Mahler's 6th Symphony

[Mahlerian]

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.

Like I said, it's not conjecture to say that everything we know about Mahler's working process tells us that the Ninth as we know it would not have been the Ninth as Mahler would have conducted it.

If you only approve of Mahler's works as he approved of them, then you cannot approve of the Ninth or Das Lied without making an exception, to say nothing of the Tenth, which you have placed beyond argument, despite the fact that the sources for the work are all openly available.

[Reckoner]

Like I said, it's not conjecture to say that everything we know about Mahler's working process tells us that the Ninth as we know it would not have been the Ninth as Mahler would have conducted it.

This all seems contradictory.

On the one hand, we can't accept the 9th as complete because his methods indicate that he would have made revisions to the score. But on the other, we gladly accept the original versions of the 1st and 6th, even though he made major revisions to these works before publishing them. 

[Mahlerian]

This all seems contradictory.

On the one hand, we can't accept the 9th as complete because his methods indicate that he would have made revisions to the score. But on the other, we gladly accept the original versions of the 1st and 6th, even though he made major revisions to these works before publishing them. 

It would only be contradictory if I, like you, accepted Mahler's wishes as being the absolute guide.  I think that musical considerations trump the wishes of the composer in any case.  Additionally, a composer revising a work doesn't mean that it wasn't complete before.

And I don't gladly accept the original version of the First.  I think all of Mahler's revisions were to the betterment of the work.  The same goes for most of the revisions to the Sixth, with the exception of the reversal in the order of the interior movements.  Mahler's revisions improved the work's orchestration and made it more incisive.  As I said, it's the music that's most important.

Your own stated position is the contradictory one.  You are saying that Mahler's wishes apply definitively in some cases (the First and Sixth), with reservations in others (the Ninth and Das Lied), and not at all in another (the Tenth).

[Reckoner]

I think that musical considerations trump the wishes of the composer in any case. 

I disagree with this, but maybe that's a discussion for another time.

Your own stated position is the contradictory one.  You are saying that Mahler's wishes apply definitively in some cases (the First and Sixth), with reservations in others (the Ninth and Das Lied), and not at all in another (the Tenth).

You are making it out to be contradictory. I've already talked about those other works. If he didn't have the chance to tweak the 9th and Das Lied, then the state he left them in are fine. But he got a chance to make changes to the 6th, and did. So those changes should be acknowledged. The 10th is not relevant here.

[Mahlerian]

I disagree with this, but maybe that's a discussion for another time.

Then Mahler's own practice of emending other composers' scores for musical reasons would have been anathema to you.

You are making it out to be contradictory. I've already talked about those other works. If he didn't have the chance to tweak the 9th and Das Lied, then the state he left them in are fine. But he got a chance to make changes to the 6th, and did. So those changes should be acknowledged. The 10th is not relevant here.

Why is the Tenth not relevant?  It is a symphony by Mahler.  Your stated position, that the final wishes of a composer regarding a work should always be followed, would mean that we go out and burn every copy of the score in existence.

The contradiction lies in your stated position that the final wishes of the composer are paramount in all cases.  There is no reasonable case to be made that the scores of the Ninth and Das Lied represent Mahler's final wishes, as he would have changed them if he had only lived longer.  The scores as published and performed, being only temporary versions of the works awaiting revisions, cannot represent a version approved by the composer even to the extent of the first published version of the Sixth.

We can acknowledge that he made changes without following them slavishly.  As Mahler himself said, if future conductors saw fit to alter his scores in any way, they are free to do so.

[Reckoner]

Why is the Tenth not relevant?  It is a symphony by Mahler.  Your stated position, that the final wishes of a composer regarding a work should always be followed, would mean that we go out and burn every copy of the score in existence.

I explained this in post 97. His wish to have the score of the 10th burned is clearly not comparable to his wish to switch the order of the 6th to A-S.

In any case, we seem to be talking at cross purposes. You've now lost me almost entirely by attributing universal statements to me relating to "final wishes". I've already outlined what I think regarding works he was able to make revisions to, and how these are a separate case from those which he had no opportunity to amend, assuming that he would have done.

[Mahlerian]

I explained this in post 97. His wish to have the score of the 10th burned is clearly not comparable to his wish to switch the order of the 6th to A-S.

In any case, we seem to be talking at cross purposes. You've now lost me almost entirely by attributing universal statements to me relating to "final wishes". I've already outlined what I think regarding works he was able to make revisions to, and how these are a separate case from those which he had no opportunity to amend, assuming that he would have done.

Why, though?  You haven't justified either of these as an exception to your rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

More to the point, why should Mahler's revisions be free from Mahler's own expressed wishes that conductors may alter his scores if they see fit?  How does your position on the wishes of the composer justify the performance of three works which he never approved of in that form?  You said that "it's different" but not WHY it's justified.  Earlier you said that it is "understandable" that people wouldn't want to follow the composer's wishes in regards to the Tenth, but that's not a justification, that's an excuse.

You can't just take up positions and pretend that no one can ask you to consider the implications of them.  You want both to say that the composer's wishes are all-important and to say that they don't always apply, and the implications of those two things are contradictory.  You are attempting to avoid the implications of the arguments you are making, and it's not talking at cross-purposes to attempt to get you to confront your own logic.  So far all that I've seen is simply doubling down on repeating the same few points, without any interest in engaging the very real issues which exist here.

Opinions have consequences.  Arguments have meaning.  You can't just avoid the results of a given position, even if you might want to hold onto it and ignore them.

[Reckoner]

More to the point, why should Mahler's revisions be free from Mahler's own expressed wishes that conductors may alter his scores if they see fit?

Clearly they don't have to be free. On this issue I disagree with Mahler, and part of why he was okay with it is possibly because he did so himself as a conductor of other composers' works.

How does your position on the wishes of the composer justify the performance of three works which he never approved of in that form?

Why is approval in question all of a sudden? Clearly Mahler didn't need to approve anything, because a century on conductors are performing his works however they like.

Earlier you said that it is "understandable" that people wouldn't want to follow the composer's wishes in regards to the Tenth, but that's not a justification, that's an excuse.

An excuse for what exactly? Burning the score is not a "final wish" relating to the creative process of that work, like details of orchestration or form or order of movements, etc. That's pretty obvious, to me at least. And that this wish would be ignored, would have been for reasons completely different to a conductor choosing to include Blumine in a performance of the 1st. That's also obvious.

Opinions have consequences.  Arguments have meaning.  You can't just avoid the results of a given position, even if you might want to hold onto it and ignore them.

Actually opinions don't necessarily have consequences, at all, and I haven't avoided anything, until now. I'll spare you any hassle from this point.

[jochanaan]

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.

[Mahlerian]

Actually opinions don't necessarily have consequences, at all,

Okay, there's no point in arguing with you, then.  You don't want to accept logic, fine.  I'll let you.

[Reckoner]

Okay, there's no point in arguing with you, then.  You don't want to accept logic, fine.  I'll let you.

But not accepting your arguments, and not accepting logic, are mutually exclusive. 

[Mahlerian]

But not accepting your arguments, and not accepting logic, are mutually exclusive. 

I'm not asking you to accept my arguments.  You haven't even acknowledged my arguments to the point where you understood what I said and can articulate a response.  How could I expect you to accept them?

No, I'm saying that denying that a view has implications makes logic unnecessary and impossible.

[San Antone]

Scherzo movements are usually third in the cycle.  Concerning the Mahler 6th, the Scherzo should be the third movement - the order in which Mahler himself stipulated in his 2nd and 3rd editions of the published score, and at the premiere of the work.

Next.

[Reckoner]

You haven't even acknowledged my arguments to the point where you understood what I said and can articulate a response. 

I don't think that's accurate, but if you feel that way, fair enough.

Best regards.

[Heck148]

Scherzo movements are usually third in the cycle.

except Beethoven makes the change in Sym #9...Mendelssohn in #3; Bruckner does, as well, #8, #9...

[kishnevi]

The very fact that this question has been discussed for years and still remains open is probably testament to the fact that the symphony can work either way and the ultimate answer lies in the ears of the individual listener.

This individual listener, btw, thinks the scherzo works best as the third movement, to better contrast with the finale.

[Heck148]

I learned M6 with the  Scherzo-Andante order [Solti/CSO] and performed it that way as well...so it's kind of ingrained in me...I've tried listening to it with the order reversed, but I didn't like it as much. the viciousness of the scherzo seems to follow the 1st mvt very well, then the Andante provides some tranquil respite, before the sweeping, huge, and ultimately catastrophic finale.
I guess I could learn to like the Andante-Scherzo lineup...it's a great piece...I just learned it the other way [S-A]

[André]

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.

Hear, hear ! 

Really, verily and in truth, this is a bone of contention that will just not go. But why should it be settled once and for all ?

As I mentioned, a couple hundred posts back  ,  performers make their choices out of respect for the composer's wishes. I humbly defer to their choices when it comes to these decisions.

My heart was rebuked  ( ) in another thread when asked how it was possible I could have heard Schumann's Frauenliebe und Leben before  Dichterliebe or op. 39. It's not my fault if Jessye Norman chose the former for her first Montreal recital 40 years ago (I was transfixed). Sometimes these things happen. First love stuff and all that.

To return to the subject at hand, I would say my instinct is to follow the majority of performers (conductors) and listen to the work (M6) with the S-A order. And, after having heard it hundreds of times  (litterally), I still find it the way it should go. It's not a disaster if the order is reversed. It's not just what I am expecting: as already mentioned, A-S-A-F makes it a very satisfying Fast-slow-fast tripartite structure. But I won't boycott the next M6 concert or recording if the conductor chooses another order.

When I mentioned (the overwhelming majority of) conductors as a valuable source of information on the subject, I was answered "I'd rather listen to Mahler". Right.  Of course, how did I NOT think of it ? 

In the ensuing maelstrom of posts, the authority of those conductors who knew Mahler or premiered their works in Europe was not really brought up: Walter, Horenstein, Klemperer among many. There is a discussion as to the "finality" of the 9th, the 10th, and Das Lied. And Das Klagende Lied, the 1st symphony, even the 5th (I had no idea M had indicated a repeat for the second movement - a very bad idea). I take that discussion as an indication that the discussioin is not closed, and should not either.

As I mentioned before, I totally respect the performer's editorial and artistic choices in such cases. In most cases they have read scores and history books, and have internalized the music.

[San Antone]

From what I've read, Mahler originally had the Scherzo as II and the Andante as III but after rehearsals changed the order to A-S and instructed his publisher to produce a new edition and errata for any existing scores with the S-A.  This was how he performed the symphony for the rest of his life.  It was not until well after he had died, something like 20 years later, that his wife, Alma, sent a note to Bruno Walter, or maybe another conductor, that Mahler had changed  his mind again and to perfrom it as S-A - but we only have her word for it.

It is an odd thing, for sure, but the only real documentary evidence we have is that Mahler thought Scherzo-Andante was what he wanted.

[André]

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...