Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra and Semyon Bychkov perform Mahler's 6th.

[James Meckley]

I'd be very interested in hearing his explanation (or your summary thereof) if you would be so kind.
 

My summary would go something like this (and I welcome Steven's additions and corrections after he listens to his recording, since I didn't take notes):

1) Mr. Bychkov first conducted the Mahler Sixth about 30 years ago and has been interested in the work ever since.

2) When he first performed the work, he used the Scherzo–Andante movement order, which was the "official" one at the time. He said he liked that order because it placed the tranquility and peace of the Andante as an emotional "oasis" just before the tumult and upheaval of the Finale. On the other hand, he said he was troubled by the sameness of the end of the first movement and the beginning of the Scherzo, making it seem like he was conducting one gigantic opening movement.

3) When he was engaged to conduct the present series of concerts in St. Louis—in view of the new Critical Edition of the Sixth (Kubik, 2010)—he anticipated using the now-official Andante–Scherzo order, and had the orchestra print programs which reflected that choice, although he confessed during this interview that he hadn't entirely made up his mind.

4) As he began to rehearse the work and experiment with options, he decided that the new order didn't work as well as the old one, so he reverted to the Scherzo–Andante order at the eleventh hour. I believe he also said (and perhaps Steven can clarify this) that he considered doing Scherzo–Andante on the February 4 concert and Andante–Scherzo on February 5. He obviously didn't do that; Scherzo–Andante was done at both concerts.

James

[barry guerrero]

I knew it!

[sperlsco]

I'd be very interested in hearing his explanation (or your summary thereof) if you would be so kind. 
 

2) When he first performed the work, he used the Scherzo–Andante movement order, which was the "official" one at the time. He said liked that order because it placed the tranquility and peace of the Andante as an emotional "oasis" just before the tumult and upheaval of the Finale. On the other hand, he said he was troubled by the sameness of the end of the first movement and the beginning of the Scherzo, making it seem like he was conducting one gigantic opening movement.

James

Thanks.  That pretty much summarizes my own personal opinion on the matter too.

[sbugala]

I'd be very interested in hearing his explanation (or your summary thereof) if you would be so kind.
 

My summary would go something like this (and I welcome Steven's additions and corrections after he listens to his recording, since I didn't take notes):

1) Mr. Bychkov first conducted the Mahler Sixth about 30 years ago and has been interested in the work ever since.

2) When he first performed the work, he used the Scherzo–Andante movement order, which was the "official" one at the time. He said he liked that order because it placed the tranquility and peace of the Andante as an emotional "oasis" just before the tumult and upheaval of the Finale. On the other hand, he said he was troubled by the sameness of the end of the first movement and the beginning of the Scherzo, making it seem like he was conducting one gigantic opening movement.

3) When he was engaged to conduct the present series of concerts in St. Louis—in view of the new Critical Edition of the Sixth (Kubik, 2010)—he anticipated using the now-official Andante–Scherzo order, and had the orchestra print programs which reflected that choice, although he confessed during this interview that he hadn't entirely made up his mind.

4) As he began to rehearse the work and experiment with options, he decided that the new order didn't work as well as the old one, so he reverted to the Scherzo–Andante order at the eleventh hour. I believe he also said (and perhaps Steven can clarify this) that he considered doing Scherzo–Andante on the February 4 concert and Andante–Scherzo on February 5. He obviously didn't do that; Scherzo–Andante was done at both concerts.

James

I agree with everything you've said. I think it's pretty cool if a conductor is thinking about things until the last moment, within reason. He did keep the order Scherzo-Andante for both concerts, but I was kinda hoping he'd do a switch, as well. 

[sbugala]

This is way late, but I'll be curious if things kinda hold the same when Bychkov does the 6th with the Vienna PO: http://kdhx.org/music/reviews/concert-review-passion-and-precision-in-mahlers-symphony-no-6-by-the-st-louis-symphony-february-4-2011?print=1&tmpl=component

It's from a St. Louis Community Radio Station.

[barry guerrero]

Scott,

I know you may not agree with what I'm about to say, but the reasons seem pretty darn clear and logical to me. Historical evidence for A/S is rather slim at best. Obviously, there was some controversy, and still some doubt in Mahler's mind. S/A works better from a key relationship scheme, if nothing else. It's been pointed out that following the first movement with the scherzo is rather like beginning the symphony all over again, in A-minor. But those same folks fail to notice that the scherzo dissolves and slinks off into nothingness, pretty much the same way that the finale does (with one obvious big difference, of course). All that ALSO happens in A-minor. The beginning of the finale, basically centered around C, is much more shocking after the Eb major resolution at the end of the andante. If this weren't true - from a purely musical basis, that is - then an entire generation of conductors wouldn't have been suckered into performing the symphony in S/A order to begin with. My two cents.

B.

[Amphissa]

I guess the old A/S vs S/A argument is still rich fodder for the boards. Looks like it is still where I left it before I went on hiatus. How you doing Barry?

I like Bychkov a lot. I'm not sure why he hasn't been picked up by a major American orchestra. Anyone who has heard or seen the DVDs of his work with the Koln orchestra knows the man is an outstanding conductor. And he married well.

"Historical evidence for A/S is rather slim at best." Sure -- that's why the critical edition uses it.

"still some doubt in Mahler's mind."  It's good to be able to read the mind of a dead man. A rare ability that I missed out on.

"an entire generation of conductors wouldn't have been suckered into performing the symphony in S/A order to begin with." That's obvious.

This argument is rather like scientists vs theists. No amount of real evidence is ever enough to overcome belief.

It would be better, I think, if everyone just said "I like hearing it this way" and leave it at that. No one can argue about a person's individual preference -- you either like it or not.

[waderice]

I like Bychkov a lot. I'm not sure why he hasn't been picked up by a major American orchestra.

Oh, I'm sure there are a LOT of major American orchestras who would like to have Bychkov as music director.  Also Gergiev.  And one orchestra who had Temirkanov as director was Baltimore.  Temirkanov no longer conducts regularly in America.  Though these guys make much money in Europe and elsewhere, they don't say out loud that they don't want to come to America as director of a major American orchestra.  The reason they don't is because of American taxes biting into the money they take in working here, just as any other American.  There are numerous stories of foreign-born conductors and singers from years past who had problems with the IRS on unpaid taxes.  Unless you're a really big name with a really big contract and you're of a nationality other than American, there are not many non-Americans willing nowadays to take on the leadership of a major American orchestra.  Word gets around between foreign-born conductors about the losses due to taxes if you become music director of a major American orchestra.  In addition to the tax issue, foreign-born conductors contemplating leadership of an American orchestra take into consideration the amount of work they would be expected to take on as music director of an American orchestra, and balance that against the money they make after taxes.  In most cases, it's more lucrative for them to be music director of an orchestra other than in America.

Wade

[Amphissa]

Bychkov is a U.S. citizen and has been for decades.

Personal income taxes are higher in other countries than they are in the U.S., especially for those in the highest income brackets. Actually, personal income taxes for the rich are low in the U.S. compared to most European countries. In fact, if I remember correctly, only citizens of Canada and Norway, of all the modern Western countries, pay lower income tax than the U.S. Most European countries are 40% to 60%. In the Netherlands, it's 70%.

[sperlsco]

Scott,

I know you may not agree with what I'm about to say,
B.

Nope, you are actually preaching to the choir here.  I have ALWAYS greatly preferred S-A order.  In fact I re-burn some of my favorite M6's in S-A order - Abbado/Lucerne and Mackerras are two such re-ordered ones that I keep in my car. 

[Prospero]

In a short interview aired on the broadcast  of his performance of the Mahler 6th with the NYPO in about 1987, Klaus Tennstedt also made the argument for the audience's emotional need and consequently the effect of the symphony itself for the S/A sequence. The broadcast in better sound than the live LPO performance released last year is available here and there for download.

I heard a live Tennstedt Mahler 6 in London in 1983, and it was one of the most titanic performances of my life.

There are other US Tennstedt Mahler broadcasts that ought to be more available including a 7th and 9th from Philadelphia around 1986. While dynamics are somewhat compressed, they sound more vivid than the RFH and RAH live London recordings.

Tom in Vermont

[Damfino]

Tom, I do not have any Tennstedt Mahler recordings; but I heard a performance of the 6th conducted by him on XM/Sirius a few months ago. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing which version it was. The announcer only said it was Tennstedt conducting the LPO, which is not very specific.

Anyway, it was one of the best 6ths I ever heard. I'd love to get it if I knew which one it was. I assume everyone likes the live one over the studio one?

Dave

[Prospero]

There are two commercially available Tennstedt 6ths just now, the studio EMI version, and an LPO Live label performance from August 1983.  The LPO live is from the Royal Albert Hall Proms, with somewhat vague sound, though acceptable, and more gripping than the studio version. Tennstedt could be completely overwhelming in performance. There is also a pretty good sounding Mahler 2 from LPO Live, remastered and or engineered by Tony Faulkner, who has been one of the best audio engineers in the UK for a long time. I am pretty sure both the LPO live 6th and 2nd are available from Amazon and other US outlets as well as UK outlets.

There was an OP EMI issue of a live 6 and 7 that I haven't been able to find recently.

Tennstedt's best Mahler can be life changing. His concerts were legendary. As I noted before, there are some amazing Tennstedt live performances with US orchestras in the archives. I was able to find 5, 7, and 9 with Philadelphia and 6 with NYPO--all with rather good sound and impact.

Best,

Tom in Vermont