MacKerras/BBC Phil. M6 played back in S/A order . . .

[barry guerrero]

.    .   oh boy, is it ever good this way! A great performance made even better, IMHO.

Barry

[brunumb]

And the debate about the order of the inner movements continues:

http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_features.php?id=6119

 

[pianobaba]

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!

[James Meckley]

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

[pianobaba]

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!

[akiralx]

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...

[pianobaba]

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!

[pianobaba]

.    .   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?

[James Meckley]

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

[barry guerrero]

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.

[pianobaba]

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.

[brunumb]

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.

[John Kim]

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,

[umbernisitani]

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.

[John Kim]

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,