Mahler's 6th Symphony

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

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?

I would argue that it sort of is due to the movement's uniqueness in Mahler's output. Many classical era symphonies don't tend to deviate as much in terms of structure as much as Mahler deviates from one symphony to the next. There will always be similarities between his symphonies but what makes them unique from one another is a far more interesting approach to understanding his works.

[André]

Music lovers and critics have pondered this over... well one hundred years. Is the musical world better for all the feud  ?

I prefer scherzo-andante because it is so obvious: the finale needs the floor to be cleaned before it has all the space and lighting to itself. Nothing else will do.

Would there be such a debate if the subject was the 9th symphony's inner movements ? Mahler the composer had an innate sense of what his music should sound like, but a performer's insecurity as to how it would sound in concert. In a sense, he was as insecure as Bruckner.

[Mahlerian]

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?

I would argue in favor of those repeats as well, but Jessop is certainly correct that exposition repeats are uncommon in Mahler.  There was one in the First, and also in the second movement of the Fifth before he removed it.  Other than that, he didn't use them, or many other repeats at all.

[Mirror Image]

Music lovers and critics have pondered this over... well one hundred years. Is the musical world better for all the feud  ?

I prefer scherzo-andante because it is so obvious: the finale needs the floor to be cleaned before it has all the space and lighting to itself. Nothing else will do.

Would there be such a debate if the subject was the 9th symphony's inner movements ? Mahler the composer had an innate sense of what his music should sound like, but a performer's insecurity as to how it would sound in concert. In a sense, he was as insecure as Bruckner.

Hear, hear, Andre! Heartily concur.

[Mirror Image]

Let me just say that the Andante movement always leaves me breathless. A masterpiece within itself.

[Reckoner]

Music lovers and critics have pondered this over... well one hundred years. Is the musical world better for all the feud  ?

That there is a feud at all is kind of bewildering, given that Mahler revised the work to the andante / scherzo order - and never went back.


... The symphony was conceived with Scherzo followed by Andante and was played like that in a rehearsal and a run-through performance in Vienna. Then later at the work's premiere in Essen something made Mahler reverse the order to become Andante/Scherzo. He further instructed his publishers accordingly and never conducted it again in any other order in subsequent performances. But when a Critical Edition of the work was published in 1963 the then Chief Editor of the Mahler Edition, Erwin Ratz, put the order of movements back to Scherzo/Andante and this became the norm for most recordings and performances that followed ...


http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/Mahler6.htm

[BasilValentine]

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.

Only if one believes first thoughts should be preferred over final decisions, which is a peculiar position to take in nearly every context.

"What color fez would you like to order?"
"Green. No, wait! Red and gold."
"Is that your final decision?"
"Yes."
"Okay, green it is."

Eliminating the scherzo is obviously absurd.

[BasilValentine]

That there is a feud at all is kind of bewildering, given that Mahler revised the work to the andante / scherzo order - and never went back.

But when a Critical Edition of the work was published in 1963 the then Chief Editor of the Mahler Edition, Erwin Ratz, put the order of movements back to Scherzo/Andante and this became the norm for most recordings and performances that followed ...[/b][/i][/font]

It is bewildering if one cares about Mahler's preferences. But when people get used to a certain order and hear it that way most of the time, it might be hard for them to appreciate it when it is performed in the correct order. As for Ratz, he published an edition of the Beethoven Piano Sonatas in which he put measure numbers at the end of the measures to which they apply! Given that he couldn't get the order of bar and bar number right it is hardly surprising he screwed up the Mahler edition. 

[Mahlerian]

Only if one believes first thoughts should be preferred over final decisions, which is a peculiar position to take in nearly every context.

"What color fez would you like to order?"
"Green. No, wait! Red and gold."
"Is that your final decision?"
"Yes."
"Okay, green it is."

Eliminating the scherzo is obviously absurd.

I didn't say that the first thoughts take precedence.  I said that Mahler could be cited in favor of either order, because he composed it one way and performed it another.  We do in fact have many composers whose works are performed in multiple versions, including Mozart and Bruckner.  We are not merely talking about an idea which he immediately gave up, as with making the second movement of the Tenth the finale, but one which persisted all the way through to the rehearsal stage, past when he had played the work for Alma and others and sent it off to be published.

The important thing is to look at the music itself and determine how it works best.  I have heard both Schero-Andante and Andante-Scherzo, and while I prefer the former for several reasons, the latter still works and does not destroy the piece (as removing the Scherzo entirely would).

[PerfectWagnerite]

I would argue in favor of those repeats as well, but Jessop is certainly correct that exposition repeats are uncommon in Mahler.  There was one in the First, and also in the second movement of the Fifth before he removed it.  Other than that, he didn't use them, or many other repeats at all.

I do not like that conductors are at a liberty to take or not excise the exposition repeats. Some take them in recordings but not in live performances which is even more incomprehensible, as though the extra 2-3 minutes will chase the audience away (meanwhile they spend 20 minutes taking curtain calls when my only thought is can I get to the parking lot before traffic builds up).

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.

[Mahlerian]

I do not like that conductors are at a liberty to take or not excise the exposition repeats. Some take them in recordings but not in live performances which is even more incomprehensible, as though the extra 2-3 minutes will chase the audience away (meanwhile they spend 20 minutes taking curtain calls when my only thought is can I get to the parking lot before traffic builds up).

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.

The Second could be cited as an exception.  Also, the primary slow movement of the First was cut, and it came before the Scherzo.  The scherzo of the Third also comes after its slow intermezzo movement (in fact, you could conceive of the inner movements proceeding Slow instrumental-Scherzo instrumental-Slow vocal-Scherzo vocal).  Das Lied von der Erde might be cited as well, given that the first movement (not a sonata-allegro, but still) is followed by the slow movement, a few scherzo-like movements, and then the finale.  I'm not sure how to really classify either the Ninth or the Tenth, both of which are structured with slow outer movements bookending faster inner ones.

[Sergeant Rock]

That there is a feud at all is kind of bewildering, given that Mahler revised the work to the andante / scherzo order - and never went back.


... The symphony was conceived with Scherzo followed by Andante and was played like that in a rehearsal and a run-through performance in Vienna. Then later at the work's premiere in Essen something made Mahler reverse the order to become Andante/Scherzo. He further instructed his publishers accordingly and never conducted it again in any other order in subsequent performances. But when a Critical Edition of the work was published in 1963 the then Chief Editor of the Mahler Edition, Erwin Ratz, put the order of movements back to Scherzo/Andante and this became the norm for most recordings and performances that followed ...

You left out a crucial segment (which followed that quote): "a new Critical Edition of the work now affirms Andante/Scherzo order for the inner movements as the only order to be followed and that this therefore settles any question about movement order once and for all time. The problem is that it does no such thing and I shall be including in this survey an Appendix in reply to the Bruck monograph setting out why I feel this to be so[...]I myself prefer Scherzo/Andante as the order of inner movements"

Only if one believes first thoughts should be preferred over final decisions

His first thoughts (S-A) and his final decision (S-A, according to Alma) are the same.


Sarge

[PerfectWagnerite]

The Second could be cited as an exception.  Also, the primary slow movement of the First was cut, and it came before the Scherzo.  The scherzo of the Third also comes after its slow intermezzo movement (in fact, you could conceive of the inner movements proceeding Slow instrumental-Scherzo instrumental-Slow vocal-Scherzo vocal).  Das Lied von der Erde might be cited as well, given that the first movement (not a sonata-allegro, but still) is followed by the slow movement, a few scherzo-like movements, and then the finale.  I'm not sure how to really classify either the Ninth or the Tenth, both of which are structured with slow outer movements bookending faster inner ones.

The Second really has no Scherzo, at least nothing like the great Mahler Scherzos we come to know, until the very last movement. The 3rd has a Scherzando but again nothing like the a real scherzo. Anyway I think those 2 are so usually structured they are not really a good comparison.

[Mahlerian]

The Second really has no Scherzo, at least nothing like the great Mahler Scherzos we come to know, until the very last movement. The 3rd has a Scherzando but again nothing like the a real scherzo. Anyway I think those 2 are so usually structured they are not really a good comparison.

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.

In character, too, both the third movement of the Second and the third movement of the Third have the grotesque touches and exaggeration associated with Mahler's scherzos in the Fourth, the Sixth, the Seventh, and the Ninth.

[Reckoner]

You left out a crucial segment (which followed that quote): "a new Critical Edition of the work now affirms Andante/Scherzo order for the inner movements as the only order to be followed and that this therefore settles any question about movement order once and for all time. The problem is that it does no such thing and I shall be including in this survey an Appendix in reply to the Bruck monograph setting out why I feel this to be so[...]I myself prefer Scherzo/Andante as the order of inner movements"

I'm familiar with neither the content nor the context of the critical edition in question. I'm merely taking at face value the decision that Mahler made himself to switch to A-S, and to persist with that order from then on in all performances that he oversaw.

His first thoughts (S-A) and his final decision (S-A, according to Alma) are the same.

What is the evidence suggesting that Mahler's final decision was S-A? Wouldn't it be odd for him to never conduct it in that order and yet declare it as his final preference?

[Mahlerian]

I'm familiar with neither the content nor the context of the critical edition in question. I'm merely taking at face value the decision that Mahler made himself to switch to A-S, and to persist with that order from then on in all performances that he oversaw.

What is the evidence suggesting that Mahler's final decision was S-A? Wouldn't it be odd for him to never conduct it in that order and yet declare it as his final preference?

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.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I think S-A and A-S are equally fine these days, changed my mind from when I made this poll. Unfortunately I only gave the option to pick one or the other..........

[BasilValentine]

I think S-A and A-S are equally fine these days, changed my mind from when I made this poll. Unfortunately I only gave the option to pick one or the other..........

Mahler quite clearly decided on A-S from the premiere on! What an arrogant disrespect Ratz showed by reversing the composer's judgment. Mahler wasn't Bruckner, after all; He knew what he wanted and let it be known. Why do people think it's okay to perpetuate this error?: Because everyone has heard more recordings and performances in the order S-A. I'd bet a majority heard it that way on their first acquaintance with the work. And that is the only thing the S-A order has going for it. All this poll demonstrates is the sheer power of habit and inertia, since A-S is so clearly superior from an aesthetic perspective.   

Here's why: After the powerful exuberance and confidence with which the first movement ends, the stressful and conflicted scherzo is a dramatic nonsequitur. It makes more sense that the positive action of the first movement should clear the way for the extended idyll of the Andante. And that the unresolved twinges of darkness in the Andante should then leave enough doubt for the scherzo to reopen the conflicts. That order is psychological coherent and natural. I'm surprised Mahler had to hear the work in rehearsal to figure this out.

[André]

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 

Barbirolli apparently performed it both ways (his EMI and Testament recordings are S-A and A-S respectively), but AFAIK he's the only conductor ever to have done it.

Conductor and Mahler scholar Benjamin Zander recorded it in the S-A order. In his copious notes to the Telarc disc he addresses the problem by suggesting that there are two Mahler 6ths and that the listener is free to choose the order by programming it on the cd player !

[Mahlerian]

Here's why: After the powerful exuberance and confidence with which the first movement ends, the stressful and conflicted scherzo is a dramatic nonsequitur. It makes more sense that the positive action of the first movement should clear the way for the extended idyll of the Andante. And that the unresolved twinges of darkness in the Andante should then leave enough doubt for the scherzo to reopen the conflicts. That order is psychological coherent and natural. I'm surprised Mahler had to hear the work in rehearsal to figure this out.

You're surprised because you completely misunderstand the point of the symphony.

Not only is the scherzo not a nonsequitur after the first movement, the progression from the one to the other is an amplification of the guiding motif of the symphony.  The movement retreads much of the same ground as the first movement, but comes to a different conclusion.  Mahler's original conception was to have that exuberance and confidence brought down immediately because it cannot possibly last, which leads into the conflicts of the finale to come.

If you consider the first movement and the scherzo a single "part" of the work, the andante as another "part," and the finale as the last "part," we have a structure very similar to that of the Fifth, with the same material treated in different ways in the two movements of the first part, just as the funeral march and sonata-allegro of the Fifth examine the same material through different lenses.

Like I said, changing the order doesn't destroy the symphony's structure, but it does alter the balance significantly, and makes the second half of the work heavier.