Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[ChamberNut]

Forgive me....I know this question has probably been asked before.

I was absolutely spellbound by Mahler's 6th Symphony tonight, listening on headphones in peace & quiet.  Reading up on the work......it stated that the 2nd movement Scherzo and 3rd movement Andante Moderato (on my Tennstedt/LPO copy), was/is more traditionally played in the other order (2nd mvt. Andante Mod., 3rd mvt. Scherzo).  I cannot imagine listening to it in any other order than what I just heard...

Your thoughts?  What is the current practice of conductors these days?  I am hearing this symphony live in May 2009.    

[Renfield]

NOT THAT QUESTION!

I'm kidding. It's a little too late for me to cogently divulge all my present knowledge on this issue. And it would, of course, still be quite limited compared to what a few other posters might have to say; particularly those with advanced theoretical knowledge.

But suffice to say, between Mengelberg's letters, Alma's insistences, and all sorts of other arguments that have come up to support one approach or the other, it does seem to be largely a matter of the individual conductor's preference, rather than based on any sort of consensus.

(Although there are "blocs" of conductors all doing it the same way.)


Personally, I can see it working both ways. I prefer the Scherzo second, likely because that's how I heard it the first time (via the Karajan/BPO recording, on DG), and how I also heard it the one time I've heard the symphony performed live.

But certainly, whether the progression is from one sort of "march" to another sort of march, then an introspective pause, then the finale - or alternatively a march, then quiet, then a march again into the finale, and towards the final "hammer-blows", it makes sense both ways.


Though obviously, I am both grossly oversimplifying the content, and entirely ignorant of tonal progressions from key X to key Y, etc.

[imperfection]

Forgive me....I know this question has probably been asked before.

I was absolutely spellbound by Mahler's 6th Symphony tonight, listening on headphones in peace & quiet.  Reading up on the work......it stated that the 2nd movement Scherzo and 3rd movement Andante Moderato (on my Tennstedt/LPO copy), was/is more traditionally played in the other order (2nd mvt. Andante Mod., 3rd mvt. Scherzo).  I cannot imagine listening to it in any other order than what I just heard...

Your thoughts?  What is the current practice of conductors these days?  I am hearing this symphony live in May 2009.    

IIRC, you are the fellow from B.C., right? The Vancouver symphony is playing it in June this year I'm planning to go too.

[Renfield]

IIRC, you are the fellow from B.C., right? The Vancouver symphony is playing it in June this year I'm planning to go too.

Who is conducting?

[bhodges]

Forgive me....I know this question has probably been asked before.

I was absolutely spellbound by Mahler's 6th Symphony tonight, listening on headphones in peace & quiet.  Reading up on the work......it stated that the 2nd movement Scherzo and 3rd movement Andante Moderato (on my Tennstedt/LPO copy), was/is more traditionally played in the other order (2nd mvt. Andante Mod., 3rd mvt. Scherzo).  I cannot imagine listening to it in any other order than what I just heard...

Your thoughts?  What is the current practice of conductors these days?  I am hearing this symphony live in May 2009.    

Wiki has a pretty good section on the continuing debate over the middle movements' order, here.  And here is an interesting post by Zach Carstensen, on The Gathering Note.

Over the last few decades, I have heard the Sixth live a number of times (maybe 10 or 12) and generally the order has been Scherzo-Andante, which I prefer (scholarship aside for the moment).  Reversing the order to Andante-Scherzo brings perhaps a different kind of mounting hysteria, a longer wind-up to super-charge the finale.  But generally I'm in the camp preferring the Andante as a quiet break, which better sets up being emotionally pushed off the precipice at the end.

Have a great time...it's a marvelous experience live.

--Bruce

[ChamberNut]

Wiki has a pretty good section on the continuing debate over the middle movements' order, here.  And here is an interesting post by Zach Carstensen, on The Gathering Note.

Over the last few decades, I have heard the Sixth live a number of times (maybe 10 or 12) and generally the order has been Scherzo-Andante, which I prefer (scholarship aside for the moment).  Reversing the order to Andante-Scherzo brings perhaps a different kind of mounting hysteria, a longer wind-up to super-charge the finale.  But generally I'm in the camp preferring the Andante as a quiet break, which better sets up being emotionally pushed off the precipice at the end.

Have a great time...it's a marvelous experience live.

--Bruce

Thank you Bruce!    See, that's what I'm thinking too.....you need that emotional 'rest' or 'break' before that tornado of the fourth movement comes along.  That way too, the Andante is more 'centered' in the symphony  (Approx 35 minutes after the start and 33 minutes before the end.)  Obviously, give or take conductor and orchestra.   

[bhodges]

Thank you Bruce!    See, that's what I'm thinking too.....you need that emotional 'rest' or 'break' before that tornado of the fourth movement comes along.  That way too, the Andante is more 'centered' in the symphony  (Approx 35 minutes after the start and 33 minutes before the end.)  Obviously, give or take conductor and orchestra.   

Yes, and good point about the timing, too, from a "proportions standpoint."  (Of course, the Andante isn't exactly "quiet" all the way through, but that's another story.  )  In his blog post, Carstensen says he prefers Scherzo-Andante, too. 

And all this is not even taking the key relationships into consideration.  Benjamin Zander has this observation:

Zander argues that the back-to-back A-minor horror of the opening movement and the Scherzo might have intimidated Mahler the performer. The conductor justifies his decision by examining the key relationships among the movements. If the A-minor Scherzo is played as the third movement, the modulation that occurs right at the start of the Finale is harmonically unnecessary. If the third movement is the E Flat Major-major Andante moderato, then the Finale's opening modulation makes sense.   [from Classical Net]

--Bruce

[ChamberNut]

Yes, and good point about the timing, too, from a "proportions standpoint."  (Of course, the Andante isn't exactly "quiet" all the way through, but that's another story.  ) 

Yes, true enough.  Yet...it is compared to the other three movements.   

*I noticed a deep brass bass theme or motif midway through the Scherzo, which eerily reminded me of the 'Fafner' motif from Wagner's Siegfried.  Anyone else notice this

*Please do not stone and pillage this uneducated music lover. 

[Sergeant Rock]

Your thoughts?  What is the current practice of conductors these days?  I am hearing this symphony live in May 2009.    

We've discussed this in detail in the past. I think you were too busy listening to chamber music to notice    It's late here but I'll add some thoughts tomorrow when my brain is less alcohol addled (damn those dirty whte mothers)...or maybe I'll find the old threads for you. It is a fascinating question. Like most listeners (and most conductors) I prefer Scherzo first then Andante. I find the music most satisfying that way, both emotionally and technically (i.e., the key relationships).

My next live Sixth will be in Cleveland next May too, directed by Welser-Möst.

Sarge

[Renfield]

And all this is not even taking the key relationships into consideration.  Benjamin Zander has this observation:

Zander argues that the back-to-back A-minor horror of the opening movement and the Scherzo might have intimidated Mahler the performer. The conductor justifies his decision by examining the key relationships among the movements. If the A-minor Scherzo is played as the third movement, the modulation that occurs right at the start of the Finale is harmonically unnecessary. If the third movement is the E Flat Major-major Andante moderato, then the Finale's opening modulation makes sense.   [from Classical Net]

--Bruce

Setting aside the business of modulations and harmonic necessities, I'm intrigued by the phrase "back-to-back A-minor horror".

(Especially given that, IIRC, Mahler published the symphony in the Scherzo-Andante order, but performed it the other way around.)

Is it tenable to assume a conductor could be intimidated by his own work to the extent of altering its structure for performance? Certainly, he did alter the structure - my (rather open) question is whether the intimidation claim could hold.


As far as the argument for "emotional rest" goes, however, I still strongly believe it works either way. At the, however vague and "musicotheoretically unrigorous", (subjective) semantic level, I can see the hypothetical "story" unfolding in both ways.

Whether with a more balanced division of the dramatic content towards a more "Classical" overall shape - march, hysteric march, introspection, catharsis - or a "slanted" arrangement, giving the impression of a march, then a pause, then tumbling down a steep slope all the way into the finale, I find it fairly defensible a notion that it would be more (musical) formal elements to decide what goes first.

[Symphonien]

On the issue of the order of the two middle movements, I tend to agree with Benjamin Zander that there are essentially two Mahler 6ths - the first by the composer-Mahler that includes the three hammer blows and the second by Mahler the performer, the superstitious man that was so scared by what he had created that he removed the third hammer blow from the score and thinned out the orchestration at the moment it was intended to fall. The reversal of the order of the middle movements was related to the removal of the third hammer blow. To quote Zander at length from his discussion about the revisions in his Telarc recording:

I feel that Mahler's change in the order of the middle movements is related to the man-Mahler's attempt to soften the impact of what he had created. When the first movement is followed by the Scherzo, there is a sort of monolithic horror to it - these two large movements both in A minor. And although the first movement ends in a very triumphant A Major, that triumph is immediately negated just as it always is with the fate motive pulled inexorably down from major to minor. And now, all that the first movement had achieved in arriving at A Major is held up to mockery by the opening of the Scherzo, which grotesquely distorts so much material that was originally heard in the first movement. The two movements in this way become one thing, in much the same way that the first two movements of Mahler's 5th belong together as a single entity, even though they have distinct beginnings and ends. There's a further point about the order of movements that convinces me that Mahler's original is preferable and that is a harmonic one. The Andante is in E Flat Major, the introduction to the fourth movement begins in C Minor, the key most closely related to E Flat, and then in the course of its first ten measures moves to A Minor for a statement of the familiar fate motive... In other words, the opening ten bars of the fourth movement serve as the modulation from E Flat back to the symphony's tonic key of A minor. If you play the Andante as the second movement and the Scherzo as third, then you already are in A minor at the moment the fourth movement begins making the modulation to the key of A minor superfluous.

[Symphonien]

Is it tenable to assume a conductor could be intimidated by his own work to the extent of altering its structure for performance?

Yes, and that is exactly what happened.

However for the most compelling argument the other way, you should read this booklet that has been cited by Slatkin, Jansons, Tilson Thomas and Mehta as justification for performing Andante-Scherzo. It mostly argues based on the fact that Mahler wanted it that way and never changed his mind again to Scherzo-Andante. But to me that was related to the same superstitions that caused him to take out the third hammer blow (i.e. Mahler was wrong ). But it's interesting reading nonetheless.

[Renfield]

However for the most compelling argument the other way, you should read this booklet that has been cited by Slatkin, Jansons, Tilson Thomas and Mehta as justification for performing Andante-Scherzo.

Very interesting; thank you.

[imperfection]

Who is conducting?

Bramwell Tovey. Nowhere near the world's foremost Mahler interpreters, but hey, it's Gustav after all. It can't be that bad. 

[Renfield]

Bramwell Tovey. Nowhere near the world's foremost Mahler interpreters, but hey, it's Gustav after all. It can't be that bad. 

No, indeed it can't. Even when whistled, there are rewards to be had from Mahler's music.

[Lethevich]

I have a solution to this problem: extract Mahler's DNA from his bone marrow; clone him, then politely ask him to compose an additional slow movement, then place one on either side of the scherzo 0:)

BTW, I do love the problem he left with the 6th, the discussion it engenders rarely fails to encourage me to relisten to the piece - often with positive results (says the not-very-Mahler-fan...). Regardless of keys, wherever the scherzo is placed, there is still something of an imbalance, emotionally. This is what makes me doubt the claim that this is Mahler's most classically-proportioned symphony - I find the 5th more balanced.

[greg]

I have a solution to this problem: extract Mahler's DNA from his bone marrow; clone him, then politely ask him to compose an additional slow movement, then place one on either side of the scherzo 0:)

is that actually possible?
if only it were so...

[ChamberNut]

We've discussed this in detail in the past. I think you were too busy listening to chamber music to notice     Like most listeners (and most conductors) I prefer Scherzo first then Andante. I find the music most satisfying that way, both emotionally and technically (i.e., the key relationships).

My next live Sixth will be in Cleveland next May too, directed by Welser-Möst.

Sarge

I was most certainly neck deep in chamber music.   0:)  I sent an email to our conductor (Alexander Mickelthwate, Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra) to get his thoughts and plans for the May performance.    He has taken the time to respond to me in the past, so I hope he'll do so again.

[Dundonnell]

Over the past hour I have been watching and listening to the last movement of the 'Resurrection' on YouTube in performances by Bernstein, Rattle, Abbado, Sinopoli and Neeme Jarvi.

The two performances which (once again) made most impact on me were the famous Bernstein from Ely Cathedral with the London Symphony Orchestra filmed in 1973-

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=07oLJ35Xzwo

and Simon Rattle's farewell concert with the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra in 1998-

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_HpWDQsNJ3k

I am not normally a great admirer of Rattle but this performance is utterly glorious!

The last few minutes of this great symphony must be amongst the most sublime pages of music ever written!!

I must confess that the tears were pouring down my cheeks

[Sergeant Rock]

The last few minutes of this great symphony must be amongst the most sublime pages of music ever written!! I must confess that the tears were pouring down my cheeks

I think one has to have a heart of stone not to be intensely moved by that glorious peroration.

Sarge