Mahler's 6th Symphony

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Some have said that because the opening of the Scherzo is, after a fashion, a replay of the Symphony's opening, it does not go well after the opening movement.  I have several objections to that assertion:

* Those opening bass beats were twenty-plus minutes in the past, plenty of time for them to sound fresh again.

* Mahler loved to repeat motives, often with variation and in isolation.

* Most importantly, the first movement ends with its themes transmuted into A major.  The change of time and the jolt back into A minor gives plenty of contrast between movements.

Of course, if you still think the proper order is Andante-Scherzo, that's all good.  But there are some of us who think the Scherzo goes very well after the first movement.

I like this reasoning! I have also found that the first chord of the finale sounds too suddenly out of place after the final chord of the Scherzo....but then it can also depend on how much time is taken between each movement in performance. It can work either way...

[Mahlerian]

For the second specifically which movement are you referring to? Mvt 2 is a Landler and Mvt 3 is St. Anthony Preaching to the Fishes. The final mvt is marked "In the Tempo of a Scherzo" but really doesn't sound like a Scherzo.

For the 3rd are you referring to the 3rd mvt? It is too "nice" too be a Scherzo in the Mahler sense but yes the structure is a Scherzo.

Sorry, forgot to respond to this.

The scherzo of the Second is the third movement, which is not merely a transcription of the Wunderhorn song, but a full scherzo developed out of it, just as the first movement of the First is a full sonata-allegro developed out of a song.

The third movement of the Third is also developed out of a song (though a less well-known one).  "Too nice"  I wonder what you mean by that.  Critics of the time found the movement unbearably dissonant and bizarre.

[Vaulted]

Mahler's choice is the correct choice.

Ratz ... will burn in Hell. 

I think the Andante follows the first movement nicely, but the finale sounds better after the Andante anyway......how about just cut the Scherzo?

We've heard a lot of arguments about S/A making more sense, so here's a brief counter:  First time I heard the 6th. the order (S/A) sounded wrong. I hadn't known anything about the movement order controversy, but when I read that it should be A/S, that made sense to me. Luckily I didn't have decades of hearing the Ratz edition to unlearn...
One good thing about A/S is the way the tranquil peace of the andante is annihilated by the scherzo. That fits with the pessimistic theme of the symphony. Also, going from scherzo straight to finale means we hear an intriguing transposition, from minor to major but at the same time dropping a semitone. The beginning of the finale is quite low-key, which cleans the palate for the later bombast.

A footnote to that would be that, although the complete score as last published had A-S, the instrumental parts were never modified and still (from the beginning) have the S-A order.
A Mahler/editor oversight ? After all he was an obsessive person, even a maniac when it came to score markings and the like...

That sounds like an oversight. As I understand it, when Mahler requested his publisher change the order to A/S, it was too late to change the first edition, so these were sold with a paper slip indicating the change in movement order. I don't think Mahler would have allowed himself to be embarrassed like that if he hadn't really meant it.

Anyway back to Mahler, in his other symphonies he always9(?) places the big slow movement after the scherzo, such as in #1(ok the third movement here is more of a parody and nothing really like the Andante of #6) #4, #5 and #9. So if you go by precedence S-A wins.

OTOH....
Mahler follows the first movement with a slow movement in 2, 3, and 7.
5 is a five-movement work. The adagietto functions as the prelude to the fugue finale.
The middle movements of 9 are both scherzos! The finale is the slow movement, so is obviously a special case - as are most of Mahler's structures, making discussion of precedent redundant.

[Jo498]

OTOH....
Mahler follows the first movement with a slow movement in 2, 3, and 7.

I cannot agree. None of them is a "real" slow movement. Those in 2 and 3 are slowish menuets in andante tempo but with the character of a tender/nostalgic menuet, not a slow movement, the first Nachtmusik in the 7th is Allegro moderato, a moderate march tempo, probably very close to the first movement (and faster than the first movement's slow intro).
In any case, I don't think that these movements could be taken as an argument that the andante should be on 2nd place in the 6th; the symphonies are too dissimilar for any analogy to work.

[Vaulted]

I cannot agree. None of them is a "real" slow movement. Those in 2 and 3 are slowish menuets in andante tempo but with the character of a tender/nostalgic menuet, not a slow movement, the first Nachtmusik in the 7th is Allegro moderato, a moderate march tempo, probably very close to the first movement (and faster than the first movement's slow intro).

Re the 7th, don't make the mistake of thinking the first tempo direction is the only tempo direction.
The movements I mentioned are slow in relation to the movements surrounding them. It doesn't have to be "molto adagio" to be "slow"!

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Thanks for those posts, Vaulted. Really interesting to read, especially your argument for A-S. I think I had been picking up on this which I why it was my preference earlier.

[Jo498]

I have not checked whether there are metronome or other tempo markings. But the first Nachtmusik feels roughly the same tempo as the movement before, slightly slower, but not a strong tempo contrast.

And the first movements of the 2nd and 3rd symphony also have slow sections and the main "beat" is a moderate marching pace, so the slowish menuets that follow do not feel like a strong contrast in tempo.
In the 6th the andante feels considerably slower no matter whether it comes after the first movement or after the scherzo. So I think that there is no valid parallel or analogy with those other symphonies to help with the most plausible order in the 6th.

[André]

Henry-Louis de la Grange has a different story to tell regarding the Essen performance. Also, in preparation of the first viennese performance later in 1907, he mentions Mahler instructed Mengelberg to have S-A and to always play it in that order.

Reference: http://gustavmahler.net.free.fr/symph6.html#envoi%20vers%20comm.

De la Grange's analysis is at the end of the article (in the section headed "La forme"). He devotes a full paragraph to the genesis of that movement order confusion, but does not enter into an argument or defense of either option. IOW he draws no conclusion to a subject that does not seem to call for one.

[BasilValentine]

Mahler's choice is the correct choice.

Ratz ... will burn in Hell. 
We've heard a lot of arguments about S/A making more sense, so here's a brief counter:  First time I heard the 6th. the order (S/A) sounded wrong. I hadn't known anything about the movement order controversy, but when I read that it should be A/S, that made sense to me. Luckily I didn't have decades of hearing the Ratz edition to unlearn...

That was my experience as well. It sounded quite wrong the first time I heard it performed S-A.

One good thing about A/S is the way the tranquil peace of the andante is annihilated by the scherzo. That fits with the pessimistic theme of the symphony. Also, going from scherzo straight to finale means we hear an intriguing transposition, from minor to major but at the same time dropping a semitone. The beginning of the finale is quite low-key, which cleans the palate for the later bombast.

Exactly! The Andante fulfills the promise of the opening movement's optimistic conclusion, the scherzo annihilates it. In this order the first three movements are a long, coherent dramatic arc.

[Mahlerian]

We've heard a lot of arguments about S/A making more sense, so here's a brief counter:  First time I heard the 6th. the order (S/A) sounded wrong. I hadn't known anything about the movement order controversy, but when I read that it should be A/S, that made sense to me. Luckily I didn't have decades of hearing the Ratz edition to unlearn...
One good thing about A/S is the way the tranquil peace of the andante is annihilated by the scherzo. That fits with the pessimistic theme of the symphony. Also, going from scherzo straight to finale means we hear an intriguing transposition, from minor to major but at the same time dropping a semitone. The beginning of the finale is quite low-key, which cleans the palate for the later bombast.

From the scherzo to finale actually is the same distance as from andante to finale, moving the tonal center by a minor third, scherzo's a minor up to c minor or andante's E-flat major down to c minor.  The latter pair are still more closely related, though, because they share a key signature and thus have more harmonies in common.

As I said before, though, one connection that's missing if you play the work Andante-Scherzo is the additional iteration of the symphony's major-minor motif in having the A major of the first movement's coda turn into the A minor of the scherzo's opening.

For an aside, though, I dislike the use of the word "bombast" in a neutral context.  Its true meaning, "overinflated and self-important," is still negative, and I don't think it applies to Mahler's music.

[PerfectWagnerite]

First time I heard the 6th. the order (S/A) sounded wrong. I hadn't known anything about the movement order controversy, but when I read that it should be A/S, that made sense to me.

It doesn't matter, for everyone that hears S/A being wrong there are others that find (A/S) being wrong.

[amw]

One half-formed thought I had about the first movement: it more or less has three elements, one of which (the triumphant F major theme) reaches its conclusion within the movement itself, leaving the other two—the grim, energetic marching music, and the distant, nostalgic cowbell music. With the Andante and Scherzo these two kinds of music are then precipitated out: the Andante develops only the distant, nostalgic cowbell music, and the Scherzo develops only the grim, energetic marching music. So they're essentially like bits of the first movement, taken out of the context and made static and nonreactive.

This leads to what feels almost like a two-part structure to the symphony, the first three movements as "Part I" and then the finale—which is a true development that only refers back to earlier material somewhat obliquely—as "Part II". Somewhat unbalanced, since the first three movements total about 45 minutes and the finale only about 25, but unbalanced structures are not unheard of in Mahler, look at the 8th.

Looked at as a two-part structure, to me the end of the Scherzo feels like the end of a major division of the work, after which one could conceivably have an intermission. Perhaps it's the sense of utter exhaustion, whereas the Andante ends with a passionate climax still resounding in our ears, and signs of hope. So if Mahler was thinking of the piece as being in two parts with the Andante and Scherzo being essentially the pure chemical substances catalysed out of the first movement by burning out the synthesis-creating F major music, perhaps he also felt similarly, that the end of the Scherzo simply made more sense as representing the playing out of the first movement material to the furthest extent possible.

(The Finale is, of course, a re-synthesis, but more in the sense that it combines all three elements into a single alloy rather than keeping them suspended in a mixture, so everything ends up completely different even if it is built from the same basic molecules.)

[Mahlerian]

One half-formed thought I had about the first movement: it more or less has three elements, one of which (the triumphant F major theme) reaches its conclusion within the movement itself, leaving the other two—the grim, energetic marching music, and the distant, nostalgic cowbell music. With the Andante and Scherzo these two kinds of music are then precipitated out: the Andante develops only the distant, nostalgic cowbell music, and the Scherzo develops only the grim, energetic marching music. So they're essentially like bits of the first movement, taken out of the context and made static and nonreactive.

I agree that there are three principal elements, but they are motivic, not textural.  Actually, all of the themes partake in all of the textures/moods you describe.  The "pastoral" section in the center of the first movement uses motifs from all three themes.  The culmination, therefore, is in integrating the second theme with the texture of the march sections, although the coda is so laden with dissonances and tensions that the end of the movement never feels like a resolution.

The third theme, incidentally, is the chorale transition between the marching theme in A minor and the lyrical theme in F major.  It becomes increasingly prominent over the course of the movement and appears even during the coda.

And this leads us to the finale, where a chorale is sounded and never recurs.  Why?  Because its theme has already been reintegrated into the second theme of the movement.  When there is another chorale section at the end of the movement, it is based on material from the first theme, rather than the second.

[amw]

I think I was talking more about textural (and I suppose emotional/hermeutical—since that dimension is very important in Mahler as well) areas of the movement.

In terms of themes, it's difficult because this is a work that doesn't deal with lengthy themes as such, apart from the slow movement, but instead focuses on edifices built up from various motives. The "chorale theme" for instance is not defined by Mahler as a specific sequence of chords, or a specific chorale melody, but simply a chorale texture and a malleable melodic shape. The F major theme is similarly, a malleable shape followed by a defined rhythmic pattern—certainly it's initially presented as a long two-part melody, but the second part (woodwinds and glockenspiel etc) is treated more or less as an independent theme throughout the movement, and is similarly vaguely defined, more in terms of rhythm and articulation and orchestration than anything else.

I would personally say the first movement has seven themes made up of ten motives that are treated as discrete (plus an eleventh motive that isn't a part of any theme), but I'm sure not everyone will hear it the same way. That said, although each "element" starts out being associated with a particular theme, yes, most of the themes do end up partaking in each one. (The exception is what I'd call Theme 2, consisting of motives three and four—the drum rhythm and the A major chord turning to minor—which is only associated with the F major element and the marchlike element, and therefore does not appear in the Andante at all.)

[Mahlerian]

I think I was talking more about textural (and I suppose emotional/hermeutical—since that dimension is very important in Mahler as well) areas of the movement.

In terms of themes, it's difficult because this is a work that doesn't deal with lengthy themes as such, apart from the slow movement, but instead focuses on edifices built up from various motives. The "chorale theme" for instance is not defined by Mahler as a specific sequence of chords, or a specific chorale melody, but simply a chorale texture and a malleable melodic shape. The F major theme is similarly, a malleable shape followed by a defined rhythmic pattern—certainly it's initially presented as a long two-part melody, but the second part (woodwinds and glockenspiel etc) is treated more or less as an independent theme throughout the movement, and is similarly vaguely defined, more in terms of rhythm and articulation and orchestration than anything else.

I would personally say the first movement has seven themes made up of ten motives that are treated as discrete (plus an eleventh motive that isn't a part of any theme), but I'm sure not everyone will hear it the same way. That said, although each "element" starts out being associated with a particular theme, yes, most of the themes do end up partaking in each one. (The exception is what I'd call Theme 2, consisting of motives three and four—the drum rhythm and the A major chord turning to minor—which is only associated with the F major element and the marchlike element, and therefore does not appear in the Andante at all.)

The major to minor chord change (which appears throughout the movement, not merely in localized parts of it) is in fact present in the Andante, but it is inverted.  Throughout the movement we have minor chords turning into major ones.

I agree that Mahler breaks the longer themes down into motivic complexes from which he draws very freely, indeed mixing their constituent elements.  But it is not true that they do not count as larger themes.  The first theme group is simply everything that occurs from the first bar before the drum rhythm and the major-minor motif.  As in a classical symphony, it even traces a (circuitous and inward-turning) path from tonic to dominant.

What the chorale motif (more precisely) does consist of is the outline of the first few notes of that section.

And the andante is no more free of this than the other movements.  Certainly we can agree that it opens with a long-lined theme, yes?  Yet there is no "main theme" of that movement insofar as it is never repeated verbatim.  The elements of the theme are freely recombined each time the music returns to the home key of E-flat.  On the other hand, the secondary, minor key theme of that movement, while not especially long at 4-6 bars or so, always returns in exactly the same way.

[amw]

The major to minor chord change (which appears throughout the movement, not merely in localized parts of it) is in fact present in the Andante, but it is inverted.  Throughout the movement we have minor chords turning into major ones.

That's true. The Andante also inverts the persistent falling thirds of the other three movements in order to fill itself completely with rising sixths. So I suppose I should retract that claim. (As well as the fact that the major-minor chord change does in fact appear within the nostalgic cowbells "element", so, yes, makes sense.)

And the andante is no more free of this than the other movements.  Certainly we can agree that it opens with a long-lined theme, yes?  Yet there is no "main theme" of that movement insofar as it is never repeated verbatim. 

Yes, fair point. And agree that we can classify pretty much all of the main themes in the outer movements as falling into categories of "first theme group"/"transition themes"/"second theme group" and then themes that appear outside a sonata complex altogether, rather than simply numbering every one of them, in which case we'd be talking about something like 10 or 12 themes in the last movement <_<

[André]

David Hurwitz devoted a lengthy essay (15 pages in pdf form) to the question of performance practice (order of the middle movements and number of hammerblows) vs thematic material and structural issues. Contrary to his habit as a critic, this is well balanced and gives equal air time to the various options. He concludes in favor of S-A, but does so only after considering much circumstancial and musical issues.

http://www.classicstoday.com/features/ClassicsToday-Mahler6Score.pdf

[Vaulted]

From the scherzo to finale actually is the same distance as from andante to finale, moving the tonal center by a minor third, scherzo's a minor up to c minor or andante's E-flat major down to c minor.  The latter pair are still more closely related, though, because they share a key signature and thus have more harmonies in common.

Never mind the key signatures - listen to the actual music and you will hear what I'm talking about.
(Seriously, if you have the 6th on a digital player this should be easy to do; just jump immediately from the end of the scherzo to the finale and listen for the harmonic shift.)

For an aside, though, I dislike the use of the word "bombast" in a neutral context. Its true meaning, "overinflated and self-important," is still negative, and I don't think it applies to Mahler's music.

I use the word semi-seriously and with affection. No derision intended - we are all Mahler fans here, after all!

Henry-Louis de la Grange has a different story to tell regarding the Essen performance. Also, in preparation of the first viennese performance later in 1907, he mentions Mahler instructed Mengelberg to have S-A and to always play it in that order.
Reference: http://gustavmahler.net.free.fr/symph6.html#envoi%20vers%20comm

Really? I wonder what his source is.
Also, he says Mahler was "likely influenced by some friends" to change the order, which sounds like he is trying to create a myth similar to the one that Bruckner was so feeble-minded that he massively revised his symphonies against his own better judgement. I don't buy it in either case.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgustavmahler.net.free.fr%2Fsymph6.html%23envoi%2520vers%2520comm&edit-text=&act=url

[Mahlerian]

Never mind the key signatures - listen to the actual music and you will hear what I'm talking about.
(Seriously, if you have the 6th on a digital player this should be easy to do; just jump immediately from the end of the scherzo to the finale and listen for the harmonic shift.)

I can imagine it in my mind (and also own recordings using that order which I have listened to many times).  It is true that the chord that opens the movement is of ambiguous root and could be heard as an A-flat dominant seventh in first inversion, it's not treated this way, and A-flat is certainly not established as a tonal center, while C is heard that way in large part because of the pedal, but also because of the melody in the first violins (compare, for example, to the only slightly altered version of this passage at the false reprise halfway through the development).

[André]

Never mind the key signatures - listen to the actual music and you will hear what I'm talking about.
(Seriously, if you have the 6th on a digital player this should be easy to do; just jump immediately from the end of the scherzo to the finale and listen for the harmonic shift.)I use the word semi-seriously and with affection. No derision intended - we are all Mahler fans here, after all!
Really? I wonder what his source is.
Also, he says Mahler was "likely influenced by some friends" to change the order, which sounds like he is "trying to create a myth" similar to the one that Bruckner was so feeble-minded that he massively revised his symphonies against his own better judgement. I don't buy it in either case.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgustavmahler.net.free.fr%2Fsymph6.html%23envoi%2520vers%2520comm&edit-text=&act=url

One buys what feeds one, of course. 

"Similar" to a "feeble-minded-Bruckner" (Ouch !!! Who said that ? Myth maybe ??)

Maybe some more reading (Hurwitz, in English) will help. Don't deprive yourself of some additional sources. - the article I quoted is a mere 15 pages - a breeze).

I'm not saying it's one way ot the other. It could be both ways (from what I read I think Mahler himself was ambivalent ), but giving one some kind of exit is always a sound policy.