Which scherzo/slow movement order do you prefer?

[kyjo]

Stupid poll, I know, but......

I always prefer the scherzo to be placed as the 2nd movement because it can (usually) provide respite between the primarily serious 1st and slow movements. I feel that when the slow movement is placed third, it gives the work a greater sense of progression and "journey", if that makes any sense. I really don't know how to put it into words!

[North Star]

This might be surprising, but it depends on the piece..

[prémont]

My answer would be: It is up to the composer to decide the sequence of movements.

[Brian]

The Berwald Option: scherzo inside slow movement
The Franck Option: simultaneous scherzo and slow movement

[Lisztianwagner]

That's not very important which one comes first, I trust the ability of the composer.

[North Star]

The Berwald Option: scherzo inside slow movement
The Franck Option: simultaneous scherzo and slow movement

I like the Mahler 6th approach...

[not edward]

The Berwald Option: scherzo inside slow movement

Good to see him getting a mentioned--I've always loved the Sinfonie singuliere and Berwald's penchant for doing things that ought to be wrong, but are actually right.

[Karl Henning]

This might be surprising, but it depends on the piece..

Blue ribbon here, please.

[Ten thumbs]

The Berwald Option: scherzo inside slow movement
The Franck Option: simultaneous scherzo and slow movement

The Medtner Option: both slow movement and scherzo inside the first movement.

[jochanaan]

There's always the option Sibelius used in the Seventh.

[amw]

The Berwald Option: scherzo inside slow movement
The Franck Option: simultaneous scherzo and slow movement

Don't forget Hindemith—slow movement, scherzo, slow movement plus scherzo.

I think the Berwald Option may actually originate from Beethoven's Op. 18 no. 2, if not earlier.

[vandermolen]

I like the order as in Bruckner's 8th Symphony.

[(poco) Sforzando]

This might be surprising, but it depends on the piece..

Duh! But for the rare case where there's a dispute as to the order (Mahler 6), I think scherzo/adagio the more effective.

[Brahmsian]

Duh! But for the rare case where there's a dispute as to the order (Mahler 6), I think scherzo/adagio the more effective.

Yes, that is how I prefer it also.

[TheGSMoeller]

Although my preference doesn't swing as its been worked brilliantly in either order. But would have to strongly support adagio/scherzo or adagio/minuet-trio for exact opposite reason as stated earlier, I find the scherzo/trio third movement to be a perfect bridge for the drama that arrives from the adagio and finale. Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Dvorak, Bruckner (up to No.7) all perfect examples.

Whereas I couldn't imagine Dvorak's 8th in a different order, I also couldn't imagine DSCH 5th in a different order.

[Ten thumbs]

Whilst both arrangement can obviously work. I prefer to have the slow movement first because:
A) I prefer a fast dynamic first movement - the slow movement therefore provides the better contrast.
B) I like a strong finale that sums up the work's material - a scherzo-type movement is ideal as a precursor to this.

[jochanaan]

As I recall, it was Beethoven who began to reverse the order of slow movement/scherzo.  Classical-period symphonies often are "weighted" toward the first movement; the last movement is often less musically "weighty" (but not always, as in the Mozart #41).  But in Beethoven's Ninth, after the powerful first movement, there is a sort of "comic relief" in the Scherzo; there's also a strong tempo contrast since the first movement is relatively non-fast.  Then the Adagio-finale order gives a long, powerful buildup.  (He used similar progressions in the first Rasumovsky Quartet and the Hammerklavier Sonata.)

Berlioz continued the line in the Symphonie Fantastique, and since then, many of the largest and most dramatic symphonies seem to follow this order; witness Bruckner #8 and #9; Mahler #1, #4, and #5; and Prokofiev #5.  Shostakovich actually preferred this order, using it for a majority of his symphonies; but then his first movements tend to be relatively or actually slow, so following them with a scherzo makes good dramatic sense.

There's also the option of putting the slow movement last, as in Tchaikovsky #6 and Mahler #9.

[starrynight]

Whilst both arrangement can obviously work. I prefer to have the slow movement first because:
A) I prefer a fast dynamic first movement - the slow movement therefore provides the better contrast.
B) I like a strong finale that sums up the work's material - a scherzo-type movement is ideal as a precursor to this.

The scherzo replaced the minuet, so in the classical scheme of things it was felt to work best as the 3rd movement like the minuet.

[jochanaan]

...many of the largest and most dramatic symphonies seem to follow this order; witness Bruckner #8 and #9; Mahler #1, #4, and #5; and Prokofiev #5...

Oh, and Schumann #2 and Mendelssohn #5.

[Ken B]

Whichever way the composer says.