Mahler's 6th Symphony

[Mahlerian]

STAHP! You're convincing me to rejoin the dark side of sith like yourself who prefer S-A to A-S!

Hey, I do what I can.

[Dee Sharp]

I have half a dozen recordings of the Sixth and all but one have Scherzo first then Andante so that's how I voted (majority rules). (The holdout is a live recording by Gilbert/NYP).

[mszczuj]

Who gives a hoot what Alma said.

You think she could be accidentaly right?

[Reckoner]

Naturally I made the correct choice of A-S.

I like how the lyrical andante acts as a barrier between the first movement and scherzo, so that those furious, drum-led rhythms that open the scherzo serve to recall something familiar yet somewhat distant, and the effect is more powerful as a result.

[Marc]

To me, the order Andante-Scherzo ruins the construction.
I really have no clue why Mahler thought (for some time, or until the (bitter) end) that Andante-Scherzo was preferable.

Naturally I made the correct choice of A-S.

I like how the lyrical andante acts as a barrier between the first movement and scherzo, so that those furious, drum-led rhythms that open the scherzo serve to recall something familiar yet somewhat distant, and the effect is more powerful as a result.

But with the Scherzo 3rd, one might miss a lyrical intermezzo between heavy Scherzo and heavy Finale. Or, in other words: with the Scherzo as 3rd movement, the effect of the Finale is less powerful. It's almost 45 minutes of heavy music, almost without interruption. That's too much.

So, Mahler is the one to blame. Two intermezzi are needed. The man got his own composition all wrong: the Sixth should have been another 5-movement symphony.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

So, Mahler is the one to blame. Two intermezzi are needed. The man got his own composition all wrong: the Sixth should have been another 5-movement symphony.

No. 7 ftw

[Reckoner]

...with the Scherzo 3rd, one might miss a lyrical intermezzo between heavy Scherzo and heavy Finale. Or, in other words: with the Scherzo as 3rd movement, the effect of the Finale is less powerful. It's almost 45 minutes of heavy music, almost without interruption. That's too much.

Well, okay but the difference is negligible. Consider MTT's recording:

1st mvmt + scherzo = 38 mins of "heavy music"
scherzo + finale = 45 mins of "heavy music"

So, Mahler is the one to blame. Two intermezzi are needed. The man got his own composition all wrong: the Sixth should have been another 5-movement symphony.

Yes, the correct order actually should be: Andante-Scherzo-Blumine 

[Marc]

Well, okay but the difference is negligible. Consider MTT's recording:

1st mvmt + scherzo = 38 mins of "heavy music"
scherzo + finale = 45 mins of "heavy music"

Yes, but the Finale is double-weighty.

[...] the correct order actually should be: Andante-Scherzo-Blumine 

Nachtmusik 0: Blumine. Andante allegretto.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

So, Mahler is the one to blame. Two intermezzi are needed. The man got his own composition all wrong: the Sixth should have been another 5-movement symphony.

It's funny how a lot of critics consider this Mahler's most structurally perfect symphony, yet there is such raging controversy about two structural issues (the other being the number of hammer blows in the finale).

[Marc]

It's funny how a lot of critics consider this Mahler's most structurally perfect symphony, yet there is such raging controversy about two structural issues (the other being the number of hammer blows in the finale).

It's still very well constructed, especially with the Scherzo coming 2nd.
Personally I don't care about those hammer blows, that's all fin-de-siècle blabbering concerning Aberglaube.
Anyway, without the 3rd blow... there's at least a possiblity for a superstitious composer to compose a 7th symphony... 

[Sergeant Rock]

It's funny how a lot of critics consider this Mahler's most structurally perfect symphony

It was structually perfect until he had that crisis of confidence in Essen and changed the damn order. I know Alma's reputation for falsehood and self-aggrandizement but in this case (the order of the inner movements) I tend to believe her because, why would she lie about that? Nothing in it for her.

Sarge

[PerfectWagnerite]

You think she could be accidentaly right?

Or accidentally wrong.

Look all these conductors that favor Andante first all claim some recent scholarship. These are some of the same lot that blatantly ignore the exposition repeat in the Finale of Beethoven's 5th even though it is indisputable that the repeat is there. To me when you do that you just lost all credibility.

[Maestro267]

It flows better as Andante-Scherzo, imho. The triumphant ending of the first movement leading into the calm of the Andante, then the two most turbulent movements together at the end.

Also, perhaps an entire separate matter of discussion, but the third hammer blow absolutely should be included (whether Mahler intended it or not). That final climactic statement of the major-minor motto loses all of its power without the hammer blow. It should be the absolute killer blow, the final stab that signals the end...the end of everything. After it is just desolation......

[Mahlerian]

Also, perhaps an entire separate matter of discussion, but the third hammer blow absolutely should be included (whether Mahler intended it or not). That final climactic statement of the major-minor motto loses all of its power without the hammer blow.

But it's not supposed to sound especially "powerful."  It's supposed to be the weakest of all of the statements, which accounts for Mahler's progressive thinning of the orchestration in revisions as well.

As La Grange has pointed out, there were initially five hammer blows, and the third one in the first published version is closer to the other ones that were removed than the ones that remained in the final version.

[Wanderer]

It flows better as Andante-Scherzo, imho. The triumphant ending of the first movement leading into the calm of the Andante, then the two most turbulent movements together at the end.

Exactly.

[jochanaan]

If one believes Alma--and I agree with Sarge that she had no "skin in this game" although she did have skin in other games --Mahler was actually somewhat frightened regarding this symphony, feeling that it was somewhat prophetic of his own life.  This is the reason he deleted the third, "weakest" hammer blow, again according to Alma, and it was probably the reason he switched the order of the inner movements.

I tend to prefer S-A, although I'm prejudiced since I've never actually heard it the other way. -- Does anyone recall in which order Bruno Walter performed this symphony?  If he ever recorded it.  I'm not certain he did, and a quick Google search didn't reveal any available recordings.  But since Walter was Mahler's protege, I suppose we can take his word as authoritative...

[Mahlerian]

If one believes Alma--and I agree with Sarge that she had no "skin in this game" although she did have skin in other games --Mahler was actually somewhat frightened regarding this symphony, feeling that it was somewhat prophetic of his own life.  This is the reason he deleted the third, "weakest" hammer blow, again according to Alma, and it was probably the reason he switched the order of the inner movements.

Alma did make up several other things about the work which are probably not true, including the idea that the trio of the scherzo represents the arrhythmic games of their children, as Mahler had only one child when the movement was written.

As I said, there were originally more than three hammer-blows, and all but two were removed.

I tend to prefer S-A, although I'm prejudiced since I've never actually heard it the other way. -- Does anyone recall in which order Bruno Walter performed this symphony?  If he ever recorded it.  I'm not certain he did, and a quick Google search didn't reveal any available recordings.  But since Walter was Mahler's protege, I suppose we can take his word as authoritative...

Bruno Walter reportedly disliked the work, and he even expressed his belief that the second theme of the first movement was sub-par directly to the composer.  One wonders how Mahler took this criticism, given that he thought little of his friend's own efforts in composition.

[PerfectWagnerite]

If one believes Alma--and I agree with Sarge that she had no "skin in this game" although she did have skin in other games --Mahler was actually somewhat frightened regarding this symphony, feeling that it was somewhat prophetic of his own life.  This is the reason he deleted the third, "weakest" hammer blow, again according to Alma, and it was probably the reason he switched the order of the inner movements.

I tend to prefer S-A, although I'm prejudiced since I've never actually heard it the other way. -- Does anyone recall in which order Bruno Walter performed this symphony?  If he ever recorded it.  I'm not certain he did, and a quick Google search didn't reveal any available recordings.  But since Walter was Mahler's protege, I suppose we can take his word as authoritative...

All three hammer blows sound ridiculous so my vote would be the lesser the better. In most recordings they sound like someone kicking their trashcan with a winter boot.

[Marc]

[...]
Bruno Walter reportedly disliked the work, and he even expressed his belief that the second theme of the first movement was sub-par directly to the composer.  One wonders how Mahler took this criticism, given that he thought little of his friend's own efforts in composition.

And who knows, maybe Walter agreed that Mahler was a greater composer than he.

Anyway, personally I like the 6th, but especially movements 2 to 4. I admit that the 1st movement leaves me relatively unmoved.

All three hammer blows sound ridiculous so my vote would be the lesser the better. In most recordings they sound like someone kicking their trashcan with a winter boot.

[Mahlerian]

And who knows, maybe Walter agreed that Mahler was a greater composer than he.

He almost certainly did.  His early monograph on Mahler has the warm tone of fond reminiscence mixed with the respect for a true master.  Because of the ongoing trend of recording every scrap of music that was ever published, Bruno Walter's works have been ending up on disc as well, so those interested may check them out if they wish to see whether or not they agree with Mahler's assessment.