gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: barry guerrero on March 02, 2013, 05:57:19 AM
-
. . oh boy, is it ever good this way! A great performance made even better, IMHO.
Barry
-
And the debate about the order of the inner movements continues:
http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_features.php?id=6119
:-\
-
I will always prefer the order S/A. Even if Mahler's ghost were to visit me and proclaim "it must be A/S!!", I wouldn't care, I would still prefer the order S/A. I am glad there are still many conductors, musicians etc. who also prefer S/A (I'll still see it performed and have a number of recordings of A/S). Reading that debate linked just hurt my brain. I just don't understand the authoritarian strain which is so dominant in classical music the past, what, 50-60 years? Mr. Walker never once in his article or in the comments he posted gave any reasoning beyond "Mahler said so." My response to that is, "and, so what?" It would be funny (and not inconceivable!) if Mr. Walker actually prefers it S/A order but refuses to listen to it that way because "that's not correct, it's supposed to be A/S!!!" I would respect his opinion more if he gave additional reasons for S/A beyond appealing to authority. God it's not engineering or blueprints for the space shuttle, it's music! Does he attend a concert primarily to enjoy feeling all sanctimonious if the performer deviates from the latest urtext? Gah, makes me think of listening to a vegan go on about how much he loves his seaweed-puree meal and would never touch wine.
I know, I know I am definitely in an outside minority on this... but I think that attitude has done tremendous harm to the wider perception and enjoyment of classical music.
And I echo one of the comments? Is this actually a problem? It gives us multiple interpretations of this magnificent work to listen to and enjoy, I will not put a knife to your throat if you prefer the A/S order!
-
I also prefer the S–A order for the inner movements, an order that de La Grange advocates passionately in his massive Mahler biography. If you care to read further, here are two essays that extend beyond the "argument from authority" (although that's not a bad place to start in the case of a composer and his works).
First, in this corner, audio engineer Jerry Bruck argues for A–S in a white paper published by the Kaplan Foundation:
http://www.posthorn.com/Mahler/Correct_Movement_Order_III.pdf
And in this corner, author and critic David Hurwitz—in an examination of the most recent Critical Edition—presents counter-arguments for S–A, but insists the Critical Edition should present the facts on both sides but ultimately remain neutral on the matter:
http://www.classicstoday.com/features/ClassicsToday-Mahler6Score.pdf
James
-
Interesting, I will read these in full tomorrow. I read the first couple pages of each and I note Hurwitz noted something which both Mr. Walker and Mr. Kubik seem to take the most offense at: Mr. Ratz is a liar! I can understand the umbrage from a strictly academic historical perspective, but from a musical perspective, who cares! Mr. Ratz may have been deceptive, that may be, but it does not all of a sudden make me prefer to listen with A/S order! :)
-
Mr. Walker never once in his article or in the comments he posted gave any reasoning beyond "Mahler said so." My response to that is, "and, so what?"
I thought you were being ironic here...
-
Mr. Walker never once in his article or in the comments he posted gave any reasoning beyond "Mahler said so." My response to that is, "and, so what?"
I thought you were being ironic here...
I'm not advocating that we completely disregard composer's instructions and play mix and match with symphonic movements willy-nilly. :) But I do think it has gone too far in the other direction. Mahler 6 is an exceptional case, and I get a clear impression from the Mr. Walker's articles and his contributions in the comment thread that IF the scenario had been reversed, i.e. Mahler clearly stuck with his original order S/A but a tradition has evolved to play it A/S, Mr. Walker would be just as vehemently arguing for the "correct" S/A order! Being "correct" is the only point. I find that attitude dreadful. There are very good musical and narrative reasons for the order being S/A, obviously Mahler thought so since that was his original plan and possibly his "final" plan. I definitely agree with the reasons for S/A, and if Mahler's "final" plan was A/S, I believe he was wrong and made a mistake. And I don't think that's a specious statement, considering his sanctioned changes he permitted in performances for different circumstances, I believe his A/S change of mind could very well be motivated more by hoping to make the symphony more accessible than truly representing his musical intentions*.
*This has happened to the very greatest of composers. Think of Beethoven's Op. 130, the piece was composed with the great fugue as the finale, but after its first performance, due to mixed reaction and publisher's pressure, he replaced it with a new ending. Ugh! The short allegro finale--in the context of the work as a whole--is a trite, banal ending to a magnificent epic work. I can only stand to listen to this piece with the original fugue used as the ending. And that is not uncommon in Beethoven's late music to end a large work with a fugue. Imagine if he replaced the fugue in Op. 106 with a brief rondo!
-
. . oh boy, is it ever good this way! A great performance made even better, IMHO.
Barry
Back to the original thread point (I am sorry I got derailed onto the order controversy, I'm sure it has been discussed to death on these forums many times before, blame the link with the recent debate!). I have not heard this one, Google search tells me there is a BBC release of this? Doesn't seem available through Canadian Amazon or Arkivmusic. Did you deliberately playback with the S/A order or did you happen to hear it on the radio or something?
-
I have not heard this one, Google search tells me there is a BBC release of this? Doesn't seem available through Canadian Amazon or Arkivmusic.
The performance was given on 2002-11-16 in Bridgewater Hall, Manchester. The recording was released as one of those free CDs that come with the BBC Music Magazine (Issue 251 - Vol. 13, No. 7 - 2005). There seem to be copies available at Amazon.com.
James
-
Ultimately, the whole movement order debate is really ALMOST a non-issue, simply due to the fact that Mahler 6 is so much a finale orientated symphony. Everything in the symphony gets churned around, blown up, smashed apart and finally buried in the earth during the finale. My preference for S/A is based on two purely musical issues, nothing more.
First, while it's true that following the first movement with the scherzo is really sort of like starting over again, I think the bigger issue is that the end of the scherzo has a similar sort of 'fade out' - in minor - that the finale has. It's even in the same key. Second, I feel that the start of the finale is more shocking after following the Eb major resolution of the slow movement. It lends more of a feeling of, "oh boy, here we go". But in the end, it's the finale that leaves you feeling that you really just experienced quite an ordeal.
-
Ultimately, the whole movement order debate is really ALMOST a non-issue, simply due to the fact that Mahler 6 is so much a finale orientated symphony. Everything in the symphony gets churned around, blown up, smashed apart and finally buried in the earth during the finale. My preference for S/A is based on two purely musical issues, nothing more.
First, while it's true that following the first movement with the scherzo is really sort of like starting over again, I think the bigger issue is that the end of the scherzo has a similar sort of 'fade out' - in minor - that the finale has. It's even in the same key. Second, I feel that the start of the finale is more shocking after following the Eb major resolution of the slow movement. It lends more of a feeling of, "oh boy, here we go". But in the end, it's the finale that leaves you feeling that you really just experienced quite an ordeal.
I strongly agree, when I listen to it with the A/S order I have my personal difficulties with it (similar to your reasons) during the course of it, but at the start of the 30 minute finale, all is forgotten.
-
Back to the original thread point (I am sorry I got derailed onto the order controversy, I'm sure it has been discussed to death on these forums many times before, blame the link with the recent debate!).
Hey! >:(
Barry's original post was made back in March and it was as good as dead and buried with no reply until I added that link. And it's not as if this place is a hive of activity. I come here regularly to see if there are interesting discussions to read, but a week can go by with barely a post. Sometimes I wonder if it should be renamed the gustavmahlerbored.
-
Barry has a great point and I totally agree.
The only recording that has the A/S order and works for me is Zinman's on RCA simply because he conducts the A like the S, the S like the A.
John,
-
I hope the Mackers M6 gets a commercial release. I'm dying to hear it but I can never secure a copy easily, especially when it comes as a disc with the BBC magazine.
I'm dying to hear it because I've heard Mackers' M5 and found it to be simply one of the greatest versions of that work ever recorded. The Liverpool orchestra play with enormous gusto and verve and the brass section is amazing. Mackerras, too, proportions the work perfectly, giving us a longer-than-usual first part to highlight the music's darkness and wildness, a fleet, bubbly scherzo with a fine solo horn, a beautifully shaded, songful Adagietto and finally a finale that bubbles with rhythmic and contrapuntal alacrity.
As of now this great M5 is only available in Mackerras' Icon box or the big EMI Eminence box, i.e. it's no longer available individually. Thankfully I found a cheap copy of the now deleted Classics for Pleasure individual disc. His Mahler 1 was less special though it bore similar merits with this M5. I look forward to hearing his 6th although I doubt I ever will.
Regarding the Andante-Scherzo or Scherzo-Andante matter, I suppose since both ways are "valid", what I prefer depends on the performance of the Finale. I think a performance with a very long finale (eg. Sinopoli, Bernstein, Tennstedt, Barbirolli) would be better off with a S-A order since the Andante should serve as a focal point to balance the stylistically similar first part (1st mvt and Scherzo) and the weighty Finale. If it were played in the A-S order the latter part (Scherzo and Finale) would be way too weighty to balance the first movement. That is why I always prefer playing the Barbirolli in the S-A order despite Barb's performance practice. However if the performance sports a fast and furious finale (Solti, Kubelik, Kondrashin), the order should be A-S to retain the weight proportions of the first and second parts with the Andante as the focal point. Just my opinion.
-
I have a soft spot for Zinman's earlier recording with Baltimore S.O. that was released only internally. It omitted the 1st movt. repeat but otherwise is a terrific performance on par or even better than the RCA version. And it features two awesome hammer blows electronically enhanced.
John,
-
Hey! >:(
Barry's original post was made back in March and it was as good as dead and buried with no reply until I added that link. And it's not as if this place is a hive of activity. I come here regularly to see if there are interesting discussions to read, but a week can go by with barely a post. Sometimes I wonder if it should be renamed the gustavmahlerbored.
:) I didn't mind, since I am new to this board, I had figured it has been discussed countless times in the past and I didn't want to bore anyone with treading over very familiar ground. 8)
-
:-* No probs. I'm just happy to find something to read, even if it's mostly a retread.
I've been imprinted with S/A order and therefore prefer it that way. No doubt, if I listened to it for a while in just A/S order that might change. When I first bought M6 way back on LPs, I transferred it to cassette tape with the first two movements together on one side. Not studying up on it and being musically ignorant (still something of a problem) for a while I didn't realise that it was two separate movements ::)
One of my first Mahler recordings was the LSO/Solti M2 (still love it). The first movement ending with the descending scale in rapid triplets* was something of a jolt, but after listening to the recording countless times it obviously became imprinted as the way it should sound. When I got my next recording of M2, I think it was the CBSO/Rattle, the much slower descent just sounded awful to me and it took some time to get used to. Now, when I go back and listen to the Solti M2, the descent seems way too fast. Go figure.
* I C&Pd that, so don't get the impression that I really know what I'm talking about ;D
-
brunumb, I learned the Mahler 2nd via the Solti recording as well. It took a long time for me to get used to it in a version other than Solti's breakneck speed approach. The other day, I was listening to Bohm's VPO recording of Beethoven's 5th. I usually defer to Kleiber or Karajan for the Beethoven 5th, so the Bohm recording seemed a bit slow. However, I grew accustomed to the slower tempo as I listened and felt that the recording still managed to be exciting. At the work's conclusion, I then threw on the Kleiber recording for comparison which immediately struck me as "too fast". Even though I still consider the Kleiber Beethoven 5th my favorite, I quite liked Bohm's weightier approach as well. I guess that's why we have so many versions of our favorite works.
I will always prefer S/A order in M6. As to the "problem" of the Mahler 6 and the SA/AS controversy, I have always assumed that some felt the scherzo was too similar to the first movement. It does strike one that way on first listen, but after the scherzo progresses, it becomes an entirely different animal from the allegro and I see little similarity. I feel that the so-called problem of the 6th occurs as well with the 5th. I seem to remember that the first time I heard the 5th, I thought the 2nd movement was part of the first, as it develops into a sort of funeral march vibe after the stormy beginning.
Another reason I like S/A is that in the "narrative" of the symphony, the hero allegedly is felled in the last movement by the hammer-blows. The effectiveness of the last movement is heightened (for me) by coming as it does on the heels of the beautiful andante. The andante has a tinge of impending loss about it. So, at the beginning, the hero is going to face the final test, and the andante has a "quiet before the storm" quality about it by appearing before the cataclysmic ending. For me the A/S order takes away the works cohesiveness.
-
I am brand new to this board. I am 66 years old, gay, male, having over 50 years devotion to classical music as an orchestral and chamber ensemble violinist, and (later) conductor, with a B.A from Occidental College. and Master of Music degree from Lewis and Clark College. I played and taught violin +30 years in the San Francisco Bay Area. My favorite ensembles to perform with during those years were the Berkeley Symphony Orchestra, Oakland Opera, and Oakland Ballet orchestras, under the direction of Kent Nagano, during the 1980s. I am a native of Los Angeles, CA, was born in Glendale, CA, raised in Studio City, CA. Other places I have lived for diverse numbers of years, are Chicago, IL, Portland, OR, San Francisco and Walnut Creek, CA. I currently reside in Los Angeles, having returned "home" in 1999.
That is probably enough for the present. Later I will contribute some remarks on the topic of A/S vs S/A in Mahler's 6th Symphony, along with my current feelings and ideas on the matter, which I believe are distinct though related to those contributed by others, here.
-
I am brand new to this board. I am 66 years old, gay, male, having over 50 years devotion to classical music as an orchestral and chamber ensemble violinist, and (later) conductor, with a B.A from Occidental College. and Master of Music degree from Lewis and Clark College. I played and taught violin +30 years in the San Francisco Bay Area. My favorite ensembles to perform with during those years were the Berkeley Symphony Orchestra, Oakland Opera, and Oakland Ballet orchestras, under the direction of Kent Nagano, during the 1980s. I am a native of Los Angeles, CA, was born in Glendale, CA, raised in Studio City, CA. Other places I have lived for diverse numbers of years, are Chicago, IL, Portland, OR, San Francisco and Walnut Creek, CA. I currently reside in Los Angeles, having returned "home" in 1999.
That is probably enough for the present. Later I will contribute some remarks on the topic of A/S vs S/A in Mahler's 6th Symphony, along with my current feelings and ideas on the matter, which I believe are distinct though related to those contributed by others, here.
Welcome!
-
Yes, welcome TomegM10; I look forward to reading your posts.
James
-
I am basically agnostic whether to order the middle movements, Scherzo first followed by Andante, or reversed. I believe a persuasive interpretation of the entire symphony can be achieved, either way.
When I first encountered Mahler's 6th was during my junior year at Occidental College. I had not yet heard anything like the 6th, not even any other Mahler Symphony, including the 1st, 2d, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, and 9th Symphonies. The 6th shocked me with its militancy mixed with fury in the 1st Movement. I had to play the 1st Mvt. over several times before I could proceed to the 2d, 3rd and 4th Mvts. I have always loved marches, since I was a little kid. Once about age 6 or 7, my sister gifted me with passes to see The Captain from Castile. I so loved the march tune and accompanying scene in the film, my sister gave me the soundtrack recording for Christmas. She told me many years later that when the march music commenced I would stand up and begin waving my hands in strong chopping motions, while my face turned red, veins in my temples bulged, until I was perspiring copiously and out of breath. A few minutes later I wanted to do it again. I was told by our mother I would have to wait until another time when there were fewer people (like, none) around.
So, the vigorous march rhythms and flourishes in the 1st Mvt captivated me, and I started conducting all over again, physically or in imagination. I believe clearly defined, step-wise progress through each of the four movements is key to interpreting the music. The 1st Mvt Allegro Energico tempo should be a brisk but not hurried march step, about crotchet equals 120bpm. As it happens that is closest to the tempo Jascha Horenstein takes in the 1st Mvt, though several other conductors are in that general tempo range, 120-132 or so. The important thing is each step must register decisively and deliberately, like a well trained company of soldiers would be taught to march, left-right left-right etc. There can almost be discerned a "get out of my way, I'm coming through" resolve and decisiveness in each step, whether it is hear aloud or just "felt" as the sections play out. The basic tempo can be modified, for example, at the entry of the Alma second subject, broadened a bit for a couple of measures, but must then be a tempo, passing up the temptation to broaden again at each iteration of the four upward notes sweep, or variants of it. I like Maazel's tempo mod for Alma in his recording with the Concertgebouw Orchestra, but feel it gets a bit carried away with itself, so there's a feeling almost of listening in slow-mo; and it can be queasy making some times. But, as I said, I like it. It is in the spirit of the overall tempo scheme, which is always some form or play on the march rhythm. Even in the quieter passages, still a subtle tick-tock should be felt if not heard. The cumulative energy, feeling and power of the march rises to astonishing heights at the conclusion of the movement.
For the 2d Mvt I prefer the Andante to come first. I never have felt entirely comfortable with Scherzo followed by Andante followed by the Finale. Barbirolli's studio recording with the New Philharmonia was my reference, but even his ordering (or what I thought was his choice of order) didn't persuade me that it was the right one. Until only recently, it hadn't occurred to me that possibly the order EMI imposed wasn't Sir John's choice. Now I believe I understand what felt wrong to me. The key factor again is tempo and the rhythm of a march, or, in the Andante, a step as though on a leisurely walk through the garden or the forest (die Wald), observing both past and present delights and treasured moments. The movement should be calm and fairly cool, even when things get louder and more hectic, there should be a sense of the need to return to the initial walking tempo which evens matters out. I don't believe the Andante is a large scale tragic outcry or lament, it just isn't in the notes here, which are simple to the point of naive, a child-like consciousness in the midst of bigger things developing in the other movements.
The Scherzo should be sharply accented and weighted on the heavy side. It's a bit of a peasant dance step which beat is elaborated on and transformed. It's a bit spooky, too, as only Mahler could be spooky and peek-a-boo. But there is always deliberate progress through each development so as not to bog down or become frantic, just moving on and along.
The Finale, once again, there is the extraordinary march rhythm which plows through every obstacle, scales any and every height, and retains its footing throughout. The interlude section, mysterious sounding as it is, must also give way to the march tread, which has an unmistakeable feeling of inexorability.
Tempo, then, I believe, is the key to each and all of the 4 movements of the Sixth. Other considerations are welcome, but any scheme must come to terms with the stepping/marching rhythms.
Enough for this writing session...
-
Well written and thoughtful analysis! Is there any composer other than Mahler for whom the march was so important (other than Sousa, Fillmore, etc.)? The 6th has always been a special work, and it can be handled in so many different, and equally valid, ways. All it takes is the guts to play it for all it's worth. My first recording was the Barbirolli on LP many many years ago and at that time the LP arrangement was such that the order of the middle movements was AS which the label changed, of course flipping the 2nd record over changed that easily enough as long as you stopped at the end of the Andante since the finale was split over two sides. Over the years, I came to prefer SA as making the most sense then I think it was the Fischer recording that changed it and it does make a difference! For some reason when the scherzo is after the Andante, you listen to it differently - and the interpretations are different, too. It's really too bad we don't have an absolutely definitive statement from Mahler on the correct order and we'll never be sure. But whatever order is used, it's still a strong, stunning symphony!
I did have the special treat a number of years ago of hearing the finale with the 3rd hammer blow reinstated. It's not just that percussion note - the whole orchestration is different. The conductor in Tucson decided to use the original 3 stroke finale and it was thrilling.
-
Actually, there's even more to it than that. The three-stroke version stems from a first version of the symphony that has quite a few differences in the brass and percussion. In general, the finale has quite a bit more percussion than the revised version. Hard to believe, I know, but you can see the differences if you own the Dover Edition. I would love it if somebody would perform and record the first version of the entire finale.
-
Actually, there's even more to it than that. The three-stroke version stems from a first version of the symphony that has quite a few differences in the brass and percussion. In general, the finale has quite a bit more percussion than the revised version. Hard to believe, I know, but you can see the differences if you own the Dover Edition. I would love it if somebody would perform and record the first version of the entire finale.
Barry,
Benjamin Zander recorded both the first and final versions of the finale. It's definitely interesting to hear the differences, and I definitely noticed the increased percussion participation in the original. Good luck if you can find a copy, for it's now out of print.
Wade
-
Not quite. Zander resorts to the 'first version' only in the area surrounding the third hammer-stroke. The rest of it is the revised version.
It was a bit of false advertising when Telarc began putting stickers on the cover, stating that it contained the "original version" (or something like that). I e-mailed Telarc and pointed this out to them. After that, they ceased arriving in stores with that sticker on them.
-
The Mackerras Icon box with the Mahler 5 is selling for $13.05.
Tom in Vermont
-
TomegM10, welcome to the forum, and thanks for your perspective.
In M6, I prefer S/A order, but mainly because I grew up hearing it that way. And, I feel that the repose of the Andante is helpful before the intensity of the 30-minute finale.
That said, I listened to quite a few M6s in the last couple months, and A/S order does not bother me.
I agree that the march rhythms should feel inexorable. I used to think that that required a relatively slow tempo, but now I feel it's more a matter of inflection. One gauge I use is that the 16th notes in the first movement should sound distinctly instead of being a "cloud of insects," but in a good performance, this can work even at a relatively brisk tempo.
Also, I am in accord with Emerson, when he wrote that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I love both the Kubelik/BRSO (studio) M6 and Barbirolli (also studio), even though these performance are at the opposite of the speed spectrum.
-
For the 2d Mvt I prefer the Andante to come first. I never have felt entirely comfortable with Scherzo followed by Andante followed by the Finale. Barbirolli's studio recording with the New Philharmonia was my reference, but even his ordering (or what I thought was his choice of order) didn't persuade me that it was the right one. Until only recently, it hadn't occurred to me that possibly the order EMI imposed wasn't Sir John's choice.
Barbirolli recorded it with A/S which is the way he performed it, but EMI issued the LP with S/A which upset him. When the CD was reissued it reverted to A/S as he originally wanted.