Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[André]

I discarded my Bertini set (as well as Chailly's). Kept only those by Inbal, Bernstein, Haitink and Abravanel.

Abravanel's Utah orchestra is very fallible. But I love the interpretations, and the sound is still spectacular.

[jlaurson]

I discarded my Bertini set (as well as Chailly's). Kept only those by Inbal, Bernstein, Haitink and Abravanel.

Abravanel's Utah orchestra is very fallible. But I love the interpretations, and the sound is still spectacular.

I never quite got Bertini, either... all fine, but was it really a better incarnation of Kubelik? I don't think I could get rid of Chailly... there are some gems among his Mahler... though a lot of them are actually the NON-Mahler pieces on those discs, I'll grant. His Fifth is still an audiophile dream. Seven, Six, Ten are good if I recall rightly; as is the Third even though I always found it rather overrated when it was outright raved about. Oh, and the Fourth with Babs Bonney is super.



#morninglistening to #Mahler No.1 w/@yle_rso & @hlintu on @ondineRecords
Not nearly a grim as he makes it look. A rather friendly and chirpy and charming
and great-sounding interpretation. Lots of nature and subtleties and softness,
but never boring or Zinmanish.  http://ift.tt/2cLo45W

[André]

I forgot: I kept Kubelik and Levine's quasi cycle (RCA).

I did like Chailly in some of the symphonies (the 6th in particular has a high ooomph level). But what I'm after in a cycle is a point of view that is clear, consistent and easily distinguishable from others. That brings my level of understanding to a higher level, and sharpens my understanding of the music.

For the same reason as Chailly's Mahler, I recently discarded Colin Davis' Staatskapelle cycle of the Beethoven symphonies. Although it contains what is possibly the best Eroica I know. I'll repurchase it as a single. Having it alone in my collection will confer it its true meaning. Buried in a solid but comfy, laid back cycle of the 9 deprives it of its special stature.

[jlaurson]

I forgot: I kept Kubelik and Levine's quasi cycle (RCA).

I did like Chailly in some of the symphonies (the 6th in particular has a high ooomph level). But what I'm after in a cycle is a point of view that is clear, consistent and easily distinguishable from others. That brings my level of understanding to a higher level, and sharpens my understanding of the music.

For the same reason as Chailly's Mahler, I recently discarded Colin Davis' Staatskapelle cycle of the Beethoven symphonies. Although it contains what is possibly the best Eroica I know. I'll repurchase it as a single. Having it alone in my collection will confer it its true meaning. Buried in a solid but comfy, laid back cycle of the 9 deprives it of its special stature.

I like it. I like that approach very much.

[kishnevi]

I never quite got Bertini, either... all fine, but was it really a better incarnation of Kubelik? I don't think I could get rid of Chailly... there are some gems among his Mahler... though a lot of them are actually the NON-Mahler pieces on those discs, I'll grant. His Fifth is still an audiophile dream. Seven, Six, Ten are good if I recall rightly; as is the Third even though I always found it rather overrated when it was outright raved about. Oh, and the Fourth with Babs Bonney is super.

Have you viewed any of Chailly's DVD cycle?
I posted about the Second in the New Ears thread a couple of days ago,  and also have  the Eighth, which I found a bit hum-ho.  Have considered but never got any of the rest. Not even sure if, at this point, it's a complete cycle.

[Pat B]

But he does of course take the movements in the correct, which is to say: wrong order.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm an A-S man. I can't remember who thinks that right or wrong.

It seems a lot of people move away from Bernstein in Mahler. I haven't, at least not yet. A couple nights ago I watched his video 2nd from the 1970s and enjoyed it. Musically, that is; his podium antics might be more entertaining in other repertoire. And the sound was not ideal, though my ear adjusted quickly. But it is a great performance, with Janet Baker singing a beautiful Urlicht.

[Pat B]

For the same reason as Chailly's Mahler, I recently discarded Colin Davis' Staatskapelle cycle of the Beethoven symphonies. Although it contains what is possibly the best Eroica I know. I'll repurchase it as a single. Having it alone in my collection will confer it its true meaning. Buried in a solid but comfy, laid back cycle of the 9 deprives it of its special stature.

This may be counterintuitive to some, but it makes perfect sense to me.

[Pat B]

Last night I finally watched the Ferenc Fricsay documentary. In it, somebody mentioned that one of his unfulfilled plans was to record a Mahler cycle -- which would have been a novel and possibly crazy idea at the time. He had a substantial discography but the only Mahler is the Rückert Lieder (which I haven't heard yet). I wish he had gotten to at least one of the symphonies.

[jlaurson]

Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm an A-S man. I can't remember who thinks that right or wrong.

I'm very firmly an S-A man. 'A-S' is considered correct by "as last willed/performed by Mahler", whereas S-A is considered a better fit musically and dramatically.

[Madiel]

I'm very firmly an S-A man. 'A-S' is considered correct by "as last willed/performed by Mahler", whereas S-A is considered a better fit musically and dramatically.

From what I've read, 'A-S' is simply "as performed by Mahler".

Never heard the piece myself...

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

what do A-S and S-A mean?

[Wanderer]

Andante-Scherzo & Scherzo-Andante aka the M6 middle movements controversy.

I endorse the A-S crowd.


Edit: Andante.

[jlaurson]

what do A-S and S-A mean?

It refers to the order of the inner two movements: Andante-Scherzo or Scherzo-Andante. There has always been uncertainty about Mahler's intent and the Gustav Mahler Society has waffled on the issue, too.
There's more about that here: Gustav Mahler – Symphony No.6 (Part 1), if you are interested.

...The latest decision of the International Gustav Mahler Society reverses its course and now places the slow movement before the Scherzo with an air of unassailable certainty. What can be said with certainty is that Mahler did not mind the order A-S at all and, pace Henri-Louis de La Grange, seems to have had no second thoughts about it after the final decision in favor of A-S at the premiere in Essen.

I have yet to meet anyone who can argue A-S on musical grounds... or rather: I've not talked about it with them. (Fischer Adam and David Zinman are two conductors who seem to find that it works better for them, that way. Might have to do something with how they see the work as such. I'm all for the 1-2 Punch, then the Adagio, then the devastating Finale. With the Scherzo before the finale, it seems to lose so much of its ferociousness.

[amw]

in 1904 Mahler published the original version of the 6th symphony with the movements in the order
I. Allegro energico, ma non troppo
II. Scherzo. Wuchtig
III. Andante moderato
IV. Sostenuto - Allegro energico

after the first performance, he made some revisions and requested the publication of a new version in which, among other things, the order of the two middle movements was reversed:
I. Allegro energico, ma non troppo
II. Andante moderato
III. Scherzo. Wuchtig
IV. Sostenuto - Allegro energico
the other notable change being the removal of one of the three hammer-strokes in the original version of the finale. This version was published in 1910 I think.

Alma Mahler reported that he changed his mind again shortly before his death and on that basis advised conductors to use the 1904 order of movements. That said, the 1910 order was more common up until Erwin Ratz's 1965 publication of the score in 1904 movement order (and with some more extensive changes to the orchestration) which then most conductors adopted until basically the 21st century, during and shortly before which many scholars began to consider the 1910 version to be definitive.

Since the 1960s was also the start of the Mahler renaissance, the majority of recordings and performances have used the 1904 order and that's the one most people are used to. The 1910 order is gaining traction mostly based on scholarly opinion but hasn't totally displaced 1904 in the hearts and minds of audiences (though of course some listeners and conductors supported it the whole time).

I personally think both versions are fine.

edit: hmm I type slow

edit 2: I can argue 1910 on musical grounds: having 2 large movements in same key sharing similar thematic material was probably something Mahler wished to avoid; slow movement gains more of a sense of distance and being forever lost when placed before the scherzo; first movement material returning in the scherzo prepares the synthesis of the finale. On the other hand, the key relationship between scherzo and introduction of finale makes not much sense (a retransition back to A minor after an entire movement in that key?).

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Ah yes thanks for that! I was unaware of the acronym. For many years I had been more convinced by S-A until I heard A-S performed live this year, and this is how I have come to prefer it now. Minus the third hammer! I think that after the opening movement, the calmer andante seems to simply follow better than the immediate reiteration of the tonic that the scherzo begins with.

[Madiel]

Is it after the first performance? From what I had read, I was under the impression that Mahler switched the order before the first performance.

Wikipedia, for one, suggests it was during rehearsals, but I thought I'd read the same elsewhere.

[jlaurson]

edit 2: I can argue 1910 on musical grounds: having 2 large movements in same key sharing similar thematic material was probably something Mahler wished to avoid; slow movement gains more of a sense of distance and being forever lost when placed before the scherzo; first movement material returning in the scherzo prepares the synthesis of the finale. On the other hand, the key relationship between scherzo and introduction of finale makes not much sense (a retransition back to A minor after an entire movement in that key?).

Thanks for the detailed explanation of the two different versions. Alma's claim about Mahler having changed his mind has never been verified, as far as I (which is to say HLdlG, my source of most Mahler-knowledge) know.
I get your argument, but that's the reason suggested why Mahler might have been induced to change his mind for the Essen performance. I find it superficial and in fact I not only think that the Scherzo following the similar first movement is not nearly as upsetting to the structure than having the Scherzo sap the Finale's energy by offering two same-ish last movements... I actually think that it works particularly fine here, delivering, as I always call it, that one-two punch in the kisser right up front, lulling you into a sense of innocence with the Andante... and then just chopping your unsuspecting head off. Also, Scherzo in the second position is typical Mahler. Not that that's necessarily a good argument...

What we know for sure is that Mahler was never 100% certain that it MUST be one way or the other... was flexible to change the order on a dime, even though we DO know he composed it in the S-A order (which one can, as you point out, read from the harmonic progression), so it comes down what dramatic or pragmatic view one has of the work or the performance and how it will be received. A good performance will always overcome this controversy on its own merits, though.

[amw]

Orfeo yeah, maybe. No expert. I know it had something to do with the first performance though.


Scherzo-Finale is not quite so samey as Allegro-Scherzo because (a) the Finale is basically half slow—exposition, development and recap all begin with extensive slow sections (and coda is also slow)—and therefore at least initially one has a feeling of fast-slow rather than 2 fast movements; (b) the movements don't share as much thematic material.

Mahler was also probably thinking about the 7th symphony at the time which places the scherzo centrally with slow music on either side (although of very different character), and that may have been the kind of form he was interested in during that premiere performance. I believe he may have been interested in having a second slow movement in the 6th at some point during sketching/writing the work. (Whether it would be 2nd or 4th movement, no idea.) He did end up publishing the Andante-Scherzo order so he must have thought it worked, but, who knows. They're both valid, either way.

The 5th may have also affected him since it starts with 3 fast movements in a row and maybe he found this to be exhausting in performance. Which tbf, it kinda is a little. And then didn't want to repeat this mistake in the 6th.

[Sergeant Rock]

The 5th may have also affected him since it starts with 3 fast movements in a row and maybe he found this to be exhausting in performance. Which tbf, it kinda is a little. And then didn't want to repeat this mistake in the 6th.

Except the Fifth doesn't have 3 fast movements in a row: the first movement is a funeral march, marked In gemessenem Schritt. Streng. Wie ein Kondukt (At a measured pace. Strict. Like a funeral procession.)

Sarge

[jlaurson]

He did end up publishing the Andante-Scherzo order so he must have thought it worked, but, who knows. They're both valid, either way.

As HenriLdlGrange suggests, Mahler wasn't above caving to advice from outsiders to give his works a better short at being well received. He was a neurotic mess and quite insecure and Angsty about his works not doing well, which becomes clear from his correspondence with Richard Strauss. But that still leaves us at: "Either Way", true.