramatic nonsequitur. This is likely what Mahler realized immediately at the rehearsal for the first performance and why he never wavered in the order of the movements (A-S) from that moment on.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Selected discography...

*Scherzo / Andante*

Erich Leinsdorf, Boston Symphony Orchestra, RCA Victor Red Seal LSC-7044
Jascha Horenstein, Royal Stockholm Philharmonic Orchestra, Unicorn UKCD 2024/5 (live recording from 1966)
Leonard Bernstein, New York Philharmonic,[12] Sony Classical SMK 60208 (*)
Vaclav Neumann, Gewandhaus Orchestra Leipzig, Berlin Classics 0090452BC
George Szell, Cleveland Orchestra, Sony Classical SBK 47654
Bernard Haitink, Concertgebouw Orchestra, Amsterdam, Q-DISC 97014 (live performance from November 1968)
Rafael Kubelik, Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra, Deutsche Grammophon 289 478 7897-1
Rafael Kubelik, Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra, Audite 1475671 (live recording of 6 December 1968 performance)
Bernard Haitink, Concertgebouw Orchestra, Amsterdam, Philips 289 420 138-2
Jascha Horenstein, Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra, BBC Legends BBCL4191-2
Georg Solti, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Decca 414 674-2
Hans Zender, Saarbrücken Radio Symphony Orchestra, CPO 999 477-2
Maurice Abravanel, Utah Symphony Orchestra, Vanguard Classics SRV 323/4 (LP)
Herbert von Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, Deutsche Grammophon 289 415 099-2
Leonard Bernstein, Vienna Philharmonic, Deutsche Grammophon DVD 440 073 409-05 (live film recording from October 1976) (*)
James Levine, London Symphony Orchestra, RCA Red Seal RCD2-3213
Kirill Kondrashin, Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra, Melodiya CD 10 00811
Václav Neumann, Czech Philharmonic, Supraphon 11 1977-2
Claudio Abbado, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Deutsche Grammophon 289 423 928-2
Milan Horvat, Philharmonica Slavonica, Line 4593003
Kirill Kondrashin, SWR Sinfonieorchester Baden-Baden und Freiburg, Hänssler Classic 9842273 (live recording from January 1981)
Lorin Maazel, Vienna Philharmonic, Sony Classical S14K 48198
Klaus Tennstedt, London Philharmonic Orchestra, EMI Classics CDC7 47050-8
Klaus Tennstedt, London Philharmonic Orchestra. LPO-0038 (live recording from the 1983 Proms)
Erich Leinsdorf, Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra, Orfeo C 554 011 B (live recording of 10 June 1983 performance)
Gary Bertini, Cologne Radio Symphony Orchestra, EMI Classics 94634 02382
Giuseppe Sinopoli, Philharmonia Orchestra, Deutsche Grammophon 289 423 082-2
Eliahu Inbal, Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra, 1986, Denon Blu-spec cd (COCO-73280-1)
Leonard Bernstein, Vienna Philharmonic, Deutsche Grammophon 289 427 697-2 (*)
Michiyoshi Inoue, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Pickwick/RPO CDRPO 9005
Bernard Haitink, Berlin Philharmonic, Philips 289 426 257-2
Riccardo Chailly, Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, Decca 444 871-2
Hartmut Haenchen, Netherlands Philharmonic Orchestra, Capriccio 10 543
Hiroshi Wakasugi, Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra, 1989, Fontec FOCD9022/3
Leif Segerstam, Danish Radio Symphony Orchestra, Chandos CHAN 8956/7
Christoph von Dohnányi, Cleveland Orchestra, Decca 289 466 345-2
Klaus Tennstedt, London Philharmonic Orchestra, EMI Classics 7243 5 55294 28 (live recording from November 1991)
Anton Nanut, Radio Symphony Orchestra Ljubljana, Zyx Classic CLS 4110
Neeme Järvi, Royal Scottish National Orchestra, Chandos CHAN 9207
Antoni Wit, Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra, Naxos 8.550529
Seiji Ozawa, Boston Symphony Orchestra, Philips 289 434 909-2
Yevgeny Svetlanov, State Symphony Orchestra of the Russian Federation, Warner Classics 2564 68886-2 (box set)
Emil Tabakov, Sofia Philharmonic Orchestra, Capriccio C49043
Benjamin Zander, Boston Philharmonic Orchestra, Carlton 6601007
Edo de Waart, Radio Filharmonisch Orkest, RCA 27607
Pierre Boulez, Vienna Philharmonic, Deutsche Grammophon 289 445 835-2
Zubin Mehta, Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, Warner Apex 9106459
Thomas Sanderling, Saint Petersburg Philharmonic Orchestra, RS Real Sound RS052-0186
Yoel Levi, Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, Telarc CD 80444
Michael Gielen, SWR Sinfonieorchester Baden-Baden und Freiburg, Hänssler Classics 93029
Günther Herbig, Saarbrücken Radio Symphony Orchestra, Berlin Classics 0094612BC
Michiyoshi Inoue, New Japan Philharmonic, 2000, Exton OVCL-00121
Benjamin Zander, Philharmonia Orchestra, Telarc CD-80586
Michael Tilson Thomas, San Francisco Symphony, SFS Media 40382001 (*)
Bernard Haitink, Orchestre National de France, Naïve V4937
Christoph Eschenbach, The Philadelphia Orchestra, Ondine ODE1084-5B
Mark Wigglesworth, Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, MSO Live 391666
Bernard Haitink, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, CSO Resound 210000045796
Gabriel Feltz, Stuttgart Philharmonic, Dreyer Gaido 9595564
Vladimir Fedoseyev, Tchaikovsky Symphony Orchestra of Moscow Radio, Relief 2735809
Eiji Oue, Osaka Philharmonic Orchestra, Fontec FOCD9253/4
Takashi Asahina, Osaka Philharmonic Orchestra, Green Door GDOP-2009
Jonathan Nott, Bamberg Symphony Orchestra, Tudor 7191
Esa-Pekka Salonen, Philharmonia Orchestra, Signum SIGCD275
Hartmut Haenchen, Orchestre Symphonique du Théâtre de la Monnaie, ICA Classics DVD ICAD5018
Antal Doráti, Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, Helicon 9699053 (live recording of 27 October 1963 performance)
Lorin Maazel, Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, RCO Live RCO 12101 DVD
Paavo Järvi, Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra, C-Major DVD 729404
Jukka-Pekka Saraste, Oslo Philharmonic Orchestra, Simax PSC1316
Pierre Boulez, Lucerne Festival Academy Orchestra, Accentus Music ACC30230
Antonio Pappano, Orchestra dell'Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia, EMI Classics (Warner Classics 5099908441324)
Lorin Maazel, Philharmonia Orchestra, Signum SIGCD361
Jaap van Zweden, Dallas Symphony Orchestra, DSO Live
Libor Pešek, Ceski Narodni Symfonicky Orchestr, Out of the Frame OUT 068
Václav Neumann, Czech Philharmonic Orchestra, Exton OVCL-00259
Zdeněk Mácal, Czech Philharmonic Orchestra, Exton OVCL-00245
Vladimir Ashkenazy, Czech Philharmonic Orchestra, Exton OVCL-00051
Eliahu Inbal, Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra, 2007, Fontec SACD (FOCD9369)
Eliahu Inbal, Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra, 2013, Exton SACD (OVCL-00516 & OVXL-00090 "one point recording version")
Gary Bertini, Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra, Fontec FOCD9182
Georges Prêtre, Wiener Symphoniker, Weitblick SSS0079-2
Giuseppe Sinopoli, Stuttgart Radio Symphony Orchestra, Weitblick SSS0108-2
Rudolf Barshai, Yomiuri Nippon Symphony Orchestra, Tobu YNSO Archive Series YASCD1009-2
Martin Sieghart, Arnhem Philharmonic Orchestra, Exton HGO 0403
Heinz Bongartz, Leipzig Radio Symphony Orchestra, Weitblick SSS0053-2

*Andante / Scherzo*

Charles Adler, Vienna Symphony Orchestra, Spa Records SPA 59/60
Eduard Flipse, Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra, Philips ABL 3103-4 (LP), Naxos Classical Archives 9.80846-48 (CD)
Dimitri Mitropoulos, New York Philharmonic,[12] NYP Editions (live recording from 10 April 1955)
Eduard van Beinum, Concertgebouw Orchestra, Amsterdam, Tahra 614/5 (live recording from 7 December 1955)
Sir John Barbirolli, Berlin Philharmonic, Testament SBT1342 (live recording of 13 January 1966 performance)
Sir John Barbirolli. New Philharmonia Orchestra, Testament SBT1451 (live recording of 16 August 1967 Proms performance)
Sir John Barbirolli, New Philharmonia Orchestra, EMI 7 67816 2
Harold Farberman, London Symphony Orchestra, Vox 7212 (CD)
Heinz Rögner, Berlin Radio Symphony Orchestra, Eterna 8-27 612-613
Simon Rattle, City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, EMI Classics CDS5 56925-2
Glen Cortese, Manhattan School of Music Symphony Orchestra, Titanic 257
Andrew Litton, Dallas Symphony Orchestra, Delos (live recording, limited commemorative edition)
Sir Charles Mackerras, BBC Philharmonic, BBC Music Magazine MM251 (Vol 13, No 7) (*)
Mariss Jansons, London Symphony Orchestra, LSO Live LSO0038
Claudio Abbado, Berlin Philharmonic, Deutsche Grammophon 289 477 557-39
Iván Fischer, Budapest Festival Orchestra, Channel Classics 22905
Mariss Jansons, Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, RCO Live RCO06001
Claudio Abbado, Lucerne Festival Orchestra, Euroarts DVD 2055648
Simone Young, Hamburg Philharmonic, Oehms Classics OC413
David Zinman, Tonhalle Orchestra Zürich, RCA Red Seal 88697 45165 2
Valery Gergiev, London Symphony Orchestra, LSO Live LSO0661
Jonathan Darlington, Duisberg Philharmonic, Acousence 7944879
Petr Vronsky, Moravian Philharmonic Orchestra, ArcoDiva UP0122-2
Fabio Luisi, Vienna Symphony Orchestra, Live WS003
Vladimir Ashkenazy, Sydney Symphony Orchestra, SSO Live
Riccardo Chailly, Gewandhaus Orchestra Leipzig, Accentus Music DVD ACC-2068
Markus Stenz, Gürzenich Orchestra Köln, Oehms Classics OC651
Daniel Harding, Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra, BR-Klassik 900132
Simon Rattle, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, BPH 7558515 (live recording from 1987)


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I still believe the opening pages of the Finale to be among the most eerily frightening measures in all music -- and find them all the more so following the Andante. But I can see them having that effect after the Scherzo, too, so I won't argue if your preference is different from mine. It';s still a remarkable work.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

jdec said:


> Selected discography...
> 
> *Scherzo / Andante*
> 
> ...


And your point is what ... the majority rules? Why do you suppose so many use S/A? Because Erwin Ratz published a score that way based on very questionable arguments which have been quite well debunked. You might notice that some of the conductors who use Andante / Scherzo, such as Charles Adler, Dimitri Mitropoulos, Eduard van Beinum & John Barbirolli, are the those whose experience with Mahler goes back the furthest.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Take it easy. It's just a FYI, nothing less, nothing more.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Because of the questionable Ratz edition, the middle two movements of Sir John Barbirolli's studio recording of the 6th were reversed to S-A by EMI against his wishes. (It's still ordered that way though he recorded the Andante before the Scherzo.) In his live performance, which can be heard on YT, he recorded it as A-S. It's not Barbirolli's or Mahler's fault that so many other famous conductors fell for Ratz's questionable scholarship hook, line and sinker-evidently many still do-and never questioned its unreliable and dubious conclusions, especially after Mahler had made his final decision on the ordering clear to his publisher during his lifetime and never reversed it, unlike Alma Mahler and Ratz who had no artistic authority or apparent justification for doing so.

Studio S-A:






Live A-S:


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Again, maybe Mahler got it wrong??
;-)


----------



## gunter (Dec 9, 2013)

Heck148 said:


> Again, maybe Mahler got it wrong??
> ;-)


see: http://www.haenchen.net/veroeffentl...id]=67&cHash=93a85c4fc644c2acf36a02805f06a72a

und ausführlicher in "Werktreue und Interpretation" http://www.pfau-verlag.de/cgi-bin/1.cgi?obj=www&_cgi=wk&WK_1-20-27521=1&_S=/shop_detail/27521.html
Band 2, Seite 131ff. Infos:http://www.haenchen.net/aktuell/?us...d]=204&cHash=41d3370d69eb27e487cd5f416e7bae50


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Heck148 said:


> Again, maybe Mahler got it wrong??
> ;-)


If Mahler had always had the same preference for one way, nobody would ever think it should be the other way.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

I have listened to the A-S order several times with open mind (and ears), and never feel as satisfied as with the S-A order, so S-A will always be for me.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

Just my personal reaction: When I first heard Barbirolli's reading (in the A/S order), the symphony made much more sense to me. The flow seemed more logical. It was as if everything snapped into focus.

Until then, I'd always heard the M6 in the "traditional" S/A order. And it always struck me as odd that the jarring ending of the first movement then immediately launched into another jarring movement -- without any time to catch your breath.

Again, just one person's impressions.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

*"Mahler was unsure about the order of the middle two movements. Originally the Scherzo followed the first movement, but after the symphony was published Mahler changed his mind, and placed the Andante moderato second."
*
_Stephen Johnson (no relation), Programme note to LSO/Jansons 2002 LSO Live recording._


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

jdec said:


> I have listened to the A-S order several times with open mind (and ears), and never feel as satisfied as with the S-A order, so S-A will always be for me.


Yes, I've done the same...it just seems more effective to me S-A.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> Because of the questionable Ratz edition, the middle two movements of Sir John Barbirolli's studio recording of the 6th were reversed to S-A by EMI against his wishes. (It's still ordered that way though he recorded the Andante before the Scherzo.) In his live performance, which can be heard on YT, he recorded it as A-S.


While the LP issue was Scherzo-Andante, I'm pretty sure that all of the CD versions of the studio version use Barbirolli's preferred Andante-Scherzo order.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

I don't think it has anything to do about one way being more "right" than the other. They're simply different, and all the current scholarship points to the Andante --> Scherzo being Mahler's final version. When the scholarship wasn't as clear, and it was believed Scherzo --> Andante was Mahler's preference, some conductors gave phenomenal performances of the score with their every ounce of conviction behind it, as great interpreters do. However, now that some light has been shed on the shoddy work by the musicologist who is responsible for the Scherzo --> Andante version, it would be disingenuous to keep performing the work with that order and pretending it's just as valid as performing it Andante --> Scherzo. It's not, no more so than performing his First symphony with the extra movement is just as valid as performing it in it's final version. Some conductors play the First with the five movements, but it is always acknowledged to be an early version of the symphony. The same with the Sixth, the Scherzo --> Andante is an early version of the score.


----------



## Biffo (Mar 7, 2016)

wkasimer said:


> While the LP issue was Scherzo-Andante, I'm pretty sure that all of the CD versions of the studio version use Barbirolli's preferred Andante-Scherzo order.


The first CD release has the order scherzo-andante. To make matters worse it is a 2 disc set and there is no way of programming the correct order


----------



## Robert St Claire (Nov 11, 2018)

Respectfully, one can't reasonably claim that any one ordering of the Sixth's inner movements is the correct one, despite the intensity with which the 2010 Critical Edition promotes the Andante-first positioning. It's become popular to vilify Ratz for the liberties he took with his 1963 Critical Edition, but the 2010 version also carries the strong whiff of an agenda. The historical facts surrounding the order of the movements are not so straightforward.


----------



## rodrigaj (Dec 11, 2016)

Create a playlist in whatever order you prefer... for whatever reasons you prefer.


----------



## Resurrexit (Apr 1, 2014)

Robert St Claire said:


> Respectfully, one can't reasonably claim that any one ordering of the Sixth's inner movements is the correct one, despite the intensity with which the 2010 Critical Edition promotes the Andante-first positioning. It's become popular to vilify Ratz for the liberties he took with his 1963 Critical Edition, but the 2010 version also carries the strong whiff of an agenda. The historical facts surrounding the order of the movements are not so straightforward.


It does have an agenda. To correct the liberties Ratz took with the score. :lol: The historical facts are perfectly clear. After the rehearsal of the first performance he stuck with the Andante first order until his death. The issue is that many listeners who got to know the piece with the Scherzo first and prefer it in that order desperately want to hold on to the belief that their preference somehow also aligns with Mahler's. Drop that pretense and there is no controversy, and anyone can listen to the symphony in any form they prefer.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"Three weeks before the first performance [of the 6th], Mahler had the Symphony read through in Vienna under his direction, at which time he irrevocably decided that the correct middle-movement order should be Andante-Scherzo. Mahler conducted the world premiere in Essen on 27 May 1906, with the middle movement order of Andante-Scherzo, after having instructed Kahnt to insert an erratum slip in the unsold copies of the scores and in Specht's booklet, detailing the correct middle movement order, and to republish the scores and booklet with the corrected middle-movement order, which Kahnt did in November 1906.

"From that point on, therefore, there would seem to be no question regarding the order of the movements, the more so as the remaining five complete performances of the Symphony in Mahler's lifetime were given with the order of Andante-Scherzo. Chronologically, these performances were:

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

"Mahler died in May 1911 in Vienna, six weeks before what would have been his 51st-birthday. The following November, Ferdinand Löwe conducted the Sixth Symphony in Vienna, with Alma in the audience, and in September 1916 Willem Mengelberg gave the Dutch premiere of the work in Amsterdam with the Concertgebouw Orchestra; both of these posthumous performances were given in accordance with the re-published score, the middle-movement order of Andante-Scherzo."

Those who argue that this is a "dual-version" symphony, in an effort to justify the Scherzo played before the Andante, are making the assumption that Mahler wanted that order on the basis of 'key centers' rather than simply a change & contrast of 'mood' or for some other reason-and such an assumption is unprovable because it is not in keeping with the final decision that he made regardless of the "key centers" or not. That assumption is based on speculation and guesswork rather than how Mahler actually performed this symphony.

Every once in a while a deceased composer deserves to have somebody stand up for his interests rather than the interests of a misguided musicologist (like Radz) who may like to speculate at the expense of the composer's final wishes. Mahler lived for five more years and never changed his ordering of A-S.

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

So _au contraire_, the ordering of the movements _is_ straightforward according to how Mahler himself performed the symphony during his lifetime, accorded to his 2nd and 3rd revised published scores. It was never performed Scherzo-Andante by him or anyone else while he was alive. It was only through the meddling of his wife Alma, years after its premiere, that the ordering was ever called into question.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

rodrigaj said:


> Create a playlist in whatever order you prefer... for whatever reasons you prefer.


No, listen to it in the order the composer wanted it performed and learn to like it, damn it!


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> "Three weeks before the first performance [of the 6th], Mahler had the Symphony read through in Vienna under his direction, at which time he irrevocably decided that the correct middle-movement order should be Andante-Scherzo. Mahler conducted the world premiere in Essen on 27 May 1906, with the middle movement order of Andante-Scherzo, after having instructed Kahnt to insert an erratum slip in the unsold copies of the scores and in Specht's booklet, detailing the correct middle movement order, and to republish the scores and booklet with the corrected middle-movement order, which Kahnt did in November 1906.
> 
> "From that point on, therefore, there would seem to be no question regarding the order of the movements, the more so as the remaining five complete performances of the Symphony in Mahler's lifetime were given with the order of Andante-Scherzo. Chronologically, these performances were:
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting, that's very persuasively laid out.

I've always preferred Andante/Scherzo, the other way always felt intuitively, and unequivocally, wrong. I've heard passionate and elegant arguments about key centre structures being violated unless it's Scherzo/Andante etc, but when I go back to the music it still sounds plain wrong*. 
(*Until that is I heard the Boulez recording not so long ago, in which for some reason it sounded perfectly fine, though I can't say why. Maybe it's alchemy, maybe it's my confidence in the Boulez brain, maybe it's a one-off, or maybe I've reached a point where I can comfortably hear it both ways, I've yet to decide.)


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Iota said:


> Thanks for posting, that's very persuasively laid out.
> 
> I've always preferred Andante/Scherzo, the other way always felt intuitively, and unequivocally, wrong. I've heard *passionate and elegant arguments about key centre structures* being violated unless it's Scherzo/Andante etc, but when I go back to the music it still sounds plain wrong*.


The problem with these passionate arguments about key structure is that the dominant mode of construction in the work isn't tonal/harmonic, it's thematic. The logic of the thematic transformations organizing the material shared across movements is the backbone of the piece, not the tonal progression. The key relations argument is disinterred from Classical Era notions of structure. This isn't Mozart and it doesn't work like Mozart.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Scherzo before Andante sounds better to me after experimenting with the order over time. I prefer the Beethoven 9th structure to this work. I don't find the Andante after the first movement convincing, and find it more meaningful as respite at the 3rd movement spot. Also the final movement flows better to me from the Andante than from the Scherzo.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I remain comfortable with the idea that the conductor chooses what suits his/her conception of the work. No-one has to buy or listen to accounts that do it "wrong" as they see it. We know Mahler's preference as a conductor and we also know that as a composer he can't have been sure which way round to do it. Do we need a definitive answer?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I remain comfortable with the idea that the conductor chooses what suits his/her conception of the work. No-one has to buy or listen to accounts that do it "wrong" as they see it. We know Mahler's preference as a conductor and we also know that as a composer he can't have been sure which way round to do it. Do we need a definitive answer?


Mahler had a definitive answer and it isn't just a conductor's preference. If he didn't feel strongly about it he wouldn't have insisted on correction sheets in the original edition or a reordering in a new one. He knew exactly what he wanted and went to considerable trouble to make sure we respected his wishes. People who want to hear it in an unauthorized and garbled version are obviously free to do so. But pretending this is anything other than indulging their own whim and stubbornly perpetuating a bad habit is just insulting to the composer.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^ I know some of you feel strongly about this but I can't really get that worked up for the later preference from the composer. I've heard performances that I really love with it both ways and have tried "correcting" the ones that "got it wrong" but it usually didn't work. Frankly, I think it is deeply ridiculous to claim I am insulting Mahler by listening to (and liking!) some accounts that give us the "wrong" order. I am just someone who loves music and enjoys listening to great exponents interpreting it for us. You might more reasonably think that the many noted conductors who play it "wrong" have insulted Mahler - but I do think that once a work is out there it is for the interpreters to decide how _they _want us to hear it and for us to decide which accounts "do it" for us. The score and the composer's intentions are obviously very important but they are not - by definition - that last word.

I can think of so many great performances of music that arguably do not do what the composer wanted - sometimes despite the performer knowing that s/he was going against the composer's intentions. If it works in a way that somehow seems to be true to the music then it works for me.


----------



## Resurrexit (Apr 1, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^ I know some of you feel strongly about this but I can't really get that worked up for the later preference from the composer. I've heard performances that I really love with it both ways and have tried "correcting" the ones that "got it wrong" but it usually didn't work. Frankly, I think it is deeply ridiculous to claim I am insulting Mahler by listening to (and liking!) some accounts that give us the "wrong" order. I am just someone who loves music and enjoys listening to great exponents interpreting it for us. You might more reasonably think that the many noted conductors who play it "wrong" have insulted Mahler - but I do think that once a work is out there it is for the interpreters to decide how _they _want us to hear it and for us to decide which accounts "do it" for us. The score and the composer's intentions are obviously very important but they are not - by definition - that last word.
> 
> I can think of so many great performances of music that arguably do not do what the composer wanted - sometimes despite the performer knowing that s/he was going against the composer's intentions. If it works in a way that somehow seems to be true to the music then it works for me.


Listening to and enjoying the symphony in any way that makes you happy is not what Edward meant when he talked about "insulting" the composer. The insult is in coming up with contrived arguments to try and make the assertion that placing the scherzo first would have been just as acceptable for Mahler. In performing the work in a manner contrary to his and pretending one is still following Mahler's intentions, or thinking that one knows better than the composer.

Really, there's nothing stopping you from listening to any work in any way you wish. You can play a Haydn symphony on your ipod and put it on random and listen to it in a completely jumbled sequence. You can listen to a single movement that you find exhilerating and totally bypass the rest of a work you find rather boring. Many, however, are interested in hearing and coming to terms with the composer's conception of their own creation; of making the journey and partaking in the emotional arch of a multi-movement piece that they wanted to take us on and thought was most effective.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^ OK. I get it! But is there anyone who finds themselves rejecting excellent performances simply on these grounds? And if they accept such erroneous accounts do they listen as the conductor (but not the composer) intended? Or do they "correct" the order of the movements?


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^ OK. I get it! But is there anyone who finds themselves rejecting excellent performances simply on these grounds? And if they accept such erroneous accounts do they listen as the conductor (but not the composer) intended? Or do they "correct" the order of the movements?


Speaking for myself, I find that I don't have to reject these erroneous accounts, still love them, and at the same time enjoy them MORE by rearranging them to fit Mahler's preference. I am another who always found the opening of the scherzo following the first movement to be an awkward transition, even in the best of performances. For example, my favorite performance of the symphony is probably Bernstein's DG recording with the Vienna Philharmonic, which of course had the scherzo first. But once the scholarship surrounding the movements got sorted out, I was more than ok to switch the order of the inner movements when I listen. And I'm the happier for it. :lol:

Not that I'm upset by performances that place the scherzo first. I understand that they were/are simply following a performance tradition based on faulty scholarship.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^ OK. I get it! But is there anyone who finds themselves rejecting excellent performances simply on these grounds? And if they accept such erroneous accounts do they listen as the conductor (but not the composer) intended? Or do they "correct" the order of the movements?


On any download it's very easy to re-order the middle two movements according to Mahler's wishes. If one is able to burn one's own discs, it's also very easy to rearrange the middle two movements of any CD and then burn a new disc. I think Mahler wanted it Andante-Scherzo because without it the beginning of the second movement sounds as much like a continuation of the first movement with its percussive turbulence, and there's far more contrast between all the movements with the Andante in the second position. I also find the end of the Scherzo particularly satisfying as a lead in to the last movement. I believe it's possible these are some the reasons why Mahler irrevocably decided on and preferred them in that order.

Why have more conductors performed the symphony with the Scherzo first? Probably because they never questioned the Radz scholarship or hubris. They never personally delved into what Mahler actually did and the error got perpetuated year after year, except with someone like Dimitri Mitropoulos or Sir John Barbirolli, who always maintained Mahler's final ordering, Radz or no Radz edition.

I have the Boulez and Szell's versions of the 6th with the Scherzo before the Andante, both excellent recordings. But I like them better with Mahler's ordering. Much better. I think the overall impression of the symphony is dramatically changed with the Andante in the second position. It needs that serenity earlier in the symphony as a respite from the turbulence of the first movement. It's very easy to reorder any download or CD, try it that way, and then also listen to the transition from the end of the Scherzo into the last movement. It's really very much of a different symphony. It's less dark, and it's considered dark enough to begin with.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

WildThing said:


> Speaking for myself, I find that I don't have to reject these erroneous accounts, still love them, and at the same time enjoy them MORE by rearranging them to fit Mahler's preference. *I am another who always found the opening of the scherzo following the first movement to be an awkward transition, even in the best of performances.* For example, my favorite performance of the symphony is probably Bernstein's DG recording with the Vienna Philharmonic, which of course had the scherzo first. But once the scholarship surrounding the movements got sorted out, I was more than ok to switch the order of the inner movements when I listen. And I'm the happier for it. :lol:
> 
> Not that I'm upset by performances that place the scherzo first. I understand that they were/are simply following a performance tradition based on faulty scholarship.


I'm not sure why people assume a reordered playlist of a performance recorded in the wrong order is necessarily an adequate fix. Putting the scherzo right after the first movement considerably changes its role in the overall drama of the symphony, and if a conductor is at all sensitive to this, isn't it likely its position in the order has affected the interpretation? It should have! So, for example, if a conductor finds the transition to the scherzo from the first movement awkward, as WildThing does (I do to), isn't it possible this awkwardness will affect a conductor's approach to the opening?


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I'm intrigued by one thing. Why did Mahler changed his mind?

He had it first published in the scherzo-andante order, then changed his mind in a rehearsal, and told his publisher to change the order to andante-scherzo. That's fact. So no argument about the definitive order.

But why did he change his mind?

I'm not talking about other people's opinions or educated guesses, including Alma's, the scholars’, not even yours or mine. 

Rather, is there any evidence, documentation, records, that point to why Mahler the composer changed his mind to the andante-scherzo order? Or is this a mystery that no one knows why?

P.S. I'm not questioning the order, nor arguing for either order here. I'm interested in why he changed the order.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

From an earlier post:

"_Three weeks before the first performance [of the 6th], Mahler had the Symphony read through in Vienna under his direction, at which time he irrevocably decided that the correct middle-movement order should be Andante-Scherzo._ "

So it is reasonable to assume that he made the decision as a result of actually hearing it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Becca said:


> From an earlier post:
> 
> "_Three weeks before the first performance [of the 6th], Mahler had the Symphony read through in Vienna under his direction, at which time he irrevocably decided that the correct middle-movement order should be Andante-Scherzo._ "
> 
> *So it is reasonable to assume that he made the decision as a result of actually hearing it*.


While wondering about the question Kiki raised, that is, _why_ Mahler changed the order, it would be interesting to know if he went back and forth on it at all in the process of composing it or if, on the other hand, it hadn't been an issue until he heard the first read through.


----------



## Byron (Mar 11, 2017)

Becca said:


> From an earlier post:
> 
> "_Three weeks before the first performance [of the 6th], Mahler had the Symphony read through in Vienna under his direction, at which time he irrevocably decided that the correct middle-movement order should be Andante-Scherzo._ "
> 
> So it is reasonable to assume that he made the decision as a result of actually hearing it.


It wouldn't be the first time. I'm reminded of the fact that in Dvořák's sketches for his 9th Symphony, the second movement was originally marked Andante, and it wasn't until he heard the work in rehearsal taken at a much slower tempo than he had imagined that he settled on Largo.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Barbirolli's fine (A-S) performance with the New Philharmonia Orchestra at Royal Albert Hall:


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Becca said:


> From an earlier post:
> 
> "_Three weeks before the first performance [of the 6th], Mahler had the Symphony read through in Vienna under his direction, at which time he irrevocably decided that the correct middle-movement order should be Andante-Scherzo._ "
> 
> So it is reasonable to assume that he made the decision as a result of actually hearing it.





Byron said:


> It wouldn't be the first time. I'm reminded of the fact that in Dvořák's sketches for his 9th Symphony, the second movement was originally marked Andante, and it wasn't until he heard the work in rehearsal taken at a much slower tempo than he had imagined that he settled on Largo.


I suppose we can be pretty sure that's what happened given the description of events.

As far as I've read Mahler wasn't one who tended to heavily revise his compositions after finishing them, (tell me if I'm wrong!), and I see swapping movements a big change even though it might be an easy change, therefore it seems an unusual situation that's why I feel particularly intrigued to understand why.



EdwardBast said:


> While wondering about the question Kiki raised, that is, _why_ Mahler changed the order, it would be interesting to know if he went back and forth on it at all in the process of composing it or if, on the other hand, it hadn't been an issue until he heard the first read through.


Interesting thought! That would make a lot of sense of what happened!


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Eschenbach's comments make sense to me. I tried the A-S order different times with an open mind, but honestly I never found it as satisfying as the S-A.

*Mahler's Symphony No 6, by Christoph Eschenbach*
Thu 1st January 2015

"
...
In my live performances and my recordings I have the Scherzo second, for two reasons. First of all I think it works in terms of the emotional logic of the piece. The demonic dance of the Scherzo carries on the sheer power of the opening movement. The march rhythm of the first movement is inverted - the emphasis is now on the upbeat and the switch to a 3/4 rhythm represents another attitude, a rebellion against the 4/4 of the preceding movement. The sforzatos on the third beat make this march a double opponent of the one that went before. There is a second reason too. To my mind, there is a crucial tonal clue in the fact the Andante ends in E flat major, which should be followed by the parallel, related key of C minor - the beginning of the finale.

We don't know for sure why Mahler changed his mind about the order of these movements. Numerous authorities have written on the matter but there is no definitive answer. My belief is there may have been practical reasons. Orchestras at that time may well have struggled to play this music, and to have two such unrelentingly powerful movements together may have been too much for them technically. Mahler may also have been influenced by advice from someone else, as Bruckner so often was, though Bruckner was of course tormented by self-doubt, which was a problem Mahler never had. I just believe the original way is preferable. The Scherzo is such a rebellious and rough piece, with a Trio that comes twice and has the unusual marking altväterisch - like an elderly father. I imagine an old man, uttering opinions and dancing awkwardly. There is also that marking of grazioso - implying a certain sympathy with old age.

Mahler wrote only wonderful slow movements but this Andante is one of the most wonderful. There are such beautiful, cantabile moments, especially when the music slips into C major and everything seems to stand still. No one can breathe any more. Even the passionate climax with the cowbells is cantabile. Everything is wonderfully balanced and the finale emerges naturally from this, with its unusually long introduction before the main subject appears.
..."


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Old Poll: "Scherzo - Andante or Andante - Scherzo in Mahler's Sixth?"

Scherzo - Andante or Andante - Scherzo in Mahler's Sixth?

Who knows, results might now revert.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

"_People can actually change their minds. If we do change our minds, life on Earth for all of us may become a success rather than, as now, a failure._" - John Cage


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

jdec said:


> Eschenbach's comments make sense to me. I tried the A-S order different times with an open mind, but honestly I never found it as satisfying as the S-A.
> 
> *Mahler's Symphony No 6, by Christoph Eschenbach*
> Thu 1st January 2015
> ...


This whole statement ^ ^ ^ is a series of unsupported, arbitrary assertions that don't add up to anything approaching a coherent argument. And some are just misinformed. On the "emotional logic of the piece:" Eschenbach writes that "the scherzo carries on the sheer power of the opening movement." Why does he think this is logical? Why is it more logical than having a contrasting movement? He doesn't say. He actually has nothing coherent to say on the issue. Then there is the strange assertion that the switch to a 3/4 "makes this march a double opponent of the one that went before." How does that make it an opponent? What is he talking about? It is hardly surprising a movement in 3/4 is going to have a greater emphasis on the upbeat since the standard secondary accent of 3/4 measures commonly reside there. This is an observation both meaningless and mundane. The related key argument just betrays ignorance. All kinds of key relations among movements are commonplace in this era, including distant relationships, especially altered mediant and submediant relationships. The relative minor relationship would be a lackluster choice and no more likely than a number of others. This is another non-argument. Eschenbach sounds like he is trying to justify retrospectively a decision he already made based on some arbitrary personal preference. The problem is, he doesn't seem to be very good at analysis or interpretation - or at arguing for his reading.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I haven't listened to this symphony for years, don't know in what order the movements were played in the performance I heard, and wasn't aware at the time that there was a controversy over it. Curiosity has gotten the better of me; I have returned to the work and listened to it both ways. Incidentally to this topic, I suspect it may be Mahler's best symphony. On topic, I find Mahler's preference - adagio first - far preferable. After the wild ecstatic rush that finishes the long first movement, the scherzo, entering with a similar pounding rhythm, is unwelcome: it's simply redundant, and a somewhat pale reflection in being less intense. Placed after the adagio, it feels fresh, familiar enough to tie the work together, recalling the first movement but not in competition with it. Moreover, the fourth movement is quite different, so there's no danger of the symphony being overbalanced toward the back end. Finally, the adagio and the finale are both deeply emotional, and the scherzo provides a welcome burst of energy to separate and offset them.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I haven't listened to this symphony for years, don't know in what order the movements were played in the performance I heard, and wasn't aware at the time that there was a controversy over it. Curiosity has gotten the better of me; I have returned to the work and listened to it both ways. Incidentally to this topic, I suspect it may be Mahler's best symphony. On topic, I find Mahler's preference - adagio first - far preferable. After the wild ecstatic rush that finishes the long first movement, the scherzo, entering with a similar pounding rhythm, is unwelcome: it's simply redundant, and a somewhat pale reflection in being less intense. Placed after the adagio, it feels fresh, familiar enough to tie the work together, recalling the first movement but not in competition with it. Moreover, the fourth movement is quite different, so there's no danger of the symphony being overbalanced toward the back end. Finally, the adagio and the finale are both deeply emotional, and the scherzo provides a welcome burst of energy to separate and offset them.


^What Woody said (I'd have just written "I like it better that way").


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> On any download it's very easy to re-order the middle two movements according to Mahler's wishes. If one is able to burn one's own discs, it's also very easy to rearrange the middle two movements of any CD and then burn a new disc. I think Mahler wanted it Andante-Scherzo because without it the beginning of the second movement sounds as much like a continuation of the first movement with its percussive turbulence, and there's far more contrast between all the movements with the Andante in the second position. I also find the end of the Scherzo particularly satisfying as a lead in to the last movement. I believe it's possible these are some the reasons why Mahler irrevocably decided on and preferred them in that order.
> 
> Why have more conductors performed the symphony with the Scherzo first? Probably because they never questioned the Radz scholarship or hubris. They never personally delved into what Mahler actually did and the error got perpetuated year after year, except with someone like Dimitri Mitropoulos or Sir John Barbirolli, who always maintained Mahler's final ordering, Radz or no Radz edition.
> 
> I have the Boulez and Szell's versions of the 6th with the Scherzo before the Andante, both excellent recordings. But I like them better with Mahler's ordering. Much better. I think the overall impression of the symphony is dramatically changed with the Andante in the second position. It needs that serenity earlier in the symphony as a respite from the turbulence of the first movement. It's very easy to reorder any download or CD, try it that way, and then also listen to the transition from the end of the Scherzo into the last movement. It's really very much of a different symphony. It's less dark, and it's considered dark enough to begin with.


You _can _reorder them. But I believe an interpretation will be "designed and prepared" for the order the conductor has _chosen_. The symphony is problematic either way and I do think it is legitimate for a performing artist to decide how to solve the problem. I do re-order my Barbirolli recording because we know he intended the Scherzo to follow the slow movement (and EMI overruled him).


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> This whole statement ^ ^ ^ is a series of unsupported, arbitrary assertions that don't add up to anything approaching a coherent argument.


Lol. Even Mahlerian mentioned the same reason as Eschenbach's 2nd reason above, earlier than him:



Mahlerian said:


> I find the E-flat major of the end of the Andante works far better as a transition to the C minor of the finale's opening than the A minor of the Scherzo.


As I said, it makes total sense to me.



Mahlerian said:


> 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).


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

You can for sure have your preference for the A-S order since it's what Mahler published in the end, but trying to claim that *musically* the S-A order is "plain wrong" or "incoherent" is to me like saying Mahler was stupid for such a first inspiration.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> You can for sure have your preference for the A-S order since it's what Mahler published in the end, but *trying to claim that musically the S-A order is "plain wrong" or "incoherent" is to me like saying Mahler was stupid for such a first inspiration.*


Who would call a composer stupid because his first thoughts are not his final ones? By that standard Beethoven might be the stupidest composer who ever lived.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ So you both agree. And I'll join you in that. Both ways have merit and neither is without problems.


----------



## Byron (Mar 11, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ So you both agree. And I'll join you in that. Both ways have merit and neither is without problems.


What specifically do you find problematic about the symphony?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> Both ways have merit and neither is without problems.


The only "problem" I can imagine in the A -S ordering is the remoteness of the key relationship between the end of the first movement and the beginning of the adagio; we go from A to Eb - the tritone, about as remote a relationship as can be. Perhaps Mahler would have chosen to write the adagio in a different key - up or down a half-step, in E or D, making the transition more "logical" - had he originally conceived of it as movement two. On the other hand, he could easily have transposed the movement later to accomplish exactly that, but he chose not to.

I don't really find this to be a problem, because the effect of key relationships in successive movements often depends on the length of the interval of silence allowed between them. To begin the adagio "attacca" would obviously be jarring, but the very nature of the musical material dictates a substantial pause, after which a wholly different mood, expressed in a wholly unrelated key, comes as a welcome relief.

In any case, why do we talk as if Mahler's first choice was clear and decisive? Perhaps he was uncertain about it all along, and simply needed to hear the work in performance to resolve his doubts.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Those who prefer the Scherzo-Andante order probably heard the symphony for the first time in that order and they're so used to it that they are unable to hear it any other way. Okay fine. Nevertheless, MAHLER obviously heard it in rehearsal in the S-A ordering, decided that he didn't like it, and HE was able to adjust. So who has the better ears?-a conductor such as Christoph Eschenbach, who probably heard it for the first time as S-A and still prefers it that way because it's what he's used to, now with his own justifications and rationalizations, none of which he knows is true or not according to Mahler's intentions, or Mahler himself, who wrote the symphony in the first place? It's an interesting and unprecedented situation but with Mahler's published score and time on his side rather than Radz's and Alma Mahler's personal interference and meddling.

Osmo Vänskä and the Minnesota Orchestra's recent SACD recording of the 6th has the A-S ordering, and I believe there will be more contemporary recordings by others using and honoring Mahler's final published score. Simon Rattle and Maurice Janson also use A-S according to Mahler's final published score. In fact, both the second and third editions of Mahler's score had the middle two movements A-S. If he still had doubts about it, he could have changed the third published score back to S-A, and it couldn't be more clear that he didn't.

"The Alma Problem"



> The long-running dispute over the 'proper' order of the symphony's two middle movements - Scherzo/Andante or Andante/Scherzo - appears to be a problem for which Alma is entirely responsible. Mahler's original score (manuscript and first published edition, as well as Zemlinsky's piano duet arrangement) placed the Scherzo second and the Andante third; but during rehearsals for the work's first performance the composer decided that the slow movement should precede the scherzo, and he instructed his publishers C.F. Kahnt to begin production of a 'second edition' of the work with the movements in that order, and meanwhile to insert a printed instruction in all existing scores. This revised, 'second thoughts' ordering was observed by Mahler in every one of the three performances he gave; it is how the second edition of the symphony was published; and it is how the work was performed by others in the three additional performances that the work received during the composer's lifetime.
> 
> In 1919, however, Alma sent a telegram to Mengelberg which said 'First Scherzo, then Andante'. Though she provided no support of any kind for the idea that Mahler had ever wanted the movements to revert to their 'original' ordering, her status as 'Mahler's widow' meant that conductors increasingly felt that there was some 'authority' for placing the Scherzo second. The issue eventually spread to record companies (who soon proved they were not beyond taking a performance recorded with one ordering and releasing it with the other) and scholarly editors - though, again, no evidence in support of the 'third thoughts' ordering has ever been presented. [unquote]


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

jdec said:


> You can for sure have your preference for the A-S order since it's what Mahler published in the end, but trying to claim that *musically* the S-A order is "plain wrong" or "incoherent" is to me like saying Mahler was stupid for such a first inspiration.


The order S-A is plain wrong because it is not the order the composer authorized for the work's performance. You are the one who seems to be doubting Mahler's judgment because his opinion on the matter was unequivocal.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> *The order S-A is plain wrong because it is not the order the composer authorized for the work's performance.* You are the one who seems to be doubting Mahler's judgment because his opinion on the matter was unequivocal.


Well, if you say it that way/tone now it's different  (i.e. acceptable) to just trying to bash the other preference (S-A) due to purely musical reasons. Honestly it's kind of funny when someone like you refer to Eschenbach's remarks on this topic as "_he actually has nothing coherent to say on the issue_" or "_the related key argument just betrays ignorance._" :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A-S makes better musical sense for several reasons, and Mahler decided that it made better musical sense. People are entitled to their preferences, but a performer of the work should respect the composer's decision. Anyone is free, listening at home, to play the movements in any order. 

There are a number of well-known instances in which musical works exist in several editions and the composer's preference is unknown. Mahler's 6th is not one of them.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

This could be an entirely different topic, but I wonder what people here think about Mendelssohn's latest revisions of his 4th symphony (2nd, 34d and 4th movements) and the fact that they almost never get performed/recorded, with the only exception I know so far being Gardiner.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

jdec said:


> Well, if you say it that way/tone now it's different  (i.e. acceptable) to just trying to bash the other preference (S-A) due to purely musical reasons. Honestly it's kind of funny when someone like you refer to Eschenbach's remarks on this topic as "_he actually has nothing coherent to say on the issue_" or "_the related key argument just betrays ignorance._" :lol:


The remarks you are quoting were not in anyway critical of the S-A order, they were critical of Eschenbach's lame attempts to justify his preference. The two things are unrelated.

I've stated in considerable detail why I think the A-S order works better musically, both earlier in this thread and in the one you quoted above where I got into it with a former TC moderator.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> This could be an entirely different topic, but I wonder what people here think about Mendelssohn's latest revisions of his 4th symphony (2nd, 34d and 4th movements) and the fact that they almost never get performed/recorded, with the only exception I know so far being Gardiner.


I have Gardiner's recording and find it more than a mere curiosity. Mendelssohn's 4th is generally regarded as a flawless piece, and I find his second thoughts unnecessary but interesting enough to be worth hearing. Some of the changes are minor and I wonder why he bothered, but others are more substantial; the finale is quite thoroughly restructured. Apparently Mendelssohn was always a bit insecure and revised a number of his works, to his sister Fanny's annoyance. The revised 4th could stand as an alternate performing version.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I have Gardiner's recording and find it more than a mere curiosity. Mendelssohn's 4th is generally regarded as a flawless piece, and I find his second thoughts unnecessary but interesting enough to be worth hearing. Some of the changes are minor and I wonder why he bothered, but others are more substantial; the finale is quite thoroughly restructured. Apparently Mendelssohn was always a bit insecure and revised a number of his works, to his sister Fanny's annoyance. *The revised 4th could stand as an alternate performing version*.


Well, Mendelssohn did not leave the revisions as "_an alternate performing version_", did he?

So, are most conductors/performers "plain wrong" for not performing this work as Mendelssohn himself intended to be in the end (i.e. revised version)? or why would be that okay/acceptable in this case, and not in the Mahler 6th inner movement order preference issue?


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

I don't believe that the revised version of Mendelssohn's 4th was even _published_ until 1997. So it's not surprising it hasn't been as widely recorded. I'm also not aware of a musicologist publishing an alternative version of the score in opposition to the composer and duping performing artists into believing it was the authoritative version in the case of the Mendelssohn symphony either.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> Well, Mendelssohn did not leave the revisions as "_an alternate performing version_", did he?
> 
> So, are most conductors/performers "plain wrong" for not performing this work as Mendelssohn himself intended to be in the end (i.e. revised version)? or why would be that okay/acceptable in this case, and not in the Mahler 6th inner movement order preference issue?


The revised Mendelssohn 4th consists of only the last three movements. He never got around to reworking the first movement (thank goodness), and given his habit of continuing to tinker with his scores there is no reason to think that the revised 4th actually represents a performing version. Neither version was published in his lifetime. This is a much more complex case than the Mahler 6th; that's merely a question of the order of two movements, and we know what Mahler decided about them.

Mendelssohn's 4th stands as a complete and faultless work in its original version, and the fact that Mendelssohn was never happy and never stopped messing around with it (as with a number of his other works) doesn't change that. What he would have done to any of his works had he lived to tinker some more we'll never know. We might have ended up with a "Midsummer Nightmare."


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The revised Mendelssohn 4th consists of only the last three movements. He never got around to reworking the first movement (thank goodness), and given his habit of continuing to tinker with his scores there is no reason to think that the revised 4th actually represents a performing version. Neither version was published in his lifetime. This is a much more complex case than the Mahler 6th; that's merely a question of the order of two movements, and we know what Mahler decided about them.
> 
> *Mendelssohn's 4th stands as a complete and faultless work in its original version*, and the fact that Mendelssohn was never happy and never stopped messing around with it (as with a number of his other works) doesn't change that. What he would have done to any of his works had he lived to tinker some more we'll never know. We might have ended up with a "Midsummer Nightmare."


Ironically, not to Mendelssohn himself.  And as some have tried to imply here in this thread, the composers are always correct about their last thoughts on their own work, aren't they?  Or maybe only when it suits our own preferences.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

WildThing said:


> I don't believe that the revised version of Mendelssohn's 5th was even _published_ until 1997. So it's not surprising it hasn't been as widely recorded. *I'm also not aware of a musicologist publishing an alternative version of the score in opposition to the composer and duping performing artists into believing it was the authoritative version in the case of the Mendelssohn symphony either.*


I think you meant the 4th, not 5th.

So you need a musicologist to "validate" Mendelssohn's own revisions? or are you questioning the existence of those late revisions?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> Ironically, not to Mendelssohn himself.  And as some have tried to imply here in this thread, the composers are always correct about their last thoughts on their own work, aren't they?  Or maybe only if it suites our own preferences.


I think you're just being difficult now. Mendelssohn, we're told, was chronically dissatisfied with his work, which must come as a surprise to anyone who admires his meticulous craftsmanship. What should we do? Decline to perform his work because he never had any "last thoughts" about it? Dig around for earlier versions and rejected material to perform on grounds that no version has more validity than any other?

We do not have Mendelssohn's "last thoughts" on his 4th, as he himself admitted. We can only play the most complete and, in our judgment, the best version we have. This, by general and practically unavoidable consent, is the original performing version. It is in every respect a real "first version," not an unfinished piece like the Bruckner 9th, the Mahler 10th, or the Elgar 3rd. But I see no objection to playing the revised movements as a three-movement torso, or even to including the original first movement, so long as we call it what it is and don't present it as Mendelssohn's "final version" of the symphony, which doesn't exist.

A final version of the Mahler 6th exists, whether we like it or not. He had ample time to reverse his ultimate decision on the order of movements, and not only did he not do so, but we have no reason to think he would have.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

jdec said:


> Ironically, not to Mendelssohn himself.  And as some have tried to imply here in this thread, the *composers are always correct about their last thoughts on their own work*, aren't they?  Or maybe only when it suits our own preferences.


No one has "tried to imply" this. You are simply making that up. What has been said is that a composer's only authorized and published version of a work should be performed as authorized. That's exactly what has been done with Mendelssohn's 4th. He didn't retract the standard version, and he didn't publish another, so there is no inconsistency whatever. Mahler's Sixth and Mendelssohn's Fourth are being treated with the same standard.

I too would find it interesting to hear a complete version of Mendelssohn's Fourth with his revisions.


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

jdec said:


> I think you meant the 4th, not 5th.
> 
> So you need a musicologist to "validate" Mendelssohn's own revisions? or are you questioning the existence of those late revisions?


Yes, the 4th. My mistake. I just don't see many parallels between these two cases, I'm sorry. Mendelssohn never actually published the symphony in his lifetime, but Mahler did and was undermined through wholesale deception.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The key difference between Mendelssohn and Mahler is that Gustav Mahler not only had the publisher change the ordering BUT he also conducted it a few times in the re-ordered version. If you want to draw comparisons, that between Mendelssohn and Bruckner is far more appropriate.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> No one has "tried to imply" this. You are simply making that up. *What has been said is that a composer's only authorized and published version of a work should be performed as authorized. That's exactly what has been done with Mendelssohn's 4th. He didn't retract the standard version*, and he didn't publish another, so there is no inconsistency whatever. Mahler's Sixth and Mendelssohn's Fourth are being treated with the same standard.
> 
> I too would find it interesting to hear a complete version of Mendelssohn's Fourth with his revisions.


You are wrong on this, after two last London concerts (revisions performed) Mendelssohn ultimately withdrew the work altogether and withheld it throughout the rest of his life, he never even published the original version. It remained unknown elsewhere until Julius Rietz led a posthumous performance with the Leipzig Gewandhaus in 1848 and then arranged for publication in 1851. Ironically, although Rietz had performed revised versions of the last three movements, whether by choice or mistake it was the original that he published and that subsequently became the popular version we know today.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Becca said:


> The key difference between Mendelssohn and Mahler is that Gustav Mahler not only had the publisher change the ordering *BUT he also conducted it a few times in the re-ordered version*.


Well, like I mention in my post above, Mendelssohn's last performances were with his last revisions too. He never published the original version, Rietz did. In his book "Mendelssohn's 'Italian' Symphony", John Michael Cooper states that Rietz simply chose the wrong score as the basis of the first edition, yes the original version.

So are you so sure no parallelisms whatsoever exist here with Mahler's 6th case??? even Ratz and Rietz spell similarly :lol:


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

"_Mendelssohn's last performances were with his last revisions too. He never published the original version_"

Not only was Mahler's 6th published but Mahler instructed the publisher to publish a corrected version and to add an erratum to the old copies specifying the revised movement order.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> You are wrong on this, after two last London concerts (revisions performed) Mendelssohn ultimately withdrew the work altogether and withheld it throughout the rest of his life, he never even published the original version. It remained unknown elsewhere until Julius Rietz led a posthumous performance with the Leipzig Gewandhaus in 1848 and then arranged for publication in 1851. Ironically, although Rietz had performed revised versions of the last three movements, whether by choice or mistake it was the original that he published and that subsequently became the popular version we know today.


Even if Mendelssohn performed the revised movements 2, 3 and 4, he didn't get around to revising the first movement despite claiming that he wanted to. He said, "I am also puzzling over the first movement and cannot get it right - in any case it must become totally different, perhaps completely new. But it is very much these doubts that disturb me with any new piece." Since he just put the entire project in a drawer and never made an effort to publish any version of it, he was obviously permanently dissatisfied, and there is thus no authorized version, the so-called "revised version" being merely the latest stage of a work in progress. The only finished version we have is the original version, and no one, to my knowledge, has ever found any artistic grounds on which to object to any aspect of it. Again, this is not a parallel to the case of Mahler's 6th, a finished, published work which Mahler expressed no ultimate dissatisfaction with and had no desire to take up again.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Even if Mendelssohn performed the revised movements 2, 3 and 4, he didn't get around to revising the first movement despite claiming that he wanted to.


So what? so was it really necessary to revise the 1st mov. too in order to validate the other 3 revised movements as part of the final work? Mendelssohn himself last performed the symphony with the original 1st mov. AND the other 3 revised ones. That clearly implies to me that Mendelssohn at least preferred it that way to the original version.

But I too prefer the original version here . My point is, some people here seem to give the utmost importance to what the composer decided about his work at the end, like in the Mahler's case, but conveniently not in the Mendelssohn's 4th case (be the final change published or unpublished). Interesting .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> So what? so *was it really necessary to revise the 1st mov. too in order to validate the other 3 revised movements as part of the final work?* Mendelssohn himself last performed the symphony with the original 1st mov. AND the other 3 revised ones. That clearly implies to me that Mendelssohn at least preferred it that way to the original version.
> 
> But I too prefer the original version here . My point is, some people here seem to give the utmost importance to what the composer *decided about his work at the end,* like in the Mahler's case, but conveniently not in the Mendelssohn's 4th case (be the final change published or unpublished).


Yes, it was necessary to finish the first movement in order to "validate" any part of the rest and call it "final." Mendelssohn may have preferred his revised movements for the moment, but composing what he thought might have to be a "totally different" first movement could have made for a work so different that Mendelssohn would have seen the subsequent movements in a new light yet again. Nothing Mendelssohn did in his process of revision, including conducting the new version a couple of times, constituted a definitive statement about his final thoughts, which didn't exist and may never have existed even had he lived longer.

The fallacy in your thinking lies in your words "decided at the end." The end of what? In Mendelssohn's case, there was no "end." The project merely petered out. Last thoughts in time need not be final decisions, and we have every indication that Mendelssohn reached no such decisions, unless it was the decision to abandon the whole project.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> ...Nothing Mendelssohn did in his process of revision, including conducting the new version a couple of times, constituted a definitive statement about his final thoughts, which didn't exist and may never have existed even had he lived longer.


This discussion reminds me of the arguments that blaze around the "correct" finale to Beethoven's Op. 130 string quartet. Many listeners claim that closing the quartet with the Grosse Fuge is in accordance with "composer's intent," even though Beethoven explicitly directed that it be published with the replacement finale.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> This discussion reminds me of the arguments that blaze around the "correct" finale to Beethoven's Op. 130 string quartet. Many listeners claim that closing the quartet with the Grosse Fuge is in accordance with "composer's intent," even though Beethoven explicitly directed that it be published with the replacement finale.


Did he express an actual preference for the new finale, or did he want it published that way for practical reasons (because his publisher suggested it)?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Did he express an actual preference for the new finale, or did he want it published that way for practical reasons (because his publisher suggested it)?


On that question, you believe whichever you want to believe.

The violinist Holz, who was close to Beethoven, agreed to present various arguments to the composer. They included the difficulty audiences had with the Grosse Fuge and an interest in publishing it separately as a "study score." Beethoven agreed quite easily, which astonished all concerned. His comments, if any, are not recorded.

It's interesting that the replacement finale is no lightweight work. Aside from the Grosse Fuge itself, it's the longest finale in the late quartets, and is of the highest quality. It was his last completed composition.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> On that question, you believe whichever you want to believe.


I don't want to believe anything. I rely on your information staff.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I don't want to believe anything. I rely on your information staff.


Did you see in Current Listening that I'm enjoying your CDs?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Yes, it was necessary to finish the first movement in order to "validate" any part of the rest and call it "final." Mendelssohn may have preferred his revised movements for the moment, but composing what he thought might have to be a "totally different" first movement could have made for a work so different that Mendelssohn would have seen the subsequent movements in a new light yet again. Nothing Mendelssohn did in his process of revision, including conducting the new version a couple of times, constituted a definitive statement about his final thoughts, which didn't exist and may never have existed even had he lived longer.
> *
> The fallacy in your thinking lies in your words "decided at the end." The end of what? In Mendelssohn's case, there was no "end." The project merely petered out. Last thoughts in time need not be final decisions, and we have every indication that Mendelssohn reached no such decisions, unless it was the decision to abandon the whole project.*


Fallacy? We have what we have. In Mendelssohn's 4th case, acknowledge that his last "performing version" was "original 1st - revised 2nd, 3rd, 4th movements", so it was clearly acceptable to him to perform the symphony that way. He did not say "wait, I cannot do that because I have not revised the 1st movement yet!". 

Anyway, I for one will continue listening to my preferred version of Mendelssohn's 4th, which is the original conception of the work (same thing for Mahler's 6th).


----------



## Byron (Mar 11, 2017)

jdec said:


> Anyway, I for one will continue listening to my preferred version of Mendelssohn's 4th, which is the original conception of the work (same thing for Mahler's 6th).


As if anyone were stopping you or trying to convince you to do otherwise.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

jdec said:


> Anyway, I for one will continue listening to my preferred version of Mendelssohn's 4th, which is the original conception of the work (same thing for Mahler's 6th).


Is there a recording of the _original_? Besides a zillion small changes here and there, despite his initial ambivalence regarding the order of the two inner movements, there's the finale with 3, then 2, hammer strokes not to mention some significant changes in orchestration in the coda. I've heard the original finale in concert, but am not aware of a recording.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

False comparison of Mendelssohn and Mahler. There was never any conjecture about the order in which to play the two inner movements of Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony after his death. None. The situation was unique to Mahler, not Mendelssohn.

Nor did Mahler have Mendelssohn's doubts and uncertainties about how he wanted his symphony to sound in its final version. Mendelssohn never revised his symphony to his satisfaction for publication, but Mahler was entirely certain in his 2nd and 3rd editions, never recanting the order in either its premeir performance or in the five years after while he was alive, never, and he went to considerable expense to have it republished as A-S-the way he was sure he wanted it. Mendelssohn continued to be riddled with doubts and uncertainties about the revisions of his symphony to the point of neurosis until his death.

If one wants to listen to the "Alma Mahler" edition of Mahler's 6th, that's entirely a personal decision. Enjoy it. But she made the choice S-A, not the husband she divorced, 13 years after it was premiered A-S according to Mahler's expensively published score. Mendelssohn was never sure he had gotten his Italian right, so the choice was made for him by someone else after his death on a symphony that had already been successful from the very first. But what a complete mess has been made of this false comparison between these two composers and these two great symphonies.

Becca said it best: "If you want to draw comparisons, that between Mendelssohn and Bruckner is far more appropriate."

Mahler never deserved to be dragged into this false comparison of huge dissimilarities.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

My source (book previously mentioned) states that Mendelssohn was pleased with the revisions of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th movements, and that Rietz took the wrong version of those movements for publication.


"Mahler never deserved to be dragged into this false comparison of dissimilarities."

Don't worry, I think he doesn't care one bit about it at this point.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> You _can _reorder them. But I believe an interpretation will be "designed and prepared" for the order the conductor has _chosen_. The symphony is problematic either way and I do think it is legitimate for a performing artist to decide how to solve the problem. I do re-order my Barbirolli recording because we know he intended the Scherzo to follow the slow movement (and EMI overruled him).


Sounds like an interesting idea for one of Becca's blind listening comparisons. Gather two groups of randomly selected and unidentified Adagios and Scherzos from performances of the symphony and see if listeners can determine if they originally come from recordings with the A-S ordering or the S-A ordering.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Byron said:


> What specifically do you find problematic about the symphony?


Mahler 6 is a very powerful and rather tight (for Mahler) work. That may be why the structure is important. Aside from clues that come from the key relationships between the end of one movement and the start of the next, the difficulty starts with the Scherzo being a rather atypical Mahler scherzo (it seems much heavier) .... and being rather similar in mood and tempo to the first movement.

S-A: Many conductors fail really to make sense of having the two similar movements together. But it is not impossible to do so (Boulez does a good job, for example), and keeping the cool (or warm!) slow movement for later does work well in helping the listener to be ready for the rigours of the long and elaborately worked out Finale. Doing this provides structural similarities to the effective and successful Mahler 5 structure (but in M5 the two "similar movements" are followed by a delightful scherzo before the slow movement).

A-S: Have we earned the Andante after merely the first movement? And doesn't it make the rigours of the Finale even more hard to take when it is preceded by a tough, violent and bitter scherzo? Of course, you can argue that Mahler 6 is a dark and brutal work and that placing the Scherzo third (after the Andante) can help us to hear the moments of optimism in the Finale: they are all dashed (so they are false optimism) but they do seem more like moments of brightness when you have just survived the Scherzo.

I don't think either structure is wholly convincing and, in the end, Mahler 6 is not an easy work to bring off. So I don't begrudge conductors their own solution to the difficulties. We do now have clarity about Mahler's preference and we can probably expect most accounts to follow that. And, perhaps accounts that follow S-A should in future be labelled as "original version" or some such formula. But there are a good few wonderful accounts using S-A and I would not like to be without them. And I don't like changing the order from the one intended by the conductor - it can ruin what the conductor was trying to do.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> Mahler 6 is a very powerful and rather tight (for Mahler) work. That may be why the structure is important. Aside from clues that come from the key relationships between the end of one movement and the start of the next, the difficulty starts with the Scherzo being a rather atypical Mahler scherzo (it seems much heavier) .... and being rather similar in mood and tempo to the first movement.
> 
> S-A: Many conductors fail really to make sense of having the two similar movements together. But it is not impossible to do so (Boulez does a good job, for example), and keeping the cool (or warm!) slow movement for later does work well in helping the listener to be ready for the rigours of the long and elaborately worked out Finale. Doing this provides structural similarities to the effective and successful Mahler 5 structure (but in M5 the two "similar movements" are followed by a delightful scherzo before the slow movement).
> 
> ...


I agree with most of your observations, but I would suggest most conductors are not in the habit of finding solutions to works they find problematic. To the best of their ability they usually present the work in accordance with the composer's conception, warts and all. In this case, the overall character of the 6th is very much affected by the ordering of these inner movements. Since this is Mahler's symphony, it's consistent with general performance practice to perform the work as Mahler indicated and judge it on its merits accordingly. Those wonderful accounts using S-A came into being because great performance artists were giving performances of this music that they believed were following Mahler's intentions, with the upmost conviction, as great performers do. Not because they were performing the work in the way they preferred or thought made more sense.

I'll also add that while I agree with your point in theory that switching the order would ruin what the conductor is trying to do, in practice I'm one of those blasphemers who wishes to hear the work in the way the composer desired we hear it and therefore reorder the movements in recordings that were originally S-A. And maybe I'm not an attentive or knowledgable enough listener, but I find the differences negligible and seriously doubt I would be able to tell if I didn't know beforehand.

If the scholarship came down on the other side, and proved S-A was Mahler's intention, I would listen to it in that order and do the same to any A-S recordings I had.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

OperaChic said:


> I agree with most of your observations, but I would suggest most conductors are not in the habit of finding solutions to works they find problematic. To the best of their ability they usually present the work in accordance with the composer's conception, warts and all. In this case, the overall character of the 6th is very much affected by the ordering of these inner movements.


Really? I am not performer and the only musicians I know are merely orchestral players. But my understanding of performing practice, in the theatre as well as with music, is that it is concerned partly with presenting the work that the performer "hears", with inner ears as it were, in the composer's score (or playwright's script) and partly to present it in the best possible light. When the performer is one of many playing together then they need to sort out between them how the different roles fit together. Some may tell themselves that they are realising the composer's wishes or vision but others (probably the majority) will certainly see it differently. Is there only one truth in a masterpiece - or are there many competing (and complementary) truths? Many performers of very popular works ask themselves "what do I have to add to what others have told us about this piece?" and some might not play the work unless they can come up with an answer to that questions - an example might be the question that we are told Pierre-Laurent Aimard asked of himself before agreeing to record the Beethoven concertos. He was looking for a truth but did not even imagine that there would only be one true way.

There have also been noted musicians who have openly sought to improve on the composer's work. Beecham in Delius (among other composers) is an example - he truly believed that he knew better than "Freddie" what was intended in a given piece. It is fairly routine even today for conductors to add or subtract things - passages, instruments - from a performance of a piece. Doing so is often seen as "authentic".

I'm also aware that editors have often played an enormous role in shaping some of the great masterpieces of literature (the Wasteland and the stories of Raymond Carver are both famous examples). While we may revere the composers and authors over all else we do need to address the reality that all sorts of others - but mainly editors and performers - have had a huge impact on what we know of those authors' work. In most cases what is done is done to bring out the truth of the piece and to bring out the greatness (showing it in its best light).


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> Really? I am not performer and the only musicians I know are merely orchestral players. But my understanding of performing practice, in the theatre as well as with music, is that it is concerned partly with presenting the work that the performer "hears", with inner ears as it were, in the composer's score (or playwright's script) and partly to present it in the best possible light. When the performer is one of many playing together then they need to sort out between them how the different roles fit together. Some may tell themselves that they are realising the composer's wishes or vision but others (probably the majority) will certainly see it differently. Is there only one truth in a masterpiece - or are there many competing (and complementary) truths? Many performers of very popular works ask themselves "what do I have to add to what others have told us about this piece?" and some might not play the work unless they can come up with an answer to that questions - an example might be the question that we are told Pierre-Laurent Aimard asked of himself before agreeing to record the Beethoven concertos. He was looking for a truth but did not even imagine that there would only be one true way.
> 
> There have also been noted musicians who have openly sought to improve on the composer's work. Beecham in Delius (among other composers) is an example - he truly believed that he knew better than "Freddie" what was intended in a given piece. It is fairly routine even today for conductors to add or subtract things - passages, instruments - from a performance of a piece. Doing so is often seen as "authentic".
> 
> I'm also aware that editors have often played an enormous role in shaping some of the great masterpieces of literature (the Wasteland and the stories of Raymond Carver are both famous examples). While we may revere the composers and authors over all else we do need to address the reality that all sorts of others - but mainly editors and performers - have had a huge impact on what we know of those authors' work. In most cases what is done is done to bring out the truth of the piece and to bring out the greatness (showing it in its best light).


Fair point. But in the case of this symphony, do you believe any of those conductors made great recordings of this symphony in the S-A sequence (Bernstein, Boulez, Solti, Tennstedt, etc) would have performed the symphony in the same way if they hadn't thought the critical edition of the score they were using matched Mahler's intentions?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

OperaChic said:


> Fair point. But in the case of this symphony, do you believe any of those conductors made great recordings of this symphony in the S-A sequence (Bernstein, Boulez, Solti, Tennstedt, etc) would have performed the symphony in the same way if they hadn't thought the critical edition of the score they were using matched Mahler's intentions?


No - I suspect they were doing what they thought was Mahler's intention (although how and why I am not that clear - if Barbirolli could get it right, why not the others?). But I do think that if and when they were presented with the need to do it S-A then their interpretation would have been geared to overcome the difficulties inherent in that choice. So I think that if they had done in A-S then their performance of the music would have been different.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahler 6 is a very powerful and rather tight (for Mahler) work. That may be why the structure is important. 

Unlike, say, the 3rd symphony...

Aside from clues that come from the key relationships between the end of one movement and the start of the next, 

Actually there are no such clues. The beginning of the adagio is remote in key from both the first movement and the scherzo (A to Eb and a-minor to Eb, respectively, the latter progression being even weirder), something I'd failed to notice earlier. Mahler obviously wanted that remoteness.

the difficulty starts with the Scherzo being a rather atypical Mahler scherzo (it seems much heavier) .... and being rather similar in mood and tempo to the first movement. 

The difficulty pretty much starts and ends there. Some of us (evidently including Mahler) think it's a major difficulty.

S-A: Many conductors fail really to make sense of having the two similar movements together. But it is not impossible to do so (Boulez does a good job, for example), 

I've listened to Boulez, who takes 23 minutes for the first movement. After 23 exhausting minutes of Mahlerian storm and stress, a resumption of that pounding rhythm is not what I want to hear.

and keeping the cool (or warm!) slow movement for later does work well in helping the listener to be ready for the rigours of the long and elaborately worked out Finale. 

Maybe. But it's hard for me to believe that anyone with the fortitude, or the appetite for violence, to hear the first movement and scherzo side by side would not be ready for the finale after the scherzo, which in any case ends quietly.

A-S: Have we earned the Andante after merely the first movement? 

I have! I have!

And doesn't it make the rigours of the Finale even more hard to take when it is preceded by a tough, violent and bitter scherzo? Of course, you can argue that Mahler 6 is a dark and brutal work and that placing the Scherzo third (after the Andante) can help us to hear the moments of optimism in the Finale: they are all dashed (so they are false optimism) but they do seem more like moments of brightness when you have just survived the Scherzo.

I don't think either structure is wholly convincing and, in the end, Mahler 6 is not an easy work to bring off. So I don't begrudge conductors their own solution to the difficulties. 

Upon exposing myself to this work again with all its excellences and excesses, I find myself wondering if the ideal solution to what seems to be a problem for some would not be for Mahler to have omitted the scherzo altogether. I'm not sure that it has much to say that isn't covered in the other three movements, and it would allow us all to devote our precious time to arguing about something else equally unimportant.

I guess I'll never be a Mahlerian. <dramatic post-romantic sigh>


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Upon exposing myself to this work again with all its excellences and excesses, I find myself wondering if the ideal solution to what seems to be a problem for some would not be for Mahler to have omitted the scherzo altogether. I'm not sure that it has much to say that isn't covered in the other three movements, and it would allow us all to devote our precious time to arguing about something else equally unimportant.


 Of course not! the scherzo is a necessary piece to me in this work! (...and I want it following the 1st mov. :devil


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ My purpose is merely to respond to a question on why I think the work can be problematic. So ...

Unlike, say, the 3rd symphony...
Yes, that is what I meant.

On the subject of key relationships I will bow to your superior knowledge. I have seen musicians arguing that there are clues from the keys and I think I have heard what they mean .... but could easily merely be registering that something is less familiar than something else.

I've listened to Boulez, who takes 23 minutes for the first movement. After 23 exhausting minutes of Mahlerian storm and stress, a resumption of that pounding rhythm is not what I want to hear.
I agree but don't at all hear Boulez doing that. I cannot explain to myself how you do ...

Maybe. But it's hard for me to believe that anyone with the fortitude, or the appetite for violence, to hear the first movement and scherzo side by side would not be ready for the finale after the scherzo, which in any case ends quietly.
As I say, I do think that some conductors solve the problem. I think we disagree on this. I must listen to the later (DG) Bernstein to remind myself how he tackles it. I remember him as going for brutal followed by even more brutal and somehow balancing that with the last movement and using the Andante as a sort of unsettled calm in the middle.

I do think the scherzo can be worthwhile in either ordering of the movements.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> Nor did Mahler have Mendelssohn's doubts and uncertainties about how he wanted his symphony to sound in its final version... Mahler was entirely certain in his 2nd and 3rd editions, never recanting the order in either its premeir performance or in the five years after while he was alive, never, and he went to considerable expense to have it republished A-S-the way he was sure he wanted it.


Not so fast! In his introduction and analysis of the 6th in the Eulenberg edition (S/A - following the original version) Mahler scholar Hans Redlich writes "Mahler's "second thoughts" on the changed position of the middle movements must have come later, probably during the saison 1906/07, when he had further occasions to conduct the symphony in Munich (Nov. 1906) and Vienna (possibly Jan. 1907). *His intention to revert to the original sequence of movements* as to re-instate the third hammer-stroke (possibly decided upon as late as 1910) was never incorporated in print because no further edition of the symphony was issued in his lifetime."

Redlich was no fool and his scholarly research well-known. Redlich's position was respected among many conductors who trusted him rather than some "critical edition".


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> Redlich was no fool and his scholarly research well-known. Redlich's position was respected among many conductors who trusted him rather than some "critical edition".


What evidence does he cite to support the belief that Mahler intended to revert the order of the movements?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

OperaChic said:


> Sounds like an interesting idea for one of Becca's blind listening comparisons. Gather two groups of randomly selected and unidentified Adagios and Scherzos from performances of the symphony and see if listeners can determine if they originally come from recordings with the A-S ordering or the S-A ordering.


You would have to listen to the whole piece each time because the question concerns the structure of the whole piece. And, anyway, I'm sure a "reordered" recording could sound fine but it wouldn't be what the conductor had intended.


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> You would have to listen to the whole piece each time because the question concerns the structure of the whole piece. *And, anyway, I'm sure a "reordered" recording could sound fine but it wouldn't be what the conductor had intended.*


Well then I guess they would have something in common with Mahler.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> Not so fast! In his introduction and analysis of the 6th in the Eulenberg edition (S/A - following the original version) Mahler scholar Hans Redlich writes "Mahler's "second thoughts" on the changed position of the middle movements must have come later, probably during the saison 1906/07, when he had further occasions to conduct the symphony in Munich (Nov. 1906) and Vienna (possibly Jan. 1907). *His intention to revert to the original sequence of movements* as to re-instate the third hammer-stroke (possibly decided upon as late as 1910) was never incorporated in print because no further edition of the symphony was issued in his lifetime."
> 
> Redlich was no fool and his scholarly research well-known. *Redlich's position was respected among many conductors who trusted him rather than some "critical edition".*


Pierre Boulez was one of them. In his liner notes for the Boulez recording of the Sixth, La Grange states: "[At Essen] Mahler probably allowed himself to be influenced by a number of his friends … A few months later, in January 1907, _he decided to revert to the original order._"

So evidently Boulez believed this to be true and recorded the work with S-A order in 1994.


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> Redlich was no fool and his scholarly research well-known. Redlich's position was respected among many conductors who trusted him rather than some "critical edition".





WildThing said:


> What evidence does he cite to support the belief that Mahler intended to revert the order of the movements?


Actually, I only ask that rhetorically, already knowing the answer. Bruck covers that in his essay, here: https://www.posthorn.com/Mahler/Correct_Movement_Order_III.pdf

"Redlich offered no real grounds for his often inaccurate staments."

Fool or no fool, it doesn't speak well for his supposedly thorough scholarship! It seems those conductors shouldn't have been so willing to trust him


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

"_I feel certain that many of these variants [in the last version [of the C. F. Kahnt score] would have been ultimately rejected-like the temporarily changed position of the middle movements and the canceled third hammer-stroke-if Mahler had lived longer and had had further opportunities to hear the symphony in performance._" Redlich, ed.,introduction to Gustav Mahler, Symphony No. 6 (Mainz: Ernst Eulenburg & Co.,1968)

Not exactly convincing evidence.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

From the Bruck article:

A recently discovered letter, written by composer-conductor Berthold Goldschmidt to Erwin Ratz in 1962, sheds further light on this matter.
"In a letter written a few weeks ago and presented to me for consideration, Bruno Walter says that Mahler never in his presence referred to any other movement order than the [A-S] one above, and that he [Walter] could never approve a reordering. "


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

WildThing said:


> Actually, I only ask that rhetorically, already knowing the answer. Bruck covers that in his essay, here: https://www.posthorn.com/Mahler/Correct_Movement_Order_III.pdf
> 
> "Redlich offered no real grounds *for his often inaccurate staments.*"
> 
> Fool or no fool, it doesn't speak well for his supposedly thorough scholarship! It seems those conductors shouldn't have been so willing to trust him


Bruck never used those words in his essay, "_for his often inaccurate staments_", your link above is not for Bruck's but Kaplan's essay. Bruck referred to Redlich as "the respected writer and critic".


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

jdec said:


> Bruck never used those words in his essay, "_for his often inaccurate staments_", your link above is not for Bruck's but Kaplan's essay. Bruck referred to Redlich as "the respected writer and critic".


Did you even bother to read it? It contains Kaplan's introduction, Bruck's essay, and an analysis by Rheinhold Kubik. The quote I gave was directly from Bruck's "Undoin a Tragic Mistake".


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

WildThing said:


> Did you even bother to read it? It contains Kaplan's introduction, Bruck's essay, and an analysis by Rheinhold Kubik. The quote I gave was directly from Bruck's "Undoin a Tragic Mistake".


Then strangely enough, there are wording differences between the one you point to ("_*Redlich offered no real grounds for his often inaccurate staments.*_") and this the Bruck's essay without Kaplan's introduction ("*Redlich offered no basis for his belief.*") at exactly the same place:

https://posthorn.com/Mahler/paper.pdf

Big difference in meaning between "_his often inaccurate staments_" and simply "_his belief_".


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

jdec said:


> Then strangely enough, there are wording differences between the one you point to ("_*Redlich offered no real grounds for his often inaccurate staments.*_") and this the Bruck's essay without Kaplan's introduction ("*Redlich offered no basis for his belief.*") at exactly the same place:
> 
> https://posthorn.com/Mahler/paper.pdf
> 
> Big difference in meaning between "_his often inaccurate staments_" and simply "_his belief_".


Interesting. Either way he made an unsubstantiated claim whose influence had an irrevocable impact on the work's performance history.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I've listened to several Mahler 6s in the last few days - some with S-A and some with A-S - and one thing I am convinced about is that the classic Barbirolli NPO recording it ten times more powerful when listened to as A-S as Barbirolli (as well, no doubt, as Mahler) intended. IMO his account never worked very well as issued by EMI (S-A)


----------

