gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: barry guerrero on May 08, 2007, 01:50:00 PM
-
OK, the mad professor has been fooling around with the burner again. I just reburnt my Chailly M6 into A/S order, and now like this performance even better. The end of the first movement is relatively slow, and Chailly's scherzo - at least the start of it - is also on the slow side. I decided to separate all that relative slowness with the andante. Works fine! My main motive here, is to place something after the end of the finale, because Chailly does the very end of the symphony - the final outburst of the "fate" motif in A-minor - really, really slowly, which I like. When I have guests over for dinner, I want to be able to grab my Chailly M6 and say, "listen to how slow and disturbing Chailly makes this ending" (they'll appreciate the thoughtful dinner music).
I've now decided to make this a three disc set, by burning on the Eschenbach/Philly M6, also altering to A/S order (long slow movement).
Barry
-
When I have guests over for dinner, I want to be able to grab my Chailly M6 and say, "listen to how slow and disturbing Chailly makes this ending" (they'll appreciate the thoughtful dinner music).
Barry
Good Lord, you ARE the fun host! Do these people ever return to your house? :o
-
Damn! I used to really love arguing with you (and everyone else) about the order of those inner movements. Seems that NOBODY around here liked the A/S order but me. I've been doing this for a long time -- playing some of the S/A CDs in A/S order -- although I don't burn new CDs, I just program the CD player to play in the A/S order. As you know, M6 was never my favorite of Mahler's symphonies because of the endless marching. But in A/S order, I find that it works much better for me. Not all recordings. With some of them, the tempi are so robotic that it doesn't do any good, they still suck. But I certainly agree on the Chailly.
Before long, I'm going to have to switch to defending the S/A order, just to find some good arguments around here >:(
-
Actually, I've changed my mind and decided to burn the Neumann/Czech Phil. M6 in A/S order. Here, we have a scherzo that's quite fast - less than 12 minutes - followed by an andante that's nearly 16 minutes. I'll see how like this one in A/S. The Abbado/BPO M6 works fabulously in S/A order.
Barry
-
Well, the last Neumann M6 works very well in A/S. Neumann is very flowing with the start of the slow movement, but takes the climactic section slowly (Eschenbach does the same thing, but even more so). Then I follow Neumann's slow finish with his really fast scherzo. It makes for a wonderful contrast.
Anyway, I've decided what's to be done - resolving the movement order issue once and for all. I think we should pretend that Mahler dropped the scherzo in his revised version, and play it only as an addendum; just like with "Blumine". Think about it; M6 would then become "the other" truly great three movement symphony, along with the Bruckner 9th. It would mirror B9 perfectly: B9 is in slow-fast-slow form, and M6 would be in fast-slow-fast form. You could get really cheeky and perform them both on the same concert: M6 on the first half, then B9 on the second half. And for those who want to stick around, you could then perform the scherzo as an addendum!
-
As I said on the Charles Adler thread,his was the first performance I ever heard,and he plays A/S. Flipse is the same. And I seem to remember on some early recording I had Deryck Cooke (no less) justifying the A/S order.
One thing I remember him writing was that,with A 3rd,the consolation feels too late.
I can stay with S/A performances,tho' it has a bit the oddness of hearing works that you got to know on 78s,where you start to get up unnecessarily each time the music gets to where the 78 side-breaks were.
And as I said in that Adler thread,one who usually played it A/S live , was Mahler.
Perhaps he knew something we don't,tho' I suspect his uncertainty shows it's not an open-and-shut case.
Barry sounds more like enthusiastic host than fun host. Would there were far more.
Ivor
-
Oh,forgot to say - hello Amphissa,I'm another pro A/S. You aren't alone.
Ivor
-
Posted by Ivor: I can stay with S/A performances,tho' it has a bit the oddness of hearing works that you got to know on 78s,where you start to get up unnecessarily each time the music gets to where the 78 side-breaks were.
I do not dispute that Mahler ultimately decided to switch to A/S after performing the symphony live, presumably because of the similarity of the first two movements. However, after many years of hearing it as S/A, I think it should stay that way. At least CDs allow us to program the playing the way we want, but for me, changing the order of movements I have been listening to for upwards of 25 years is just not going to happen. So, my experience is the opposite of Ivor's, in that I am quite used to S/A.
It kind of reminds me of the historical accuracy of a Roman emperor turning his thumb up or down during gladiatorial contests. We have been seeing in movies for years that "thumbs up" means that the gladiator lives, but apparently, the opposite was true. "Thumbs up" actually meant that the gladiator was to be killed. However, after a hundred years of seeing it that way, it seems kind of pointless to depict it the opposite way now. Regardless of whter it is accurate or not, we are used to what we are used to.
If I heard a performance of the 6th with A/S, it would sound odd, but I would not exclaim "this performance is a travesty!" because it is just not that important. I simply think that the S/A order has become tradition now, and that the history of the order in which Mahler performed it, along with Alma's recollections and interferences, should be relegated to program or liner notes.
-
The final solution is to get rid of the scherzo by pretending that Mahler deleted when he revised the work. Then we can all pretend that it's a great musicicological find, and add it to M6 concerts as an addendum.
-
Damfino,i'm so glad you said s/a is the tradition now.
For one thing,some conductors are playing a/s, for example Mariss Jansons and Mackerras.
For another,one of GM's more famous quotes is,
"Tradition ist schlumperai" - roughly "going by tradition is slovenly."
I think the the world is big enough to hold both,and each of us can have what we prefer. if I was going in for guilt-inducing,i'd...........................but I shan't. ;)
ivor
-
The final solution is to get rid of the scherzo by pretending that Mahler deleted when he revised the work. Then we can all pretend that it's a great musicicological find, and add it to M6 concerts as an addendum.
Barry,
IMO, the Scherzo movt. can still sound great if it is handled with sharp contrasts in tempo, balance, and mood. I like the old Haitink and Rattle best in this regard. Levi/ASO/Telarc is also pretty good in II. However, like you implied most performances and recordings sound boring because there isn't enough distinction between the main scherzo & trio sections.
John,
-
"IMO, the Scherzo movt. can still sound great if it is handled with sharp contrasts in tempo, balance, and mood"
Yes, of course. That's quite obvious.
"I like the old Haitink and Rattle best in this regard. Levi/ASO/Telarc is also pretty good in II"
I think Rattle does the best scherzo of anybody. It's not just fluke either, as the scherzo is equally good on both his Birmingham and Berlin recordings of M6 (the BPO has released a Rattle M6 on their own label). I can't remember the first Haitink M6 too well, but remember thinking that it was better than it ever received credit for being. Unfortunately, the scherzo is pretty dull on his Berlin remake. I agree that the scherzo is pretty good on the Levi M6. It's also quite good on the last Neuman one - Canyon Classics.
"However, like you implied most performances and recordings sound boring because there isn't enough distinction between the main scherzo & trio sections"
I would say that the entire movement is often times too slow. In fact, I would say that BOTH inner movements are often times performed too slowly. Anyway, I don't like for the trio sections to be played slowly, and there's nothing in the score to indicated that they should be slow either. But more to the point, it's more an issue of tempo relationships.
If you're going to perform the scherzo after the first movement, you need to start the scherzo at a tempo that makes sense, and not just any old tempo (MTT). To me, the ones that sound the best - in S/A order - are the ones that either perfectly match the the start of the scherzo to the ending of the first movement; match the start of the scherzo perfectly to the start of the first movment (Gielen); or find a tempo that's precisely in the middle between their starting tempo for the first movement, and their finishing tempo for the first movement (Boulez). But picking just any old tempo for the scherzo makes it sound as though it belongs to another symphony, and only adds fuel to the fire for the S/A camp.
-
Barry,
To my ears, the Rattle/CBSO/EMI with S/A order works perfectly fine. Another great Scherzo was a live concert by Schwarz/Seattle Symphony Orch. a couple years ago. It was performed as if II. was the main movt. in the piece with the lower brass literally roaring in may of the passages. It was that good!
The old Haitink recording doesn't have as much physical contrast as the Rattle or even the Levi, but he handles several key tempo shifts and changes in the mood very skillfully.
John,
-
Posted by Ivor: I can stay with S/A performances,tho' it has a bit the oddness of hearing works that you got to know on 78s,where you start to get up unnecessarily each time the music gets to where the 78 side-breaks were.
I do not dispute that Mahler ultimately decided to switch to A/S after performing the symphony live...
You seem to be implying that Mahler performed the S/A order, which he didn't. All his performances were A/S order.
-
You seem to be implying that Mahler performed the S/A order, which he didn't. All his performances were A/S order.
If I implied such, it was unintentional. I have only read one bio of Mahler, and it stated that while he composed the symphony in S/A order, he performed it in A/S order. At some point in performance, whether in rehearsals or in its first performance, the idea to change the movement order occurred to him, presumably because of the similarity of the first two movements.
The point of my post was that while I AGREE THAT MAHLER CHANGED THE ORDER TO A/S, it does not matter anymore (IMHO), because almost 100 years after his death, it has primarily been performed in S/A order and that arguing about Mahler's intentions (or nit-picking my post) is pointless now. I AM NOT SAYING THAT MAHLER PERFORMED THE SYMPHONY IN S/A ORDER.
-
Damfino, we discuss Mahler's intentions a lot of the time here.
For example,in evaluating performances.
As I've saod, in the Interpretations and Opinions thread,there's a fine line between a valid interpretation that swerves from the score (aka Mahler's intentions) and an invalid one.
Incidentally,I-I-I didn't read your post as saying or implying that Mahler played S/A,however anyone else read it.
Ivor
-
My only point was that the movement order was no big deal to me. If someone had tried to move some movements around without precedent, that would concern me. I was, in my last post, simply attempting to reiterate that point strongly to the person who somehow thought I was suggesting that Mahler preferred S/A and conducted it that way.
AFAIK, the only Mahler who was adamant about S/A was Alma.
-
Nearly LOL, actually :)
Ivor
-
The movement order issue shouldn't be a big deal to anybody. The fact is, regardless of how you slice and dice it, the sixth is still a very finale driven symphony. That's why I like playing around with them. Truthfully, some recorded performances work better played back S/A, while others work better played back A/S. It's primarily an issue of tempi and tempo relationships.
Ideally - to my tastes - the first movement and scherzo should work together as a unified Part 1. I'd like to see somebody link the two movements by making the last note of the first movement, also be the first note of the scherzo. You'd have to reduce that last note to just a forte timpani whack. My problem with putting the scherzo just before the finale, is that the last several minutes of the scherzo behave exactly the same as the last six or seven minutes of the finale do - and in the same key, more or less (predominately A-minor). Also, the start of the finale is a bit more shocking when coming off of the Eb Major resolution of the slow movement.