more experimentations in switching M6 inner movements

[Ivor]

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

[Damfino]

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.

[Ivor]

Nearly LOL, actually 


   Ivor

[barry guerrero]

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.