General Category > Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions

OK, here's what I did with the Abbado/BPO M6 . . .

<< < (2/3) > >>

barry guerrero:
Interesting, Leo. Like you, I generally prefer the slow movement to be third. But I have the opposite response to you, in terms of what to do in cases of extreme tempi. If the conductor is going turn the andante into an Adagio (which it's not), I'd rather that go second - after the first movement. I can better focus on its length, and not feel so warn out already. Conversely, if they're going to take it on the fast side, I'd rather that it be placed third. I like the more "entr'acte" feel that you mention, to be placed third, where the movement is little more than a beautiful and flowing Eb break from three movements of relentless A-minor (both halves of which, coming out close to 30 minutes, by the way).

I'm of the opinion that Mahler's dropping of the third hammer stroke had nothing to do with superstition. I believe that it was dropped purely for musical reasons. As I've pointed out numerous times, you can actually get the effect of a mini-hammerstroke by placing a slight accent on the beginning of the snare drum roll that happens at that same spot. It's mark "muted" (gedampft), so you simply switch the snares off, and hit the downbeat with a slight to strong accent. The texture is rather thin there, so it'll easily be heard. I do believe that Alma fabricated the "three acts of fate" story on her own. I believe that Mahler, at the premiere of M6, was an emotional wreck for far more than personal reasons - reasons that he himself may not have been fully aware of, or able to articulate verbally. But even if Mahler had said something about his protagonist enduring three strikes of fate, I still believe that he modified the orchestration surrounding the spot where the third hammerstroke had been located in the first version, purely for musical reasons.

Barry

Amphissa:
Barry, I'm not going to get into that argument about the order of the inner movements again. There is absolutely no evidence of any sort that GM ever considered reverting to the S/A order, and he had plenty of opportunity to do so before he died. So, if people want to listen to the performances in S/A order, that's great, I think it's wonderful, go ahead. But there is no point in speculating about what might have occurred in someone else's life a hundred years ago. Just say you like it better in S/A order and leave it at that.

Rather, I'm more interested in a specifically musical issue.

I have always felt that the better performances of any symphony derived from conductors/orchestras having a sense of a work as a whole, and working to achieve that unified interpretation of the work. Abbado has never been my favorite conductor, but he does generally seem to approach Mahler with a coherent vision and develop a wholistic interpretation of a work.

So, if a conductor maps out his route through a work as complex and emotionally intense as the 6th, wouldn't he think through tempi, transitions, and the emphases in such a way that the order of movements establish flow? And what effect does it then have on the integrity of the performance to juxtapose movements?

This is a different issue from the question of the order in which the movements are performed. If a performance is in S/A order, it has (or should have to my mind) a sense of coherence based on the fidelity to that order. It has an integrity as a work as a whole.

As for myself, I would never consider juxtaposing inner movements in a symphony by Brahms, Beethoven, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, whomever.

If you just random-play movements of a symphony, are you hearing the work as a performance? Or is it just some movements?

Is this more an indication that the 6th is so deeply flawed that Mahler failed to develop that coherence as a work, so the movements are just intependent pieces of music that can be shuffled around without loss (or gain)?

I don't know if I'm expressing this very well. I know the 6th is a favorite for many people, and you (and everyone else) know that it is my least favorite of his symphonies. I guess I'm trying, again, to determine why it just does not work for me. And wondering if the reason is because it really is a significantly flawed work, lacking a sense of coherence and unity, as evidenced by the fact that people can just shuffle movements without destroying the piece.

barry guerrero:
"As for myself, I would never consider juxtaposing inner movements in a symphony by Brahms, Beethoven, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, whomever".

That's because none of those composers has a situation that's even remotely similar to that of the sixth Mahler - if not biographically, then at least musically speaking. If that weren't true, how could it have been possible for there to exist, three or four decades worth of M6 recordings in which the vast majority of them were in S/A order, with nobody being the wiser? The vast majority of people who purchased those recordings probably weren't aware that there had ever been any controversy surrounding the inner movement order. And even among those who read the program notes far enough to discover that there had been some question, probably didn't consider it to be very important - or just couldn't care. Obviously, there are those who took it up as a cause long ago. But that's undoubtedly a very small percentage of listeners.



"So, if a conductor maps out his route through a work as complex and emotionally intense as the 6th, wouldn't he think through tempi, transitions, and the emphases in such a way that the order of movements establish flow? And what effect does it then have on the integrity of the performance to juxtapose movements? This is a different issue from the question of the order in which the movements are performed. If a performance is in S/A order, it has (or should have to my mind) a sense of coherence based on the fidelity to that order. It has an integrity as a work as a whole".

In my opinion, this is assigning too much importance to the role of the conductor. But more to the point, when I express my preferences on movement order - based upon extreme tempi chosen by the conductor, etc. - I'm not stating that preference as a truth that should be applied to other people. I'm only stating that which "works" and, "doesn't work", for me. A good example of this is the MTT/SFSO M6 - a recording which, to my mind, just doesn't work as a large conception. When I listen to it again in A/S order, I find that it works much better - for me. As I mentioned, MTT DID switch to A/S order when he performed M6 in L.A.  I'll bet anything that he didn't significantly alter his tempi and tempo relationships when he conducted it in L.A.

If, what you say, Amphissa, were a musical truth that must be applied to the Mahler sixth at all times, then MTT should be barred from switching the inner order himself, unless he proves to the Mahler P.C. Board that he has sufficiently adjusted his tempi and tempo relationships in accordance to such a truth. Therefore, what's good for the goose, is for the gander. If it's OK for MTT to get up in the front of the LAPO and switch the inner movements (back to where they allegedly should have been all along), then surely it's OK for me to be doing that in the privacy of my own home, right? (and don't call me Shirley). That's just good, old logic - if A, then B.



"And wondering if the reason is because it really is a significantly flawed work, lacking a sense of coherence and unity, as evidenced by the fact that people can just shuffle movements without destroying the piece"

A-ha!!! - here's the crux of your argument, and what you've been trying to get at all along. I think you're going to be surprised by what I have to say on this:  to some degree, I think you're right. I've always made the argument that if you took away the scherzo altogether, you'd have one of history's greatest three movement symphonies. In a sense, the scherzo is superfluous. It fits on either side of the slow movement, yet it's somewhat unnecessary. Your argument has always been that Mahler does too much marching in the first movement. Since I view the sixth Mahler to be something of a protest work, I find that marching music - in minor, which is unusual for marches to begin with - to be central to the work's overall narrative. But more to the point, it's simply the nature of that movement; either one can live with it, or they can't. I can't imagine that fans of baroque music, for instance, could suddenly relate to Mahler six (and I hate most baroque music, in turn). All of this doesn't mean that I want to see the scherzo go away. But what I do think it means, is that a strong performance of the scherzo is key, regardless of where you put it.

One of the greatest arguments about putting the scherzo next to the first movement, is that it can sometimes sound like you're starting the symphony all over again. To some degree, that's true. Furthermore, the conductor needs to consider the following when performing M6 in S/A order: should the scherzo begin at the same tempo as the start of the symphony (Gielen); the same tempo as the end of the first movement (which in a sense, will sound twice as slow because the timpani are playing eighth notes at end of the first movement), or some tempo that's split right down the middle of the two (Boulez/VPO)? Anyway, this has been a point used by those who insist on A/S order. In my opinion, those people fail to see another problem, which is that the last 120 seconds of the scherzo - starting somewhere before the tam-tam smash - behaves in almost identical fashion to the last few minutes of the finale; starting before the spot where the third hammerstroke was originally located. Both cases are in A-minor, no less! In a sense, the scherzo combines the march music of the first movement (but in 3/4  time), with the dissolution and collapse of our "protagonist" that happens in the finale. From a purely musical standpoint, one problem with the scherzo is that the number of minutes taken up by Trio type music (slower) is actually far great than that of the various scherzo (faster) variants. The scherzo is a tough case, because there needs to be a sufficient tempo contrast between the scherzo portions, and the various trio sections. Yet, those trio sections shouldn't drag (go too slow). Yet, the scherzo is written in a way that can only go so fast. Gielen solves this problem by doing the scherzo at a tempo that's identical to his M6 beginning - which is slow to begin with - and then almost unifying his tempi across the scherzo movement. In other words, minimizing contrast between scherzo and trio sections.

Putting the scherzo after the first movement makes for a fully unified Part 1; comprised of the first two movements. Granted, this makes for 35 to 37 minutes of music that's predominently in A-minor (one argument for leaving out the exposition repeat? - and I wonder how much of the finale actually stays in A-minor?).  Furthermore, the beginning of the finale is far more shocking when it follows the Eb Major resolution of the slow movement. The start of the finale is more or less in C, and then settles into A-minor by the time it gets to the tuba solo. I can't help but think that if Mahler had truly first conceived of his sixth symphony as a "classical" A/S one, he would have also composed the scherzo in a different key - possibly D or E minor. At some point - probably at the beginning - he must have thought of the scherzo as a commentary or extention of the first movement; one in which the "happy" ending of the first movement gets negated by a collapse that's almost identical - in nature - to the sort of collapse and disillusionment that happens in the finale. Question is, was that necessary, or could he have simply segued into the remote highlands of the slow movement (in Eb Major), and then left the scherzo out altogether?

Amphissa:
Well, yes, I was actually going the long route, working up to my final question about the work as a whole. I think the reason I have difficulty listening to the 6th in S/A order is that the scherzo then becomes like an extension of the first movement. There is not enough contrast. Not only does the key remain the same, the tempi are not distinct enough. So, I've always preferred recordings in A/S order for that reason, but then, I don't really like marching as much as Mahler, and he seems to go overboard with it in this symphony.

I think I'll try listening to the symphony some without the scherzo.

I wasn't very good at saying what I meant before. I didn't mean to say a conductor could never change his conception/interpretation of a work from one performance to another. What I meant was, doesn't the conductor have a conception of the work as a whole that is guiding a particular performance, and he'll adjust tempi, emphasis points, etc, in order to work toward that conception? If so, to take a movement out of it's place, insert it into another place, would (should?) sound "wrong." The transitions and tempi would sound awkward, ineffective. The fact that it doesn't sound wrong or awkward to do that, to me, is a sign that there is some problem.

I would think it would be much preferable to have the performance in one order, worked through as a whole -- and then have another totally different performance, reconceptualized to achieve a different sense of cohesiveness, performed in the other order. At least that way, each performance has its own integrity. So, MTT was right to do different performances, but I would bet he made some changes in tempi and emphases in some places to make the new ordering sound more natural and contribute to a whole that was conceived slightly differently.

But see, I'm not an orchestra musician. I assume things like that. I also assume that just taking a recording of Blumine and programming your CD player to insert it back to a recording of the First would NOT be the same thing as doing a recording that actually went back to Mahler's original score that included Blumine, and playing it in its rightful place as was originally conceived. But maybe my assumptions are just plain wrong.

I'm going to start another thread about the marching. I've got a question or two about that.

barry guerrero:
You're right - it's not the same thing! Yet, that's precisely what happens: conductors sometimes reinsert "Blumine", but use the revised version of the rest of the symphony. Orchestration wise, "Blumine" clearly belongs to one of the many earlier versions (and they all sound different). However, it's short and it's beautiful, and some people miss it. I'd rather they go straight into the scherzo, then do "Blumine" as an addendum. I don't say that because I have a problem with mixing and matching different versions, but because the end of the first movement very badly wants to go straight into the scherzo. Coincidentally, this M1 case is also a very good argument for performing M6 in S/A order as well.

If we want to be pure about things, "Waldmaerchen" should never get performed along with the revised version of "Das Klagende Lied". That would mean that only the Nagano recording of "DKL" should include "Waldmaerchen". This almost means that ALL of the attempts to complete the Mahler 10th are completely foolhardy. And on and on such acts of purity would mean. Where did Boulez get that extra brass line (trumpets and horns in unison) towards the end the "bim-bam" choral movement, that's in his VPO recording of M3? I can't find any reference to it anywhere. And in the Maazel/VPO M3, Maazel switches some trumpet and horn lines, right in the middle of the "southern storm" development section of the first movement. Where did that come from?

By the way, I just played the Abbado/BPO M6 in S/A order, and it works perfectly fine! - the first two movements making for a unified Part 1, just as I described. In fact, I found that - in S/A order - I wasn't nearly so bothered about Abbado's rather quick tempo for the first "Alpine" passage in the slow movement; the spot where the cowbells make their first entrance. So, perhaps Abbado was mentally still stuck in S/A mode, even though he now does is it A/S - a case of not adjusting one's interpretion enough, perhaps?

I sometimes wonder if a good solution wouldn't be to simply make the last note of the first movement, also be the first note of the scherzo. You'd have to reduce the orchestration to just the timpani note, and make sure he/she gives it a good forte whack (not fortissimo). I think that might be very interesting, and just might work with a studio recording, where the audience isn't shuffling about.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page