Mahler's 6th Symphony

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

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.

Where can we find these?

[Mahlerian]

Where can we find these?

There are probably a few others out there.  I haven't checked them out yet, honestly, because my experience with the music of several third-rate Germanic composers of that era has left me less than interested in the output of another put on that level.  Maybe I'm wrong, though, and Walter's music is better.

[BasilValentine]

I'm with Reckoner and Wanderer and, more important, Mahler, on this one. Definitely A-S. The beginning of the scherzo too directly recalls the first movement when what is needed to energize it is an intervening contrast.

[Mahlerian]

I'm with Reckoner and Wanderer and, more important, Mahler, on this one. Definitely A-S. The beginning of the scherzo too directly recalls the first movement when what is needed to energize it is an intervening contrast.

Mahler could, of course, be cited in favor of either order.  Personally, I feel the Andante feels strange after the first movement and the Finale doesn't follow from the Scherzo nearly as well.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

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

[Mahlerian]

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

No way.  You'd be hobbling the structure of a perfect* symphony.

*(Or as close as one can get)

[SharpEleventh]

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

Hey that was my idea (first reply to this thread).

[PerfectWagnerite]

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

Now you are talking !

I never liked the Scherzo anyway.

[Mahlerian]

Now you are talking !

I never liked the Scherzo anyway.

It doesn't make sense to cut it, because then there's no link between the ending of the first movement and the finale.  The A major ending needs to be reversed before the conflict can play out.

The scherzo also presages some elements of the finale that are not prominent in the first movement.  Like I said, removing it would hobble the structure.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I will compose a NEW IMPROVED scherzo in its place

[Mirror Image]

I will compose a NEW IMPROVED scherzo in its place

[SharpEleventh]

It doesn't make sense to cut it, because then there's no link between the ending of the first movement and the finale.  The A major ending needs to be reversed before the conflict can play out.

The scherzo also presages some elements of the finale that are not prominent in the first movement.  Like I said, removing it would hobble the structure.

Overall it feels still dramatically a bit redundant, being too similar to the first movement. Add to this the fact that scherzos suck, I tend to think that it would be worth it.

[Mahlerian]

Overall it feels still dramatically a bit redundant, being too similar to the first movement. Add to this the fact that scherzos suck, I tend to think that it would be worth it.

No, it's dramatically necessary to replay the first movement's conflicts in a different light so that its climax can be undermined.  The work doesn't make full sense without the scherzo, and I find it bizarre that anyone's suggesting otherwise.

[Mirror Image]

...the fact that scherzos suck, I tend to think that it would be worth it.

[Mirror Image]

No, it's dramatically necessary to replay the first movement's conflicts in a different light so that its climax can be undermined.  The work doesn't make full sense without the scherzo, and I find it bizarre that anyone's suggesting otherwise.

+1 The order of Scherzo - Andante makes much more sense to me, especially as the Scherzo is a bit shorter and offers a bit of relief before the final movement.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Overall it feels still dramatically a bit redundant, being too similar to the first movement. Add to this the fact that scherzos suck, I tend to think that it would be worth it.

Again agree, one of the few snoozers in all of Mahler's output, can't think of another movement less interesting. Now come to think of it the finale isn't so great either.

Also it is pretty amazing that Mahler's works in general are never performed with cuts, unlike Bruckner or any number of other composers for example...

[Mahlerian]

Again agree, one of the few snoozers in all of Mahler's output, can't think of another movement less interesting. Now come to think of it the finale isn't so great either.

Also it is pretty amazing that Mahler's works in general are never performed with cuts, unlike Bruckner or any number of other composers for example...

What??? The finale is one of the most brilliant parts of Mahler's entire output!

Mahler's structures can't take cuts.  If you cut in one place, the whole thing comes crashing down.  It's not just one damn thing after another for no reason, every development builds on what preceded it.  Why would anyone perform only part of a Mahler symphony?  It's like performing only one act of a play or reading a few chapters from a novel.  Whatever meaning you draw from it is far less than understanding and experiencing the whole thing in context.

Granted, I don't think Bruckner's works should be cut either, but they're also not performed cut very often to my knowledge.

[Mirror Image]

What??? The finale is one of the most brilliant parts of Mahler's entire output!

Mahler's structures can't take cuts.  If you cut in one place, the whole thing comes crashing down.  It's not just one damn thing after another for no reason, every development builds on what preceded it.  Why would anyone perform only part of a Mahler symphony?  It's like performing only one act of a play or reading a few chapters from a novel.  Whatever meaning you draw from it is far less than understanding and experiencing the whole thing in context.

Granted, I don't think Bruckner's works should be cut either, but they're also not performed cut very often to my knowledge.

Pay no attention to the foolery that is PerfectWagnerite's post.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

The absolute worst cut, common in many recordings, is cutting the repeat of the exposition in the first movement

[PerfectWagnerite]

The absolute worst cut, common in many recordings, is cutting the repeat of the exposition in the first movement

Is that any more egregious than cutting the exposition repeat of the finale of Beethoven's 5th or any number of great classical era symphonies?