Mahler's 6th symphony

Post by **Yagan Kiely** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:42 am

Given the 2003 annual report from http://www.gustav-mahler.org/english/ (Also: http://www.gustav-mahler.org/gesamtausg ... amt-ph.htm), keeping the symphony the way it is in the Main Site could be concidered inaccurate.

The publishing house of Peters has inserted a note in existing copies of the score explaining the situation.

Inserting a note or indeed changing the arrangement of movements would help rectify the issue.

[This is indeed the same publication in the Main Wiki.

In terms of the general community, what do you think works better? Andante or Scherzo second?
In my opinion, both have problems.

If the Scherzo was second:
The bombastic harshness prevalent in the orchestration and thematic material remains very similar for both the first movement and the second, because of this I believe it is weakened - the material is blocky rather than more spread out. That said, the key signatures of the movements make more sense with the Scherzo second. The A, A, Eb, Cm-A fits easier, because of the c minor introduction to the last movement acting as a key signature bridge.

If the Andante is Second:
The opposite of above, the similar material doesn't encompass the first 40 minutes of the piece, rather having contrasting material in between. However (again opposite of above), having the first in A minor, then a sudden jump up a tritone to Eb and then back again to A is a big ask.

All in all I agree with the Allegro - Andante - Scherzo - Finale, as I find the material more important than the key signature fluidity.

kongming819 · Post by **kongming819** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:38 am

I feel that to delve right into the Scherzo from the Allegro is a bit too much, kinda like stuffing another wad of food into your mouth right after you finished chewing the first wad. Therefore, the Andante provides a sort of a break from the intense pounding and passion of the 1st and Scherzo movements.
However, the Andante does provide a bridge to the Finale, as E-flat is more related to C minor than it is to A minor.

Mahler wrote the middle movements first and thus the Scherzo could've been the first movement. Therefore, since the Allegro actually came first, it would better fit conventions if the Andante came before the Scherzo.

Mahler himself desired Andante-Scherzo but unfortunately Alma said otherwise and thus the critical edition itself is published Scherzo-Andante.

I'm not sure which one I would go with, as the Scherzo-Andante has been pounded into my head (no pun intended) and Andante-Scherzo takes getting used to.

On a sort of unrelated note, the Finale with its 3 hammer blows (no I like 3 better than 2, Mahler) just pwns all other finales.

Post by **Yagan Kiely** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:11 am

On a sort of unrelated note, the Finale with its 3 hammer blows (no I like 3 better than 2, Mahler) just pwns all other finales.

Indeed

silly superstition.

kongming819 · Post by **kongming819** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:04 pm

And the naysayers say "oh it's for practical reasons, not necessarily superstition."

Pssshhhh I think it's just superstition...

What practical problems are there with the third hammer blow anyway? Not any different from the first two, I would assume.

Oh and have you heard about other hammer blows? One in the very beginning and one at the very end as well? They were never published but they were conceived...

Kinda spooky...the three matched up to Mahler's own life.

I have also heard differing accounts about the second hammer blow: is it his discovery of his heart condition, the loss of his position with the Vienna Opera, or both?

Another sorta unrelated note: will 6 be on IMSLP?

horndude77 · Post by **horndude77** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:21 am

Another sorta unrelated note: will 6 be on IMSLP?

I believe it was added before the down time. I don't remember if I added it or not. It is among the university of michigan's online scores and I at least have it converted to PDF here locally. If it's not there let me know.

Post by **Yagan Kiely** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:40 am

The Main page is down as of now (for me), but I added a twohand piano reduction myself to the collection, believe there is yet another twohand piano reduction and there is a Full Score also.

(assuming there are two piano reductions), at least one of the reduction is C.F.Kahn 1906, and the Full Score is the same.

Post by **Yagan Kiely** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:01 pm

Listening to Mahler 8 (or any Symphony) makes you sad as a composer, as your pieces seem... so... bland... in comparison...

Anyway, gotta work much harder till I'm that good. Might make it by... 80? :p

kongming819 · Post by **kongming819** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:27 am

The files are still up there.

Ah yes the Symphony of [not even half of] a Thousand! Marvelous piece...

Mahler was such a genius...

This link, http://benjaminzander.com/ypo/mahler6.asp , has links to download Mahler's 6th as played by the Boston Philharmonic, led by Benjamin Zander. The bitrate is horrible on the actual symphony so I wouldn't recommend downloading it. However, the files for the Discussions are of higher quality, and since they come from the more recent Telarc recording, the hammer blows are magnificently magnificent!!! BOOOOOM!!!!!
Turn up the bass and be prepared to get your socks knocked off.

But, the other thing is Zander presents his argument for the Scherzo-Andante order. It is interesting to listen to his insights on why he keeps it the original order.

Post by **Yagan Kiely** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:48 am

The hammer blows that the West Australian Symphony Orchestra did were excellent also, instead of a drum, they had a largeish wooden box with a large wooden sledge hammer.

kongming819 · Post by **kongming819** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:58 am

Isn't that typically how it's done nowadays?

How else is the hammer done? I've only heard of the wooden crate way.

Post by **Yagan Kiely** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:53 am

Sometimes several bass drums and I remember another way but I can't remember now.

Vivaldi · Post by **Vivaldi** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:51 pm

Is there a performance where the hammer blows are meant to be sounded by striking an anvil with a hammer, as Mahler originally conceived it?

kongming819 · Post by **kongming819** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:35 pm

Mahler actually said the hammers were to be of a nonmetallic character so therefore striking an anvil with a hammer won't work and is thus not his original conception.
It has to be a dull thud, magnificent in sound, "like that of a tree being felled."

Post by **Yagan Kiely** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:59 am

But what if there is no one there to hear it?

Okay that's a stupid question.

kongming819 · Post by **kongming819** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:52 am

HAHA!!! I've heard that before

Anyway, Mahler is supposed to be the great tree...

"Heavens! I've forgotten the motor horn! Now I have to write another symphony!" -from a cartoon satirizing Mahler's unusual use of percussion instruments