WETA FM 90.9 Blog

The Sixth Symphony is often mentioned to be Mahler’s most classical, invariably followed by the qualification: “If only in structure”. It’s an important qualification, because although cast in the sonata-form of the classical symphony (replete with repeats, Allegro first movement, inner movements in Scherzo- and slow-form, and an Allegro moderato—Allegro energico Finale), the symphony has nothing else in common with the classical predecessors. For one, its individual movements are as long, or longer, than any one of Haydn’s complete symphonies. The musical language is Mahler at his most romantic, too. His symphonies are generally not of the happy, cheery kind—but at least they occasionally end on a note (or the hope) of optimism. Not so the Sixth. It’s brutal, relentless, remorseless—and although it can be tamed to sound beautiful, this symphony simply seems to demand to be ridden as hard as possible; foam at the mouth, wide-eyed, driven to the brink of the abyss. If the Sixth Symphony were a politician, it would promise nothing but blood, toils, tears, and sweat.

There are two choices to be made in the performance of this work and they are, among Mahler-geeks, perennially controversial: Is the Scherzo to be taken before the Andante (the order it was composed and originally intended to be performed in) or the Andante before the Scherzo (as Mahler actually and always performed it; perhaps because the criticism that the Scherzo and the first movement were too similar struck a chord with him)? And is the last movement’s third hammer-blow that Mahler originally included (after deleting two further ones early on) to be played—or is the symphony to be played in the version in which Mahler excised and composed around it? It’s a tedious argument, usually, and suffice it to say that every outstanding performance allows you to neglect the matter, even if you do have very set preferences. Mine, incidentally, favor Scherzo-first and three hammer-blows. But then this is a highly subjective, instinctive choice on my part and I acknowledge that better arguments can be had for an opposing view.

For purposes of rationalization, I am inclined to separate between Mahler “the composer” and Mahler “the conductor” who was willing to engage in just about any compromise to get his works performed and who often flexible about his symphony’s movement order. That surely included moving the Scherzo—‘being too similar to the opening movement’—behind the Andante, despite an harmonic progression that suggests the order of Scherzo-Andante. (An aspect pointed out, among others, by Benjamin Zander.) The latest decision of the International Gustav Mahler Society reverses its course and now places the slow movement before the Scherzo with an air of unassailable certainty. What can be said with certainty is that Mahler did not mind the order A-S at all and, pace Henri-Louis de La Grange (who may since have changed his mind, but who has been the expert to whom we S-A lovers could resort), seems to have had no second thoughts about it after the final decision in favor of A-S at the premiere in Essen. The decision to place the Scherzo first again was based on research and claims that—musically sound though the move was—amounted to little less than fraud on the part of the then-president of the Gustav Mahler Society. That rather limits the range of academic arguments for S-A, but not my enduring enthusiasm for it.
.

I divide recordings of the Sixth into those that make it sweat blood and those that play it ‘beautifully’. Both approaches have their merit and in the Sixth more-so even than the Seventh (where you can juxtapose a wafting, misty reading—Abbado II, any Bernstein—against ‘lean riders’—Boulez, Kubelik) it warrants recommending versions for either approach. In tomorrow’s second part of the article discussing the Sixth I will focus on the gritty, massive interpretations, on Friday on those that take a softer, or more suave approach.

The font used in the title is “P22 Vienna Regular”

.

.