General Category > Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions

OK, here's what I did with the Abbado/BPO M6 . . .

(1/3) > >>

barry guerrero:
This is just to prove what a Mahler psycho I really am. I picked up the sacd/cd hybrid version of the Abbado/BPO M6 - which is spread across two discs - and burned a copy of it on to one disc, but in S/A order (the scherzo and andante movements are broken across the two discs). As you guys know, I'm not terribly didactic or opinionated (yes, I am) on movement order with the sixth Mahler. In general, if a performance has a fairly lively scherzo combined with a faster than normal andante movement, I prefer to hear in S/A order. I feel that the start of the finale is far more unsettling when it follows the Eb major resolution of the andante movement. Anyway, if the conductor turns the Andante into an adagio (many of them do), and he/she has a somewhat "clunky" sounding scherzo as well, I prefer to hear that in A/S order. Anyway, I've yet to listen to my new Frankenstein, but I bet I'll like it just fine. In the case of Abbado/BPO, the start of the scherzo is pretty much at the same tempo as the end of the first movement.

As for some "hybrids" of my matrix, the Gielen M6 works fine in S/A order. His scherzo is so slow and craggy (very expressionistic), that it matches his tempo for the very beginning of the symphony, also done slower than normal. He follows all this slowness with a 14 minute andante, followed by the usual half-hour long finale. I don't see any need to tamper with his results. Neumann's Canyon Classics M6, just might work equally well in A/S order. He does the scherzo really fast (less than 12 minutes), but his andante stretches beyond 16 minutes. It might be interesting to hear a really fast scherzo come after the slow movement, I don't know.

So, given that matrix, I very much prefered hearing the MTT/SFSO in A/S order (and traded it), especially given that he does the end of the first movement really fast (Karajan does too). Apparently, MTT did perform it A/S in Los Angeles a couple of years ago. I'm thinking of picking up Karajan's M6 - yet again! - and give it a new try in A/S order. Sorry, but I definitely don't feel that the Karajan works, as a conception, in S/A order; especially since he's so fast with the end of the first movement. I also want to try this on Eschenbach/Philly, which I believe to be a very strong performance all the way around. However, his scherzo is a tad "clunky", and his slow movement stretches beyond 17 minutes too. I think it just might gel even better in A/S form.

So, why the que sera' opinion about movement order with M6? Well, regardless of what smoking guns the Mahler scholars supposedly uncover, I feel that if Mahler had lived another twenty or thirty years, he might have vascillated back and forth as well; and, possibly have settled upon a "whatever" view point too. You see, regardless of inner movement order, the sixth Mahler is still very much a finale driven symphony. In the long run, it just doesn't matter that much. If that weren't true, it wouldn't have possible to have three or four decades worth of S/A performances and recordings, without tons of listeners shouting "yuck!" as well. Think about that. At your service (and boredom) as always,

Barry

barry guerrero:
Allow me to put this in another, much shorter way: the two Berlin Philharmonic M6 recordings are goofed-up. The Karajan should be in A/S order, while the Abbado could have more impact in S/A order (my prefered order). Think about that for a second. Now it's time for me to go listen to some '50s west coast jazz    .     .     .    or get a life.

Barry

Leo K:
Barry, you've convinced me to try the Karajan in A/S order...I feel it's going to sound even more epic than it is.  I ususally prefer the S/A arrangement...but lately I've been thinking otherwise.

Still, I feel Mahler should have left his 1st idea alone...because with the Scherzo in 2nd place, you have something like the Part I of the 5th...two movements that are virtually the same, but different (like frateral twins).  I feel this was a more interesting "edgy" idea to introduce to sonata-based symphonic form...a kind of large scale "theme and variations" without a theme intertwined within large scale sonata-form.  I don't know if this is making sense.

But when I hear a great performance that utilizes A/S in a great way (such as Barbarolli, Rattle or Abbado) I can see why Mahler went for the switch.

But like you said, as a Finale-driven work, it really could be a small point in the final analyses.  I can't to hear your impressions on what you find with your new frankenstein Abbado! 8)



 

sperlsco:

--- Quote from: barry guerrero on January 05, 2007, 07:11:58 PM ---...and burned a copy of it on to one disc, but in S/A order Barry

--- End quote ---

Well of course.  I do this with every M6 that comes in A-S order.   ;D 

Try the Mackeras this way. 

Leo K:
I wrote about my opinion on the A/S order on a 60's soft pop/rock related forum (hence the reference to Dylan---there are a couple Mahler fans on there so I started a discussion).  

Here goes (for what it's worth):

Did Mahler quietly make this revision without telling his wife? I’m not sure, but we do know that Alma witnessed his anxiety at the premiere, which she attributed to the 'dark omen’ underlying the ‘three great blows of fate’ in the finale.”

Mahler’s revision here reminds me of Dylan’s lyrical and recorded revisions for some of his songs on Blood On The Tracks. Dylan’s revised songs are wonderful, but they aren’t as personal, or naked as his first conceptions of the songs. In my opinion, the 6th has more bite and fear with the scherzo played before the andante, and with the third hammer blow left in. The first version of the 6th is as intimate as Mahler and Alma alone together…playing at the piano in their house, or on an outing with their children and etc. So I generally prefer the 1st version.

At the same time, I can appreciate Mahler’s revision…the emotional impact of the work takes on another story when the andante is played before the Scherzo. When the andante is played right after the 1st movement (when ends in a major key), it can be heard as a tender interlude, a daydream, perhaps an illusion of happiness, especially if the conductor shortens the length (by speeding up the tempo) and doesn’t exaggerate the swells, upheaval and romance of the strings. I’ve read opinions that suggest the best interpretation of the andante (played before the scherzo) is one that acts like a entr’acte, or lyrical break avoiding a dramatic swell of emotion…plays it subtler. I used to think playing it faster (if played before Scherzo) was the way to go, but I'm not so sure now.

If the Andante is played AFTER the Scherzo, I feel it sounds better to let loose and really play up the cliché romantic swells and turn it into a real journey, like Bernstein and Karajan does. Here the andante is an ocean of bliss (excuse me as I wax alittle poetical here)…a love that is killing the hero…binding him to existence with no mercy…an existence of physical and emotional attraction he can’t turn from, can’t escape, yet Lady Death is still so beautiful. Placed third, the andante is a perfect introduction to the final curtain of the finale.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page