I'm doing a thorough study/comparison of Mahler 6, first version (Dover Edition)

[barry guerrero]

As most everyone knows, the Dover Edition of Mahler 6 is of the first version. There's much more to it than just the inclusion of the third hammer-stroke. Anyway, I don't own the Dover, but I have one coming in the mail. Why am I bothering to do this?   .    .   . 

Because I want a better idea of where Mahler was coming from. I want to see the musical evolution of M6 for this simple reason: I think the notion that M6 is biographically linked to his marriage to Alma is utter nonsense.  I'm convinced that frustrations with Alma in those early years (of marriage) had nothing to do with it. Certain bad days might have put him more, 'in the mood' to dwell in the minor mode, but there's plenty of major mode music in M6 as well.

[Russ Smiley]

Though he draws heavily from personal experiences to craft the imagery (e.g. cowbells), I've always felt Mahler's Sixth symphony was a dramatic tale, just not his own. To me it is his Symphonie Fantastique without the direct biographical underpinning. Commentators cite the most classical form of this work, but I imagine Mahler challenging himself to weave tragic story telling into a traditional symphonic structure just to show he is a master of both. (I think M7 continues the thematic fantasy, but reverts to unconventional structure - and M8 takes it further.) To me, the debates on S/A vs. A/S and removal of the third hammer blow are artifacts of the challenges.

[barry guerrero]

"but I imagine Mahler challenging himself to weave tragic story telling into a traditional symphonic structure just to show he is a master of both"

Works for me. But I'm just going to be comparing page by page: first version vs. revised version. I'm convinced it'll help me to understand the genesis of the work.

I know one passage I already like better in the first version: the 'false victory' parade music towards the end of the finale (before the location of the third hammer stroke). The banal 'victory tune' is played by three trombones (instead of unison horns), while the 'fate rhythm' in the timpani is double with snare drum. I would add cymbals as well; have the trombones stand, and double them with the unison horns (who can remain seated). I might even add three short hammer strokes at the end of that passage (before the plate cymbal roll). Everything in the finale leads to that moment.

[barry guerrero]

My Dover Edition of symphonies 5&6 has arrived, so I'll begin making comparisons now. More later.

[AZContrabassoon]

You might also want to compare Dover with the Eulenberg edition. I assume you're comparing Dover to the Critical Edition? There are some differences in the Eulenberg that makes me wish that a set of performing parts was available and someone would perform it. Granted, most people would never hear a difference. I was really fortunate a few years back when the Tucson Symphony did the finale using the original version - three hammerstrokes and greatly changed orchestration. It was a stunning revelation and I really think that Mahler's first thoughts were superior. But any way you hear it, it's a great, life-changing symphony.

[waderice]

Benjamin Zander's recording of M6 has two different recordings of the Finale - one with the original three hammer strokes, and the other as GM's final word on the Finale.  I find the original quite interesting, even if the orchestration is somewhat more dense in places.

Wade

[barry guerrero]

Sorry Wade, but that was a fallacy. Zander only changed the orchestration surrounding the third hammer stroke. The rest of it IS the revised version. I contacted Telarc and made them aware that their sticker proclaiming the recording to have the "original version" of the finale was false. After that, Telarc ceased to put the label on. This can verified by simply following the Dover score with the recording.

There are two or three other strange anomalies to Zander's M6 recording, none of them having to do with a first version. For example, why is there a hammer stroke in the scherzo?   .    .    .  I contacted Zander about that, and he denied that it was a hammer. But it certainly wasn't the timbre of a bass drum or timpani. What was it then?  I don't own the recording any more, so I can't give the precise location of where I'm talking about. 

Differences between the two versions are rather minor in the first three movements, but there are many major differences in orchestration in the finale (no MAJOR/minor pun intended). There's much more percussion in the first version, for example.

In the first version, the 'false victory parade' march music near the end of the finale is very different. Instead of unison horns, Mahler had 3 trombones play the 'parade tune' fortissimo, with timpani doubled by the snare drum (the fate rhythm that lies underneath). One wonders if Mahler might have toyed with having them stand there (I would!). EVERYTHING in the finale leads to that one brief moment, then everything collapses.

By the way, Simone Young nails that very spot (still the revised version).

[James Meckley]

You might also want to compare Dover with the Eulenberg edition.

According to my notes the Eulenburg score and the Dover score are both based on the first edition of the symphony. Hans Redlich corrected some of the errors present in the first edition when he prepared the Eulenburg score, but Dover made no corrections when preparing theirs, so Eulenburg and Dover differ only in that respect.

James

[barry guerrero]

I do have the Eulenburg, but it's awfully small. I'll give it my best shot.

And Wade, I want to apologize now as I misread what you were trying to convey. My bad.