The question should not be put in terms of orthodox vs heretics. Here we are dealing with responsabilities of professionals in musicological and performing fields.
The question is that, on the musical point of view, there are more reasons in favor of the S/A order; on the other hand, there is what Mahler did in conducting the Sixth. I think that who are supposed to be in charge of Mahler's legacy should simply take note of this, without taking sides (maybe, instead of throwing new edition of works available, they should concentrate themselves and their funds on editing works that are not yet available, such as the Hamburg version of the First and Mahler's arrangements of works by Beethoven, Schubert etc.. They are among the plans of the IGMG, but not in the first place as they deserve) .
In beginning my post I was a little heated and I wrote that Mr. Kubik should be the custodian of Mahler's texts. Since I believe the "text" of music is its performance, I should have written that IGMG should be the custodian of Mahler's "recipes": they have to put together and to present as clearly as possible all the ingredients in order to put the performers in the right position to make informed and responsible choices.
If a conductor is able to perform the Sixth making people feel that the A/S order is, if not correct, acceptable, he has his right to perform the Symphony so. If one likes the A/S order, he/she has the right to reverse the order of recordings that do not present it (as I do with recordings that present it...). I don't want to impose waht I think to be correct order to anyone and I don't want somebody to impose what he feels correct on me.
Nevertheless, as I wrote, I try to maintain an open mind. Consider, for example, M. Tilson Thomas' recording of the Fourth. He has no regards for contrasts in changing the tempos required by Mahler between numbers 9 and 11 of the third movement. I was surprised on first hearing it, but, Thomas conception (and San Francisco Symphony great execution) of this Symphony, forced me to find this choice apt and the result wonderful. I don't feel guilty (or heretic) when performances that disregard Mahler instructions succeed in bringing to light the beauty and the greatness of Mahler's music. I tried Mr. Norrington's approach without prejudices and I found that it doesn't work. I'm not irritated with Mr. Norrington approach or with the ones that find it nice, I'm really irritated with him and (less) with his fans when they claim that it must be THE approach.
Consider now this example of "criticism":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/07/AR2010050702750.htmland focuse your attention on these two passages:
1) "One unusual approach comes from Roger Norrington, a noted proponent of original playing styles. For his live recording of Mahler's Ninth, Norrington had the orchestra's strings play in the style of Mahler's time, in which vibrato was minimal or absent except as a special effect. The effect of this clean, transparent sound on Mahler's last completed symphony is quite wonderful: Far from being dense and doom-laden, it emerges as a work of surprising optimism despite a sense of abschied (farewell) throughout."
2) "By contrast, Christoph Eschenbach's performance of Mahler's First Symphony is rather ordinary: It does not seem as thoroughly thought-through as those of Norrington, Olson and Zinman. Eschenbach repeatedly slips into small but irritating mannerisms, such as a ritard and brief pause before this or that emphatic chord -- a disruption of flow that Mahler, a brilliant conductor, was perfectly capable of writing into the score had he wanted it. The playing is excellent throughout -- the brass is especially good -- but the quieter sections are not as expressive as they can be. There is plenty of skill in Eschenbach's performance, but it is rather lacking in heart."
It is impossbile to assume as a fact that "the orchestra's strings play in the style of Mahler's time, in which vibrato was minimal or absent except as a special effect" and then taking this as a point of departure for a review. Moreover, even if I can feel a sense of hardly gained serene abandonment at eh end of the Ninth and of Das Lied, to speak about "optimism" is really too much.
I like Eschenbach last release. After reading this review, since I did not recall what the reviewer complains, I listen to it again, score at hand. At least in this recording, Eschenbach does not use the latest critical edition. Nevertheless, a part emphasizing a V/I resolution between bars 37/38 of the Scherzo, he follows Mahler instructions rather closely, including the Luftpause that irritated the above critic ("a disruption of flow that Mahler, a brilliant conductor, was perfectly capable of writing into the score had he wanted it"-well, mate, actually he did write it!).
The Norrington's has been largely discussed here. About the Eschenbach's, here they are two different reviews with which I'm happy to agree:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12764http://www.classicstodayfrance.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3576The problem, what I find irritating, is that there will be people who will buy the Norrington's because the critic insinuated that he performs Mahler as it should be and who will stay away from the Eschenbach's because of his alleged liberties. The issue is not concert goer and listener's tastes, the real problem is the integrity of musicologists (check also what Benjamin Korstvedt did:
http://www.classicstodayfrance.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3595), performers and critcs.
Luca
P.S.
Barry,
there is no E natural at the Finale beginning. The first comes at bar 9 (first trumpet (ff) and first trombone (ff)).
