Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[TheGSMoeller]

Hurwitz is a funny man...


https://www.youtube.com/v/UBvECavsdog

[Sergeant Rock]

Hurwitz is a funny man...

While I can't debate any of his criticisms of Svetlanov's cycle (Hurwitz is actually spot on), I still enjoy its eccentricities (the extremely broad tempos in particular). I just wish the sonics weren't so unbalanced especially the vocal contributions.

I've been enjoying the Hurwitzer's YouTube series...maybe because he so often mirrors my own taste. His top Schubert Ninth (Szell/Cleveland) is mine. He mentions Chailly, Solti and Bernstein in his review of the Mahler Sixth,, all my favorites too. And Maazel and Chailly along with Lenny, are among those chosen for the Mahler Fourth. I couldn't agree more.

Sarge

[calyptorhynchus]

While I can't debate any of his criticisms of Svetlanov's cycle (Hurwitz is actually spot on)...

What's the saying about a stopped watch being right twice a day?

[TheGSMoeller]

Mahler's 1st and 6th are my least favorite of his lot, and that's not saying I think they are bad, I just haven't made a strong connection to them the way I have the other eight, or nine. But this morning I listened to Barbirolli's 1968 recording with the Philharmonia Orchestra on EMI of Mahler's tragic 6th, and I think I have found the reason why I never really connected to the 6th, because I had never listened to Barbirolli's 1968 recording with the Philharmonia Orchestra on EMI!!
Now this one seems much slower in tempi than what I have heard before, if my memory serves me right even Lenny's DG performance wasn't this slow. And even though I don't always advocate for slow-Mahler I think I definitely prefer the 6th to glum as much as possible. However the finale is speedier in the right spots, enhancing those heavier moments even more. And holy crap that timpani during the final chord is the MVP, and the separation between that chord and the pizzicato to close out the piece is perfect.

I'm no expert on this piece, and I'm sure I'll get schooled on this thread regarding this and other recordings of the 6th, but this one from Barbirolli/Philharmonia really perked up my ears more than ever. I just ordered a copy, the first image I posted, but there seems to be four different covers available.

[JBS]

I have it in this  issue.

The Metamorphosen is not to be slighted, btw, although it's not quite the match of the Klemperer performance  that  is coupled with the latter's M9.

[TheGSMoeller]

I have it in this  issue.

The Metamorphosen is not to be slighted, btw, although it's not quite the match of the Klemperer performance  that  is coupled with the latter's M9.

I have seen that variant as well!
And I have the Klemperer Wagner/Strauss box set that includes the Metamorphosen, yes it is quite good!

[Biffo]

Mahler's 1st and 6th are my least favorite of his lot, and that's not saying I think they are bad, I just haven't made a strong connection to them the way I have the other eight, or nine. But this morning I listened to Barbirolli's 1968 recording with the Philharmonia Orchestra on EMI of Mahler's tragic 6th, and I think I have found the reason why I never really connected to the 6th, because I had never listened to Barbirolli's 1968 recording with the Philharmonia Orchestra on EMI!!
Now this one seems much slower in tempi than what I have heard before, if my memory serves me right even Lenny's DG performance wasn't this slow. And even though I don't always advocate for slow-Mahler I think I definitely prefer the 6th to glum as much as possible. However the finale is speedier in the right spots, enhancing those heavier moments even more. And holy crap that timpani during the final chord is the MVP, and the separation between that chord and the pizzicato to close out the piece is perfect.

I'm no expert on this piece, and I'm sure I'll get schooled on this thread regarding this and other recordings of the 6th, but this one from Barbirolli/Philharmonia really perked up my ears more than ever. I just ordered a copy, the first image I posted, but there seems to be four different covers available.

This raises the perennial thorny question of movement order. Mahler wanted Andante-Scherzo and that is how Barbirolli performed it. EMI in their wisdom reversed the order to the then more familiar order Scherzo-Andante without consulting Barbirolli and that is how it stayed for various issues until they finally decided to follow his wishes (posthumously). Not sure which of those covers it is. I have it spread over two discs and this makes it impossible to re-program the order of movements. Fortunately, there are two live performances, both on Testament, with the Berlin Philharmonic and the Philharmonia. The Philharmonia performance was made shortly before the studio recording and is 10 minutes quicker and it is the one I prefer.

Obviously, if you want the slow version you need one of the studio issues.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

This raises the perennial thorny question of movement order. Mahler wanted Andante-Scherzo and that is how Barbirolli performed it. EMI in their wisdom reversed the order to the then more familiar order Scherzo-Andante without consulting Barbirolli and that is how it stayed for various issues until they finally decided to follow his wishes (posthumously). Not sure which of those covers it is. I have it spread over two discs and this makes it impossible to re-program the order of movements. Fortunately, there are two live performances, both on Testament, with the Berlin Philharmonic and the Philharmonia. The Philharmonia performance was made shortly before the studio recording and is 10 minutes quicker and it is the one I prefer.

Obviously, if you want the slow version you need one of the studio issues.

The Rouge et Noir release has the Scherzo-Andante movement order. It was done in accordance with the then 'official movement ordering' as pronounced by the Gustav Mahler Society. (See also: https://ionarts.blogspot.com/2016/04/gustav-mahler-symphony-no6-part-1.html)

Later, when the GMS reversed its decision (again, back to A-S), Barbirolli's original movement order was restored. This is in part because the arguments for S-A by the Critical Mahler Edition were indeed highly flawed; perhaps even falsified. However, it is very doubtful whether a waterproof (or even low-leakage) claim can be made, that Mahler himself "wanted" it to be S-A. He merely performed it that way, on the advice of well-wishers... but he didn't perform it often. Then, of course, the highly pragmatic (and surprisingly insecure) Mahler was *quite* willing to do just about anything to get his works performed... and acceded to breaks between movement that hadn't necessarily been intended, or performances of stand-alone movements.

While Alma's telegraph to Mengelberg "Scherzo first, definitely" cannot be trusted, either, the dramatic and harmonic evidence suggests very strongly that S-A is a better fit; only a very conventional view of what a proper symphony should look like (partly due to the fact that superficially, the Sixth appears to be in 'proper' symphony form) would suggest that A-S is more appropriate.

Mahler experts disagree and vary wildly and change their minds on this, both ways. (Jansons - not that I'd call him a Mahler expert and Ivan Fischer are two examples I can think of, who have performed it both ways. Fischer more conscientiously, in an attempt to find out what works. That he ultimately found that A-S works better for him doesn't detract from his good-faith willingness to try it both ways.) Henri-Louis de la Grange, not the least among Mahler experts, was of course strongly and unwaveringly in the S-A camp. [As am I.]

In short, it's impossible to stipulate that there is a right and a wrong way to do this... but I would suggest that the "Auffuehrungspraxis" arguments for S-A are weaker than the arguments of the S-A side, which actually looks at the structure. (Which is the much better argument than that of the order of composition, S-A, itself, of course, because it's not like Mahler hadn't on many occasions composed / finished movements of his symphonies in any given order... or taken movements from one symphony to make them movements of other symphonies.)

[Biffo]

The Rouge et Noir release has the Scherzo-Andante movement order. It was done in accordance with the then 'official movement ordering' as pronounced by the Gustav Mahler Society. (See also: https://ionarts.blogspot.com/2016/04/gustav-mahler-symphony-no6-part-1.html)

Later, when the GMS reversed its decision (again, back to A-S), Barbirolli's original movement order was restored. This is in part because the arguments for S-A by the Critical Mahler Edition were indeed highly flawed; perhaps even falsified. However, it is very doubtful whether a waterproof (or even low-leakage) claim can be made, that Mahler himself "wanted" it to be S-A. He merely performed it that way, on the advice of well-wishers... but he didn't perform it often. Then, of course, the highly pragmatic (and surprisingly insecure) Mahler was *quite* willing to do just about anything to get his works performed... and acceded to breaks between movement that hadn't necessarily been intended, or performances of stand-alone movements.

While Alma's telegraph to Mengelberg "Scherzo first, definitely" cannot be trusted, either, the dramatic and harmonic evidence suggests very strongly that S-A is a better fit; only a very conventional view of what a proper symphony should look like (partly due to the fact that superficially, the Sixth appears to be in 'proper' symphony form) would suggest that A-S is more appropriate.

Mahler experts disagree and vary wildly and change their minds on this, both ways. (Jansons - not that I'd call him a Mahler expert and Ivan Fischer are two examples I can think of, who have performed it both ways. Fischer more conscientiously, in an attempt to find out what works. That he ultimately found that A-S works better for him doesn't detract from his good-faith willingness to try it both ways.) Henri-Louis de la Grange, not the least among Mahler experts, was of course strongly and unwaveringly in the S-A camp. [As am I.]

In short, it's impossible to stipulate that there is a right and a wrong way to do this... but I would suggest that the "Auffuehrungspraxis" arguments for S-A are weaker than the arguments of the S-A side, which actually looks at the structure. (Which is the much better argument than that of the order of composition, S-A, itself, of course, because it's not like Mahler hadn't on many occasions composed / finished movements of his symphonies in any given order... or taken movements from one symphony to make them movements of other symphonies.)

I take all your points except the one highlighted. I have never seen that before and Mahler went to the trouble of having the publisher insert an erratum slip. It was the loss of this slip that caused Mengelberg to consult Alma.

There is a precedent  - Mahler switched the order Scherzo-Andante in the 2nd Symphony but this was long before publication.

My view is pragmatic (or just lazy). I got to know the work from Kubelik and he followed the IGMG edition (Ratz). As this was the only version I had for many years it is the order I got used to and in any case I wasn't even aware there was a problem. Now I have numerous versions I simply play them as given even though I could re-program many of them. Deep down I suppose I prefer S-A but think Mahler's final version should be followed (A-S).

[Mahlerian]

Later, when the GMS reversed its decision (again, back to A-S), Barbirolli's original movement order was restored. This is in part because the arguments for S-A by the Critical Mahler Edition were indeed highly flawed; perhaps even falsified. However, it is very doubtful whether a waterproof (or even low-leakage) claim can be made, that Mahler himself "wanted" it to be S-A. He merely performed it that way, on the advice of well-wishers... but he didn't perform it often.

The Sixth Symphony didn't survive long beyond the premiere. He conducted it again in Vienna and that was pretty much it. The critical response was so overwhelmingly negative that it may very well have contributed to the anti-Semitic campaign to oust him from his position. I would hesitate to draw any conclusions about his preferred version on account of which one he performed for that reason; it was such a short period of time that he wouldn't have thought to reconsider his reconsideration.

Personally, I think Scherzo-Andante makes more musical sense. Both the segue from Allegro to Scherzo and that from Andante to Finale are smoother than the alternatives. I've heard it performed both ways, though, and I'll respect the order chosen by a given conductor.

It's remarkable, considering Mahler's stature over a century later, but the first recordings of the Sixth date from the 1950s, and this in spite of champions like Schoenberg, who considered it one of his most perfect works (as do I).

Seth Monahan on the Finale:

Nothing in Mahler's earlier works--indeed, nothing in the Western canon at large--could have prepared fin-de-siecle audiences for the Finale of the Sixth Symphony. Never before had instrumental music been asked to bear a calamity of this scale or intensity. Perhaps only Strauss's Salome, premiered the year before (1905), had ever used the post-Wagnerian orchestra for such diabolically noxious ends. Even the earlier movements of the Sixth itself--demonic enough in their own right--pale in comparison to the half-hour sonic assault that closes the symphony, one that "bewildered" early audiences...and sent critics scrambling to decry this hyperbolically dark "hypertrophically" scored monstrosity.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

The Sixth Symphony didn't survive long beyond the premiere. He conducted it again in Vienna and that was pretty much it. The critical response was so overwhelmingly negative that it may very well have contributed to the anti-Semitic campaign to oust him from his position. I would hesitate to draw any conclusions about his preferred version on account of which one he performed for that reason; it was such a short period of time that he wouldn't have thought to reconsider his reconsideration.

Personally, I think Scherzo-Andante makes more musical sense. Both the segue from Allegro to Scherzo and that from Andante to Finale are smoother than the alternatives. I've heard it performed both ways, though, and I'll respect the order chosen by a given conductor.

It's remarkable, considering Mahler's stature over a century later, but the first recordings of the Sixth date from the 1950s, and this in spite of champions like Schoenberg, who considered it one of his most perfect works (as do I).

If I had to pick one, the 6th would be my favorite Mahler symphony, too. And like you, I really don't think we can properly speak of "Mahler's last wishes" as something particularly meaningful in this case. It's more a snapshot that happened to come out that way. Like that one time Napoleon scratched his belly during the painting session, and now everyone thinks he always stood around with his hand in his waistcoat. :-)

[André]

The Sixth Symphony didn't survive long beyond the premiere. He conducted it again in Vienna and that was pretty much it. The critical response was so overwhelmingly negative that it may very well have contributed to the anti-Semitic campaign to oust him from his position. I would hesitate to draw any conclusions about his preferred version on account of which one he performed for that reason; it was such a short period of time that he wouldn't have thought to reconsider his reconsideration.

Personally, I think Scherzo-Andante makes more musical sense. Both the segue from Allegro to Scherzo and that from Andante to Finale are smoother than the alternatives. I've heard it performed both ways, though, and I'll respect the order chosen by a given conductor.

It's remarkable, considering Mahler's stature over a century later, but the first recordings of the Sixth date from the 1950s, and this in spite of champions like Schoenberg, who considered it one of his most perfect works (as do I).

+ 1. Very well said.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

I take all your points except the one highlighted. I have never seen that before ...

The argument brought forth to him during rehearsals was, that the public wouldn't accept two such similar movements in direct succession.

Of course, I think that what gives the symphony its dramatic poignancy: RIGHT PUNCH. LEFT PUNCH. Lulling you into security. FINAL KNOCKOUT... with descent into unconsciousness.

[André]

The argument brought forth to him during rehearsals was, that the public wouldn't accept two such similar movements in direct succession.

Of course, I think that what gives the symphony its dramatic poignancy: RIGHT PUNCH. LEFT PUNCH. Lulling you into security. FINAL KNOCKOUT... with descent into unconsciousness.

That, too, is very well said ! The boxing analogy is entirely apt !

[JBS]

If I had to pick one, the 6th would be my favorite Mahler symphony, too. And like you, I really don't think we can properly speak of "Mahler's last wishes" as something particularly meaningful in this case. It's more a snapshot that happened to come out that way. Like that one time Napoleon scratched his belly during the painting session, and now everyone thinks he always stood around with his hand in his waistcoat. :-)

If you go through 19th century portraiture and photographers, you'll find a lot of military officers used the same pose.  Sample here, the unknown officer standing next to Grant. Grant is using another standard solution to the problem of what do with one's hands while standing still for a long time.

[TheGSMoeller]

So as a new fan of Barbirolli's 6th, where would some of you suggest I go next? I own, or have heard, the 6th's from Bernstein x2, Boulez, Abbado, Zinman and Currentzis, which this may not look like the go-to list of Mahler conductors, but I never sought out for the best performances either.

Thanks!

[Jo498]

Mitropoulos (NY or Cologne whatever is easier to find). He is on the slow and bleak side.
The opposite is Kondrashin/Melodiya who is (too) fast and brutalist.

[Sergeant Rock]

So as a new fan of Barbirolli's 6th, where would some of you suggest I go next?

If you like a slow 6th then I suggest hearing Chailly...very slow and very grim.

Sarge

[Crudblud]

So as a new fan of Barbirolli's 6th, where would some of you suggest I go next? I own, or have heard, the 6th's from Bernstein x2, Boulez, Abbado, Zinman and Currentzis, which this may not look like the go-to list of Mahler conductors, but I never sought out for the best performances either.

Thanks!

I can't think of a 6th as heavy and trudging as Barbirolli. Boulez and Abbado are both generally solid choices. I don't rate Bernstein's Mahler much these days, I think he hams it up way too much—great for Tchaikovsky, not so much here. My personal favourite is Eschenbach, but I don't know how readily available it is currently.

[André]

Benjamin Zander's Telarc version is quite fantastic IMO. Still, Barbirolli rules the roost.