Mahler's 6th Symphony

[Reckoner]

Given that he only conducted it a handful of times (three I think?) because it was so despised by audiences, critics, and the orchestras who performed it, he never would have had a chance, if he subsequently changed his mind, to show this by performing it the other way.

That's entirely fair, and yet I still side with the evidence (i.e. the performances he did conduct) rather than the conjecture - that he maybe changed his mind but never had the opportunity make this apparent.

One should have respect for the decision made by most conductors who perform or record the work. They overwhelmingly favour the S-A order. I'm quite sure we're not dealing with a bunch of uninformed people here.

I'd prefer to respect Mahler over 'most conductors'. 

[Mahlerian]

That's entirely fair, and yet I still side with the evidence (i.e. the performances he did conduct) rather than the conjecture - that he maybe changed his mind but never had the opportunity make this apparent.

I wouldn't assume either way; like I said before, my preference is based on the dramatic flow of the symphony as a whole.  I feel that it works better in the original order.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I think there are many terrific recordings made with either order.

[Mahlerian]

I think there are many terrific recordings made with either order.

That is certainly true, and I would never reprogram a CD to be in the other order just because I prefer it.  Better to try to see what the conductor thought of the work rather than impose my ideas about it on him or her.

[PerfectWagnerite]

The Second has a quite fully developed scherzo movement.  Formally it's not too dissimilar from the scherzo of the Seventh.  The Third's is unique perhaps in having very extended treatment of the trio sections, but it's fully a scherzo, not merely a scherzando movement.  Again, both of these are structured in Mahler's preferred form, with two trios, unlike the scherzo of the First, which you did cite.

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.

[André]

That's entirely fair, and yet I still side with the evidence (i.e. the performances he did conduct) rather than the conjecture - that he maybe changed his mind but never had the opportunity make this apparent.

I'd prefer to respect Mahler over 'most conductors'. 

Like many composers Mahler made extensive revisions to some of his works.

Das Klagende Lied is a case in point: which "Mahler" was right ? The one who composed the work in 3 parts, or the one that discarded the first part ? (not to mention the wholesale reorchestration).

And Bruckner: are his last thoughts to be systematically preferred to his earlier published versions ? Opinions differ on the subject.

Which Stravinsky versions should be heard and performed: just the latest versions at the exclusion of the earlier ones ?
Stravinsky lived long enough to have second thoughts on his early efforts and took the trouble revise and publish them. And yet, the first versions continue to be preferred by some conductors.

Are we to eliminate 90% of Beethoven performances because they don't adhere to his metronome markings ? Some performers adhere strictly to the written text, but they are in a minority.

These are legitimate questions and I believe performers make such decisions out of respect for the composer.

[Mirror Image]

Like many composers Mahler made extensive revisions to some of his works.

Das Klagende Lied is a case in point: which "Mahler" was right ? The one who composed the work in 3 parts, or the one that discarded the first part ? (not to mention the wholesale reorchestration).

And Bruckner: are his last thoughts to be systematically preferred to his earlier published versions ? Opinions differ on the subject.

Which Stravinsky versions should be heard and performed: just the latest versions at the exclusion of the earlier ones ?
Stravinsky lived long enough to have second thoughts on his early efforts and took the trouble revise and publish them. And yet, the first versions continue to be preferred by some conductors.

Are we to eliminate 90% of Beethoven performances because they don't adhere to his metronome markings ? Some performers adhere strictly to the written text, but they are in a minority.

These are legitimate questions and I believe performers make such decisions out of respect for the composer.

To use a Karl acronym: QFT.

[Reckoner]

Like many composers Mahler made extensive revisions to some of his works.

Das Klagende Lied is a case in point: which "Mahler" was right ? The one who composed the work in 3 parts, or the one that discarded the first part ? (not to mention the wholesale reorchestration).

And Bruckner: are his last thoughts to be systematically preferred to his earlier published versions ? Opinions differ on the subject ...

If I'm not mistaken, most revisions that Mahler made were in the immediate aftermath of completing a work - usually after hearing it performed for the first time.

That's exactly what happened with the 6th. Having played through the work initially in rehearsals, he chose to switch the order to A-S prior to the premiere. He requested that the work be published as such.

I don't follow the comparisons to Bruckner or Stravinsky, who revised works from decades before and published new editions of works. Mahler didn't intend for there to be multiple versions of the 6th.

[Mahlerian]

If I'm not mistaken, most revisions that Mahler made were in the immediate aftermath of completing a work - usually after hearing it performed for the first time.

You are mistaken.  First of all, Mahler's works usually had to wait a number of years before their premieres, and secondly, his revisions were always made in the process of rehearsals.

You would be correct if you said that in no other case did he alter the structure of a symphony (okay, so he recomposed a bit of the Finale of the First, but that's it).  The Sixth is unique in being the only score of Mahler's maturity where he changed so significant.  All of the rest of his revisions were of orchestral detail.

That's exactly what happened with the 6th. Having played through the work initially in rehearsals, he chose to switch the order to A-S prior to the premiere. He requested that the work be published as such.

Yes, and no one has disagreed with any of that.

I don't follow the comparisons to Bruckner or Stravinsky, who revised works from decades before and published new editions of works. Mahler didn't intend for there to be multiple versions of the 6th.

Mahler didn't live for decades after the Sixth.  He died less than seven years after he wrote it.  By your logic, the only version of Das klagende Lied that should be performed is the two-part revised version, as that was the only one he conducted and published.

Additionally, it would mean that you should never listen to the Tenth or even the Adagio, as Mahler had asked Alma to burn the score.

[Reckoner]

You are mistaken.  First of all, Mahler's works usually had to wait a number of years before their premieres, and secondly, his revisions were always made in the process of rehearsals.

Maybe I wasn't clear - I'd implied this by mentioning "in the immediate aftermath", which I meant in a relative sense, i.e. not at all like Brahms revising his Piano Trio No. 1 35 years after its publishing.

Mahler didn't live for decades after the Sixth.  He died less than seven years after he wrote it.  By your logic, the only version of Das klagende Lied that should be performed is the two-part revised version, as that was the only one he conducted and published.

With Klagende, Mahler made revisions - and only performed the work in its revised version. Yes, the revisions came many years after, but he had effectively discarded the original version. That version was then rediscovered many decades later and brought back into the mainstream by a lesser authority than Mahler himself.

Additionally, it would mean that you should never listen to the Tenth or even the Adagio, as Mahler had asked Alma to burn the score.

The 10th is a unique case since the work was unfinished. Anything that happened in retrospect with it, is a separate, non-related issue.

btw, going by some of the logic presented in this thread, it'd be perfectly fine for conductors to have the choice of performing the 1st in the five-movement version with Blumine. After all, Mahler actually conducted it a few times as such - the same did not occur with the original versions of Klagende or the 6th. And yet the 1st is never performed with Blumine ...

[amw]

I'd say it happens sometimes.

[amw]

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.

As far as I know, that was his original plan—the existing Andante, then the Scherzo, and then another slow movement before the Finale. For whatever reason though, he decided to cut the "extra" movement and move the Andante after the Scherzo at a fairly early stage of composition—and then, after hearing it in rehearsal, shifted the Andante back to its original position. Perhaps he felt that the slow introductory section of the finale (~5 minutes of music) provided enough of an "intermezzo" after the scherzo and his bigger concern was either avoiding over-weighting the first half, or simply concentrating all of the relatively optimistic music in the first half so that the symphony presents an inexorable toboggan ride downhill. >_> (If the 7th symphony represents a transition from night to day, perhaps he meant the 6th to represent a transition from day to night?)

Update: I was actually totally wrong about Mahler's original plan. He originally meant to have 2 scherzi (the second one in C minor; apparently approximately 70 bars of it were sketched) with the Andante placed centrally—not 2 andantes with a central scherzo—but ended up cutting the second one. That said, presumably he did feel that Scherzo-Finale was a more important link than Allegro-Scherzo.

[Reckoner]

I'd say it happens sometimes.

...

Somehow I'd always been oblivious to that.

Pardon the ignorance. 

[ritter]

Which Stravinsky versions should be heard and performed: just the latest versions at the exclusion of the earlier ones ?
Stravinsky lived long enough to have second thoughts on his early efforts and took the trouble revise and publish them. And yet, the first versions continue to be preferred by some conductors.

A bit OT, but AFAIK Stravinsky's "American" revisions of his popular, early works seem to have been primarily driven by copyright (i.e. financial) reasons.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

One of the reasons I love the 7th symphony is that there is no ambiguity as to the order of the movements. Everything fits in its place. I think I typically prefer the Mahler symphonies which have more than two middle movements..........although no. 6 is absolutely amazing no matter how it is performed..........

[Mahlerian]

With Klagende, Mahler made revisions - and only performed the work in its revised version. Yes, the revisions came many years after, but he had effectively discarded the original version. That version was then rediscovered many decades later and brought back into the mainstream by a lesser authority than Mahler himself.

So...you think that it should always be performed in the published version?  You should realize that almost nobody does this.  They usually stick the unrevised first part onto the revised versions of the other two (which is a musicological nightmare, I would imagine).

The 10th is a unique case since the work was unfinished. Anything that happened in retrospect with it, is a separate, non-related issue.

So the composer's wishes don't apply at all to an "unfinished" work?  It's not as if the work was not completed to a good extent.  At the point Mahler had reached, he would not have altered a single bar of the structure.

By your logic, you have no way of knowing if Mahler's final wishes regarding the Ninth or Das Lied von der Erde would have been followed, had he lived to conduct those works.  He would certainly have revised the orchestration, as he did with all of his other music, and perhaps he would have changed the order of the movements in either or both cases.  Do those pieces count as unfinished as well, because they are beyond any doubt not given to us in the form that Mahler would have published if he had lived longer?

btw, going by some of the logic presented in this thread, it'd be perfectly fine for conductors to have the choice of performing the 1st in the five-movement version with Blumine. After all, Mahler actually conducted it a few times as such - the same did not occur with the original versions of Klagende or the 6th. And yet the 1st is never performed with Blumine ...

It is fine to do so (and, as pointed out above, many do), but once again, the most important consideration should be the music itself.  The Blumine movement is of decidedly inferior quality compared to the rest of the work and it doesn't fulfill any necessary function, nor is it especially closely related to anything else in the symphony.

[Reckoner]

So...you think that it should always be performed in the published version?  You should realize that almost nobody does this.  They usually stick the unrevised first part onto the revised versions of the other two (which is a musicological nightmare, I would imagine).

If the published version is closest to the composer's wishes (as far as we know), then I am generally for that. That's why I endorse A-S for the 6th.

So the composer's wishes don't apply at all to an "unfinished" work?  It's not as if the work was not completed to a good extent.  At the point Mahler had reached, he would not have altered a single bar of the structure.

By your logic, you have no way of knowing if Mahler's final wishes regarding the Ninth or Das Lied von der Erde would have been followed, had he lived to conduct those works.  He would certainly have revised the orchestration, as he did with all of his other music, and perhaps he would have changed the order of the movements in either or both cases.  Do those pieces count as unfinished as well, because they are beyond any doubt not given to us in the form that Mahler would have published if he had lived longer?

The "composer's wishes" regarding the 10th is something different entirely. If he had asked for the score to be burned, it is quite understandable that people would not have wanted to go through with that for the sake of salvaging what he had left behind. That differs from him completing a work, publishing it, performing it in a certain way ... and then half a century later people deciding for themselves that maybe Mahler actually would have done this or that with it.

No, the 9th is not unfinished. However, had he lived to make any tweaks, then it would be right to perform any tweaked version.

It is fine to do so (and, as pointed out above, many do), but once again, the most important consideration should be the music itself.  The Blumine movement is of decidedly inferior quality compared to the rest of the work and it doesn't fulfill any necessary function, nor is it especially closely related to anything else in the symphony.

If it is "of decidedly inferior quality" and Mahler discarded it himself, why are conductors including it in performances?

[Mahlerian]

If the published version is closest to the composer's wishes (as far as we know), then I am generally for that. That's why I endorse A-S for the 6th.

Okay, so you will limit yourself to the very few versions of Das klagende Lied out there that DO adhere to the composer's wishes.  No part 1, only the revised versions of the movements.

The "composer's wishes" regarding the 10th is something different entirely. If he had asked for the score to be burned, it is quite understandable that people would not have wanted to go through with that for the sake of salvaging what he had left behind. That differs from him completing a work, publishing it, performing it in a certain way ... and then half a century later people deciding for themselves that maybe Mahler actually would have done this or that with it.

No, the 9th is not unfinished. However, had he lived to make any tweaks, then it would be right to perform any tweaked version.

You missed the point.  Say that Mahler had died in late 1905, before the premiere of the Sixth, but after finishing the score of the Seventh.  The score of the Sixth would then be left to us in its initial published form, more or less, and the Seventh in a state much like the Tenth, without completed orchestration, but finished in terms of structure.

You are saying that if Mahler had died earlier, the first published version of the Sixth would be correct to perform, but because he lived and had a chance to revise certain aspects of it, it should not be performed at all, to respect the composer's wishes.

We have no way of knowing how extensive Mahler's revisions to the orchestration of the Ninth and Das Lied would have been, but given that in every other case he routinely revised the orchestration of his works following initial rehearsals, it is a very safe bet that he would have changed them.  Therefore, we could say that the scores as performed cannot represent the composer's wishes, as they constitute versions that he never did nor would have authorized for performance.

If it is "of decidedly inferior quality" and Mahler discarded it himself, why are conductors including it in performances?

Because they disagree with his opinion, or because they are performing an earlier version of the score.

[mc ukrneal]

The Blumine movement is of decidedly inferior quality compared to the rest of the work and it doesn't fulfill any necessary function, nor is it especially closely related to anything else in the symphony.

May I just say that the first and second bolded are two totally different reasons. I am fine with the second. But if you are saying the first because of the second, then the first is simply the wrong phrasing. It's not necessarily inferior music, but rather it simply doesn't mesh with the vision Mahler had for the piece. Composer (and writers) often delete good stuff that just doesn't advance what it is they are trying to say. And as we know, composers often use such deletions in other pieces if they can find a use for it.

[Reckoner]

Say that Mahler had died in late 1905, before the premiere of the Sixth, but after finishing the score of the Seventh.  The score of the Sixth would then be left to us in its initial published form, more or less, and the Seventh in a state much like the Tenth, without completed orchestration, but finished in terms of structure.

You are saying that if Mahler had died earlier, the first published version of the Sixth would be correct to perform, but because he lived and had a chance to revise certain aspects of it, it should not be performed at all, to respect the composer's wishes.

We have no way of knowing how extensive Mahler's revisions to the orchestration of the Ninth and Das Lied would have been, but given that in every other case he routinely revised the orchestration of his works following initial rehearsals, it is a very safe bet that he would have changed them.  Therefore, we could say that the scores as performed cannot represent the composer's wishes, as they constitute versions that he never did nor would have authorized for performance.

With regards to the 6th, I've argued for the final state that the work is found in (to the best of our knowledge). The 9th and Das Lied, in an admittedly different way, represent similar 'final states', i.e. to the extent that it was possible for him to elaborate on these compositions, he did so.

I'm not a fan of conjecture here. We should go with what we have, and what we know is there. 

Because they disagree with his opinion, or because they are performing an earlier version of the score.

I find that ridiculous, but hey, they can do whatever they want.