1

Mahler:SymphonyNo.6(studyscore).NeueKritischeGesamtausgabe,ReinholdKubik,ed.C.F.PetersandKaplanFoundation.EP11210IthaslongbeenknownthatErwinRatz’sfirstCriticalEditionofMahler’sSixthSymphony(1963)hadsomeseriouseditorialproblemsasregardsthework’sbasictext.ConductorNormanDelMarverythoughtfullywroteanentirebookaboutmanyofthemseveraldecadesago.ThisnewCriticalEditionalsoaddressesquiteafewwithout,however,resolvingsomeverybasicquestionsaboutMahler’sintentionsinascholarlyandintellectuallyhonestmanner.Indeed,particularlyasregardsthequestionoftheorderoftheinnermovements,theargumentspresentedhereseemasmuchemotionalandpoliticalastheyarelogicalanddispositive.IfthepreparationofaCriticalEditioninvolvedonlythemechanicalactofaccuratelyreproducingthecomposer’slastthoughts,itwouldbedifficulttotakeissuewiththeresultscontainedinthepresentvolume;butthesituationwithMahler,andwiththeSixthSymphonyinparticular,isfarmorecomplexandresiststhesimplisticanswersthateditorReinholdKubikproposes.Furthermore,beyondtheimportantbutbasicallyclericaltaskofcorrectingobviouserrorsandmisreadings,therearesomeissuesthatcanonlyberesolved,oratleastaccuratelydescribed,throughstylisticinsightandmusicalimagination.Attheendoftheday,nomatterhowmeticuloustheapproach,thereissimplynosubstitute.WhetherinfailingtocorrecttheIGMG’spatentlyridiculous“definitive”readingoftheopeningoftheFirstSymphony’sFuneralMarch,inwhichwearetoldthatthedoublebasssolodoesn’treallymean“solo”atall,orinthediscussionoftheSixth’sScherzo/Andantecontroversy,KubikrevealshimselfasasingularlyunsympatheticanduncomprehendingadvocateofMahler’smusic,one(itsometimesseems)moreinterestedinscoringpointsattheexpenseofhispredecessorsattheInternationaleGustavMahlerGesellschaftWienthaninofferinginterpretersthetoolsthattheyneedtomakeintelligentandinformedperformancedecisions.Thatsaid,there’snoquestionthattheneweditionofferssomesalutaryexamplesofplaingoodhousekeeping,anddeservescreditaccordingly.Mahler’shabitofperpetualrevisionmakesitdifficulttomaintainthatheeveractuallyfinishedanythingtohissatisfaction,andcleaninguptheresultantmassoftinyadjustmentsandmodifications,wherevertheyoccur,canbequiteajob.TheSixthSymphony,inparticular,wasleftinanespeciallymessystatebeforeMahlerwasforcedtomoveontootherprojects.Nodoubt,hadhelived,hewouldhavegoneovertheentireworkfromtoptobottom;buthedidn’tdoit,andKubikprettymuchhas.ForthisreasonalonemostMahlerfans(nevermindperformers)willwanttostudythisnewscore,andthankstoC.F.PetersandsupportfromtheKaplanFoundation,it’savailableatanot‐too‐insaneprice(around$125‐150orso).ConsideracoupleofexamplesofKubik’smoreusefulfixes.Onesuchoccursmeasure100oftheAndante,rightafterthe“alpine”cowbellepisode.Previously,thestringpartsappearedasfollows(examplefromKubik’spreviousedition,

2

representinghisfirstcrackatfixingsomeofRatz’smoreobviouserrorsandomissions):

Inthenewedition,whichisalsoveryneatlyprintedonlargerpaper,allowingforamorespaciouslylaidouttext,thesecondviolinsdoublethefirstsintheinitialbaroftheabovepassage(correspondingtothelastbaroftheexamplebelow).Theremainderofthesecondviolinpartfollowsthepriorversion.Mahler’s“ohneExpression”indicationhere(inallversions)isalsooneofthosenumerousbitsofevidencesuggestingthatsomethingquitesimilartomodernvibratowasthenorminorchestralstringplayingoftheday—butthat’sanotherstory,andwecanonlybethankfulthattheeditorialteamattheInternationaleGustavMahlerGesellschaftWienhasn’t(yet)signedontothe“authenticity”nonsenseinthisregardcomingfromthelikesofRogerNorringtonandhisfellowcultists,althoughKubik’spublishedcommentsrevealhimassympathetictothisfoolishnessaswell.

Inthefinale,atmeasure42,thehorns,andlaterthetrumpets,havethefollowingfigure[inthepreviousedition]:

3

Kubikhasadded“ohneBeschleunigung”(“withoutacceleration”)toMahler’s“Zeitlassen”(“taketime”)instructionoverthehornpart,andrestoredoneofthosefamousMahlerianexplanatoryfootnotes:“Thehornsplayinadraggingtempototheend[ofthephrase],withoutconcerningthemselveswiththeaccelerandointheotherinstruments.”Allofthese,andmanyotherexamples,arejustbasic,goodediting,anditwouldn’tbefairnottotakenoticeofthem.Evenhere,however,someproblemsremain.Oneconcernsthetimpanipartsintherecapitulationofthefinale.Kubikhasoptedtoprintthemononestave,butstillinsistsondividingthelinebetweentwoplayers,eventhoughthereisnolongeranypracticalreasonforit.GivenMahler’swholesaledeletions,theentirepartrightuptothelastpageeasilycanbeperformedbytheprincipaltimpanistalone.Thisexampledoes,however,raiseaninterestingquestion,namely,theprovisionalnatureofallsuchemendations.It’sentirelypossible,forexample,thatsomeoftheoriginalpartsmightbereinstatedandthattherevisionshouldnotbeseennecessarilyasdefinitive.LeavingthepartasMahlerdid,fortwoplayers,mighthavebeenhispurelypracticalconcessiontothealready‐printedtext,oritmightbeasignofanunfulfilledintentiontorevisittheissueatalatertime.HansRedlich’sEulenburgscore,forexample,includestheoriginaltimpaniandpercussionparts(includingthethirdhammerblow),andwhileit’sdifficulttotakeissuewithmanyofMahler’scancellationsthereareafewplaces,suchasthebeginningoftherecapitulationwithitsindependentandveryexcitingwritingforthetwotimpanists,wheretheoriginalreadingmightprovetremendouslyeffective.ThesearethesortsofoptionsathoughtfulCriticalEditionshouldconsiderprovidingprospectiveperformers.Theargumentthatoneshouldnot“mix”editionswon’twashhere,asMahlerneverlivedtoauthorizeafullyrevisedprintingofthesymphonyincorporatingallofhischanges.Allwehavearethefirstprintedscoresplusamassofmiscellaneouscorrections,thewholebusinessdatingfromaroundthetimeofthesymphony’spremiereperformances.Inotherwordsthisisnotthesamesituationasobtains,say,withBruckner’sEighthSymphony,whichexistsintwocompleteandindependentversions(andnotwithstandingwhichmanyconductorshavenoqualmsaboutstickingwithRobertHaas’sarguablysuperiorhybridblendingofthetwo).WemustkeepinmindthatMahler’sSixthwasperformedonlyseventimesoverthecourseofhisentirelife,allintheperiodbetweenMay1906andApril1907.Thishardlyconstitutesameaningfulperformancetradition.Mahlerhimselfconducteditpublicly(alwayswiththeAndanteprecedingtheScherzo)amerethreetimesinsevenmonths.AfterJanuary4,1907,heneverheardthepieceagaininthefouryearsremainingtohim.Duringthisinitialrunofperformancesthemusicwasstillquiteobviouslyinthe“tinkering”stage,andtinkerhecertainlydid.Thustoinsist,asGilbertKaplandoesinhisprefacetothepresentedition,thatMahler’sdecisiontoplacetheAndantesecond,was“final”and“unequivocal”is

4

terriblynaïve,aswellasirresponsible.NoonewhoknowsanythingaboutMahler’sworkinghabits,eitherwithhisownmusicorthatofanyofthecomposersthatheconductedregularly,wouldusethosewordssoinappropriately.Kaplanmaintainsthatnewevidencehascometolight,thankstoresearchbyKubikandMahlerfanJerryBruck,thatsupportsthe“Andantesecond”theory.Infactverylittle,heck—nothing—ofrelevanceisnew,andHenry‐LouisdelaGrangedispenseswithBruck’sassertionsquiteeffectivelyinanappendixtothefinalvolumeofhisepicMahlerbiography.Moresignificantly,absolutelynoneofthispurportedlynewevidencetellsusanythingusefulaboutthefinalityofMahler’sintentions,whichisofcoursethewholepoint.Indeed,giventheaboveperformancehistory,howcouldit?Andsowecometothemainissue,indeedwhatKubikconcedesistheprincipaljustificationforthisnewedition:establishingthecorrectorderoftheSixthSymphony’sinnermovementsasAndantefirst,andthenScherzo.InhisprefaceKubik,citingBruck’sresearch,invitesustoconsideraraftofhistoricaldetailthat,whileofteninterestinginandofitself,offerspreciouslittleinformationgermanetothematterathand.Theonlysignificantfactsdirectlypertainingtotheorderoftheinnermovements,allofthemlongknowntoMahlerians,arethefollowing:1.MahleroriginallycomposedandpublishedthesymphonyintheorderScherzo/Andante.2.Mahlerreversedthisorderinthethreeperformancesthatheconductedduringhislifetime,andfurtheraskedhispublishertoalertotherpotentialperformersofthischange.3.In1919,attherequestofconductorWilhelmMengelberg,AlmaMahlerindicatedthatMahler’sfinal,preferredorderwastheoriginalScherzo/Andante.ThisistheonlysolidevidencethatwehaveofMahler’sintentions,anditisallthattrulymattersinthisrespect.However,theissueiscomplicatedbythefacttheErwinRatz,inhisfirstCriticalEdition,essentiallymadeupastorythatMahlerultimatelychangedhismindsometimebeforehisdeathandonthisbasisRatzclaimedthathewasjustifiedinrestoringtheoriginalScherzo/Andanteorder.Thisquestionabletactic,admittedly,wasassleazyassomeofhiseditingwassloppy,butitcannotbeusedasanargumentagainstpreferringtheoriginalmovementorderoneithertheaboveevidentiaryorpurelymusicalgrounds.FloggingRatzisthusnothingmorethanawasteoftimeandadistraction.Kubiknevertheless,withevidentrelish,doesjustthat,tryingtomakeaBigDealoutofRatz’smisfeasance;butthat’spolitics,notscholarship.Trashingyourpredecessorisapopularsportintheworldofacademia‐‐onethatalsoenjoyssubstantialsupportfrommusicpublisherslookingforreasonstokeepwhatwouldotherwisebepublicdomain,popularpiecesundercopyright.TheveryfactthattheInternationalGustav

5

MahlerSocietyislocatedinViennaatallreflectsmereeconomicopportunism—abelatedrecognitionbythecitythatdespisedandrejectedhismusic(untilitbecameaninternationalsuccessinthelate1960s)thattheMahlerbusinesscouldbeexploitedasyetanotherfeatherinVienna’sculturalcap.ByrightstheEuropeancenterofMahlerscholarshipoughttobelocatedinthecityhistoricallymostreceptivetohisgenius:Amsterdam.Moretothepoint,thefactthatRatzatleastpartiallyfabricatedajustificationforrestoringMahler’soriginalintentionsdoesnotexcusedoingmuchthesamethinginordertoassertasimilarclaimregardingtherevisedorderoftheinnermovements,andthisisexactlywhattheeditorsofthepresenteditionhavedone.Specifically,totheextentthatKubikandBruckdisregardandattempttodiscreditAlma’sunequivocalstatementtoMengelberg‐‐whichtheyexplicitlydo‐‐andonthebasisoftheremainingfactsclaimtohavedivinedMahler’sultimateintentions,theyarecommittingpreciselythesameerrorasRatz.Theyareposingasmindreaders,andpassingofftheresultoftheirmysticalrevelationsasscholarship.DelaGrangediscussesextensivelyjustwhyAlma’scommentscannotbedismissedasevidenceofMahler’struefeelings.SufficeittosaythatshewasinthebestpossiblepositiontoknowifMahlerhadinfactdecidedtorestoretheoriginalmovementorder,andthereisn’tashredofevidencetosuggestthatshewasmistakenorhadanyreasontomisrepresenthisintentionsinthisregard.Soasfarasthefactsgo,then,wehaveontheonehandwhatMahleractuallydidwhenhelastperformedthesymphony,andontheotherhand,whatheoriginallycomposedandwhathiswifereportedthatheultimatelywanted.Anyobjectiveobserverwouldbecompelledtoadmitthatthisconstitutesstrongevidenceforbothperspectives.Thisbeingthecase,theresponsiblethingtodoinrevisitingtheneedforanewCriticalEditionwouldbetosetoutalloftheargumentsoneachside,andthentakenoposition.Lettheperformersdecide,andadmitfranklythatifthecriterionformakingadecisionregardingthecorrectorderoftheinnermovementsmustbewhatMahlerhimselfultimatelywanted,thennofinalanswerispossible.Thisistheonlyhonestapproach,anditwouldbenodifferentthanwhatmanyofthebetterCriticalEditionsdo—considerforexamplePhilipGossett’seditionsofRossiniandVerdioperas,whichattempttopresentallsignificant,legitimatevariantreadingstotheperformeraslongastheyoriginatewiththecomposer(orhavehisexpresssanction).ThefactthatKubikandhisteamhavecomedownunequivocallyonthe“Andantefirst”sideofthisdisputehassomeserious,andratherdepressing,methodologicalimplicationsfortheirwork.Itisbasedonaseriesofassumptionsthatare,atbottom,notjusthighlyquestionable,butwhichrundirectlycountertomuchothercurrentscholarlythinkingonthesubjectsofmusiceditingandtextualcriticism.Thefirstoftheseistheassumptionthatthecomposer’slastact,chronologically,accuratelyrepresentshisultimateintentions.Thisnotionhasacorollary:WhateverMahlerdid,orfeltcompelledtodo,mustbeidenticaltowhatheideallyordefinitivelywantedtodo.Statedthisway,I’msureyoucanunderstandjusthow

6

erroneoustheseassumptionsare:yettheylieattheveryheartoftheeditorialdecisionsbehindthisnewedition.It’sinterestinginthisrespecttocompareKubik’sapproachto,say,thatoftheeditorsoftheCarlNielsenEditioninCopenhagen.Inthatcase,thedecisionwasmadetoreturntothecomposersoriginalpencilmanuscripts,arguingthatmanyofthechangestohisscoresarosefrompracticalnecessityduetoinferiororchestrasoftheday,orpressureputonthecomposerbytheconductorsheworkedwith.Theeditorsthusfeeljustifiedinreturningtotheoriginalmanuscriptsevenwherethechangeswereessentiallysanctionedbythecomposerandwereeffectivelyinplaceduringhislifetime.TheWilliamWaltonEditionfromOxfordUniversityPresstookthesamepositioninprintingboththeoriginalandrevisedversionsofhisViolaConcertoinasinglevolume‐‐aprocedurealsofollowedinBreitkopfundHärtel’srecentissueoftheoriginalandrevisedscoresofSibelius’EnSaga.Inallofthesecases,theeditorsrejecttheargumentthat“lastact”necessarilyequals“definitive(orbest)thought.”Justimaginewhatthisdictumwoulddoacriticaleditionofaworkroutinelysubjecttodrasticcutsinthecomposer’slifetime,suchasRachmaninov’sSecondSymphony,oroneneverperformedinitsoriginalformatall,suchasBerlioz’LesTroyens.Inshort,thereisnothingwrong,methodologically,inreturningtothecomposer’sinitialconceptifthishelpstoclarifyanintractablemusicalproblem,orpreventsapatentfalsificationofhisintentions.InthecaseofMahler’sSixth,giventheabovefactpattern,wecannotarguethatplayingtheinnermovementseitheronewayortheotherfalsifieshisultimateintentions,sinceonbalancewehavenowayofknowingwhatthosewere‐‐unlessofcourseweacceptAlma’sevidenceasdispositive,inwhichcasetheoriginalorderisindisputablycorrect.AllweknowisthatMahlerhaddifferentintentionsatdifferenttimesduringarelativelybriefperiodinthemiddleofthelastdecadeofhislife.Furthermore,toinsistthatplacingtheAndantesecondistheonlyrightwaytoperformthesymphonybecauseofwhatMahlerhimselfdidduringtheinitialrunofperformancespreventsseriousconsiderationoftheproblemfromadifferent,whollylegitimate,andpotentiallymorefruitfulangle:Whichorderoffersthemoresatisfyingmusicalstructureasawhole?Thislastquestionrepresentstheproverbialelephantintheroom.Asjustdemonstrated,scholarsrightlyoftengiveparticularweighttoacomposer’soriginalconception,especiallyifitcanbeshownthatlateralterationsresultedfromextraneousornon‐musicalconsiderationsandcircumstances.Thisisarguablythecasehere.ItexplainswhyKubik’sprefacecontainsrepeated,andtobefrankstrikinglydefensive,assertionsconcerningthedefinitivenessofMahler’sintentionsinplacingtheAndantesecond.“Mahlerneverplayedthesymphonyanyotherway,”theyremindus,overandover,asifthesheerweightofirrelevanthistoricaldetailthattheyhaveaccumulatedconcerningthethreeperformancesthatMahleractuallyconductedwillenhanceitsvalueandmakeusforgetthesimpletruthregardingthework’sactualperformancehistory.

7

Accordingly,notawordoftherhetoricalsmokescreenthatKubikworkssohardtoerectmakestheslightestimpactonthefactthatthereareverystrongreasonsforpreferringMahler’soriginalmovementorderonpurelyformalgrounds.Accordingly,itpaystoconsidertheissuefromthisperspectiveaswell,evenifKubikandhisteamwillnotbecauseit’sanargumenttheycannotwin(andtheyprobablyknowit).Argument1:TheFateMotiveWritLargeOneofthemostimportantrecurringideasinthesymphonyisamajorchordthatdissolvesintoitsminorequivalent.Itoccursprominentlyinfirstmovement,thefinale,andtheScherzo,butwiththelatterinsecondpositionitalsooccursbetweenmovements,asthecontrastbetweentheendofthefirstandthebeginningoftheScherzo,aswellasattheendoftheAndanteandthebeginningofthefinale.Theoverallstructureofthesymphonythusreflectsoneofitsprincipalandmostbasicideas:thegradual(andinevitable)triumphoftheminorkey.Reversethemovementorder,andthistonalemphasisislost.Isitreallyimportant?That’shardtosayintermsofquantifiableimpactonthelistener,butitwasunquestionablypartofMahler’soriginalconceptionofthework,anditseemsmoreconsistentwithitsoverallexpressivetrajectory.Argument2:ThematicRelationshipsIthasoftenbeenmentionedthattheScherzousesmuchofthesamematerialasthefirstmovement,arelationshipthatisunquestionablyeasiertohearandmoretellingifthetwosucceedoneanotherwithoutbeingseparatedbyaquarterhourofAndante.Moreimportantly,thereisastrongprecedentinMahlerforthisprocedure.TheFifthSymphonyfeaturespairsofmovementsthatsharethemesinmuchthesamewayasdothefirstmovementandscherzooftheSixth.Similarly,theclimaxoftheAdagiooftheFourthSymphonycontainstheopeningmelodyofthefinale,whichfollowsimmediately.Itisthusunlikely,givenMahler’spreviouspractice,thatheultimatelywouldagreetoseparatetwosuchcloselyrelatedmovements.Ofcourse,itcouldbearguedthatthescherzoalsosharesmotivicelementswiththefinale,buttotrytojustifyplacingthescherzothirdonthisbasisreallyistomisunderstandthesymphony’slarge‐scaleform.Witness:Argument3:StructuralBalanceIntheFifthSymphonythelastpairofrelatedmovementsisplayedwithoutpause;thefirsttwoarenot.ThefinaleoftheSixth,thoughasinglecontinuousmovement,actuallyhastwomajorcomponents:anintroduction,andtheensuingallegro.Thisintroductionishugeandhasitsownform.Indeed,it’saslongassomeofMahler’sindependentmovements(“Urlicht”intheSecondSymphony,thefifthmovementoftheThird,orthe“Purgatorio”oftheTenth).Althoughitborrowsamotivefromthescherzo,aswellasthefatemusicfromthefirstmovement,itsmostimportant

8

melodicconnections,obviously,aretothefinalebyvirtueofthenewthemesthatitprefigures.Inotherwords,theintroductionlooksforwardmorethanitdoesbackward,anticipatingthequickermusictocome,justasthefirstmovementforetellsthescherzo.Inaworkthislargeandcomplex,therearesomeelementsthatallofitsmovementsshare,andsomecommononlytoafew.Thus,ashedidintheFifthSymphony,Mahleroffersustwoindependentbutrelatedmovementstostart,followedbytworelatedbutconnectedonestoconclude.ThemusicoftheintroductiontotheSixth’sfinalereturnslaterinmuchthesamewayasdoestheFifth’sAdagietto,whichdoesdouble(actuallytriple)dutyasepisodicmaterialintheensuingRondo.Ofcourse,theSixth’sfinaleisbuiltonamuchlargerscaleandtheexpressivepointofthemusicisentirelydifferent,butthearchitecturalprincipalisremarkablysimilar.SoalthoughtheSixthSymphonyisnominallyinfourmovements,itoperatesmorelikeaworkinfive,justliketheprecedingandsucceedingsymphonies.Inthoseworks,thecentralfulcrumonwhichtheentirestructurebalancesisascherzo,andintheSixthit’stheAndante‐‐butonlyifthatmovementoccursthird,andnotsecond.IfweaddupMahler’ssuggestedmovementtimingsandtreattheSixthasaworkinfivesectionsandthreelargeparts,liketheFifth,wecanseetheAndante’sintendedcentralityquiteclearly.Whatwegetis:33minutes(Part1:firstmovementplusScherzo),14minutes(Part2:Andante),30minutes(Part3:finale).Theresult,surely,offersamoresatisfyingbalanceofexpressiveandstructuralelementsthandoesplacingtheAndanteinsecondplace,unlessofcourseyousubscribetothetheorythatthesymphonyissoheavilyweightedtowardsthefinalethatnothingthathappensbeforereallymatters.Thisisnotasridiculousanotionasitmightatfirstappear.Iftheinnermovementswereasimportantasthelast,it’shighlyunlikelythattherewouldbeanyquestionastotheircorrectorder.Thepower,length,andcomplexityofthefinalecertainlyaccounts,atleastinpart,forthelevelofambiguityregardingplacementoftheprecedingmovements,andtosomeperformersandlistenersthismightwellrenderthewholeissueasmoot.Forthosewhofindthe“fivepart”theoryunconvincing,thereisyetanotherwayoflookingattherelationshipsbetweenthemovementsthatarguesforciblyforplacingtheAndantethird.Itsmainthemeis,oncloserexamination,afairlystraightforwardlyricaltransformationofthefirstmovement’sopeningmarch.ComparethebeginningoftheAndante:

totheprincipalthemeofthefirstmovement.

9

Actually,themelodicidentityisabitcloserandeasiertohearinrelationshiptothefortissimoversionofthemarchthatreturnsatmeasure25,justbeforethefirstcymbalcrash:

Ifthispassagestilldoesn’tproveconvincing,thenconsidertheoboe’sextensionoftheAndante’sopeningtheme‐‐afallingcadenceexactlyasfoundinthelasttwobarsofthemarchtheme,inthefirstexampleabove.It’sadeadgiveaway:

NowitcouldbearguedthatbecauseofthisrelationshiptheAndantesimilarlyfulfillsMahler’sdictumthatrelatedmovementpairsshouldnotbeseparated,andthereforeitmightsucceedthefirstmovementjustaswellastheScherzo.Indeed,itcouldbethatMahlerhimself,whoobviouslyknewmorethananyoneaboutthevariousthematicreferencesthatpermeatethesymphony,justifiedhisdecisiontoswitchtheorderoftheinnermovementsalongpreciselytheselines.Still,there’snoquestionthattheconnectionsbetweenthefirstmovementandtheScherzoaremuchcloserandmoreobviousthanthosebetweenfirstmovementandtheAndante.Mahler,whotooksuchpainstomakehisintentionsclearlyaudible,reallywouldhavehadnowayofknowingjusthowthisnetworkofmotivicreferencesandmelodicvariationstrulysoundedoversomeeightyminuteswithoutplayingthesymphonyeachwayafewtimes.Andwe,inturn,havenowayofknowingexactlywhathewouldhaveviewedasthemoresuccessfulorderbecausewedon’tknowthespecificfactorsthatconcernedhimmost,andtowhichhemayhavebeenpayingspecialattention.PlacingtheAndantesecondthusofferedalogicalwayforhimtotestthewaters.

10

Evenmoresignificantly,keepingtheAndanteinthethirdpositiondoesinfactsatisfytheabove“relatedness”conditionwithrespecttothefinalesignificantlymoreeffectivelythandoestheScherzo,fortworeasons.First,boththeAndanteandthefinalecontainsimilarepisodesfeaturingcowbells,againharkingbacktothedevelopmentsectionoffirstmovement,butineachcasemuchmoreprominently.Second,themainthemeoftheAndante,whichinturnderivesfromthefirstmovementmarch,isalsotheprincipalmelodicideathatopensthefinale.Thisiseasiesttohearnotasthethemefirstappearsrightatthestart,inafreeinversionofitsoriginalform,butratherasitlaterreturnstointroducethetranquilepisodethatultimatelyleadstothefirsthammerblow(atfigure120):

Thisideareturnsmultipletimesthereafter,participatingfullyinthehugelycontrapuntalcombinationofthethemestowardtheendoftherecapitulation(beginningatfigure161).WiththeAndanteinsecondposition,recognitionofthisthematicconnectionrunsamuchgreaterriskofbeingentirelylostinperformance,anobservationwecanconfirmfromthemerefactthatfewifanycommentatorsonthesymphonytodatehavenoticed‐‐irrespectiveofmovementorder‐‐eitherthismelodiclinkbetweentheAndanteandthefinale,orthecommonancestoroftheselaterthematictransformationsinthefirstmovementmarch.TheseobservationslendfurthercredencetothepropositionthatMahlerwassamplingadifferentarrangementoftheinnermovementsinordertohearhowtherelationshipshewroteintothesymphony’svariouspartsworkedinrealtime,infrontofreallisteners.Thisinturnmilitatesagainstanyclaimthathisdecisionsatthosethreeinitialperformancesshouldberegardedas“final”and“unequivocal.”Accordingly,it’sterriblyingenuoustosuggestthatMahlerwasabletoresolveallsignificantperformanceissueswithjustafewauditionsoftheSixthoversuchabriefperiodoftime.YetthisisexactlythelinethattheeditorsofthenewCriticalEditioninsistthatweaccepteventhough,asinitiallyconceived,theworkrevealsagenuineconcernformusicalarchitectureandaudibleconnectionsamongthevariouspartsthatgetsdemonstrablyweakenedwhentheperformersadoptthemovementorderprescribedinthepresentscore.

11

Argument4:ChronologyofProgrammaticExplanationsandTheirImplicationsforMovementOrderAsidefromignoringtheabovestrongandperfectlyvalidformalargumentsforplacingtheScherzosecondinline,byfocusingonthe“movementorder”issueessentiallyinisolationtheeditorsofthenewCriticalEditionfailtoaddressthecruciallyimportantquestionofhowMahler’sdecisionfitsintothecontextofhiscompositionof,andmajorrevisionsto,thesymphonyasawhole.WemayneverknowexactlywhathisthoughtprocesswasindecidingtoplacetheAndantesecond,butthatitwaspartofanongoingprocesstherecanbelittledoubt.Thereissomeveryintriguingandprettydefinitiveevidenceforthisthat’sworthconsideringindetail.CombinedwithHenry‐LouisdelaGrange’sdiscussionofMahler’shighlyagitatedmentalstateatthetimeofthesymphony’spremiere,itprovidessomecluesastowhatmayhavebeenmotivatinghim.Establishingacorrectchronologyofeventsiskeytounderstandingthisissue.Asbothscholarsandfansknowverywell,Mahlerstruggledthroughouthisentirelifetoachieveabalanceinhisworksbetweenprogrammaticandabstractelements.Hewantedhisworkstobeappreciatedandunderstoodaspuremusic,butsodefinitewastheirimageryandmeaningtohim,soradicaltheirstyleandtechniquetocontemporaryaudiences,andsopersonalhisdefinitionoftheword“symphony,”thattheissueofprogrammaticintentnearlyalwaysintervenedandprovokeddebate.PerhapsinnootherworkofMahler’sisthistruerthaninconsideringtheSixthSymphony.WeknowsomethingofitspersonalsignificancethankstoAlma’srecollections:thatthefirstmovement’slyricalthemerepresentsher,thatthescherzoattemptstocapturetheominous,arrhythmicgamesoftheirtwochildren,andofcoursethatinthefinalethe“hero,”presumablyMahlerhimself,meets“threehammerblowsoffate.”NooneseriouslyquestionsAlma’sinterpretationofthesymphony’spersonalmeaninggenerally,andforgoodreason:themusicalrealityofwhatMahlerdidwithrespecttohishandlingofthethreehammerblowssupportsherversion,andthereiscorroboratingevidencefromothers,suchasAlfredRoller,inMahler’simmediatecircle.Thechronologyoftheserecollections,however,isanothermatter.DelaGrangehasshownbeyonddoubtthatAlmahasgottenhertimingabitmixedup.ItwouldbeverydifficultfortheScherzotorepresent(howevercreepily)theirtwochildrenplayingwhenthesecondofthemhadn’tbeenbornyet!Thisdoesn’tmeanthatAlmamadeupastory,orthatMahlerneversaidit;itdoesmean,asidefromhisearlyremarksabouttheexistenceofan“Almatheme,”thatmuchofthediscussionofthesymphony’sprogrammaticsignificancelikelydatesfromacoupleofyearsafteritwascomposed.Thismaywellbeardirectlyontheissueofthecorrectorderoftheinnermovements,becauseitmeansthatMahler’sfiddlinginthisregardtookplaceatpreciselythetimehewasconcernedwithconcoctingthevariousprogrammatic

12

narrativeshewouldtryoutonhisearlyaudiencesinorderto“sell”thenewwork.PreviouslywritersonthissubjecttendtoassumethatMahlercomposedtheSixthSymphonyessentiallyfollowingtheaboveprogrammaticparameters;thattheimagesthatAlmadescribesandthecompositionalprocesstookplacemoreorlesssimultaneously.Infact,thiscannothavebeenthecase.Mahler’sactofmusicalcreationfolloweditsowninnerlogicfromthestart,evenifatvariouspointsalongthewayhemayhavenotedpersonalassociationsbetweenthesymphony’smelodicmaterialandconcreteimagesfromhislife.Weknowthisinpart,ironically,becauseKubikactuallymentionsinhisprefaceperhapsthesinglemostcriticalpieceofevidence,theimplicationsofwhichweneedtoconsidercarefully.Indiscussingtheautographmanuscriptandpublisher’scopy(Stichvorlage)oftheSixth,KubikpointsoutalmostinpassingthatMahleroriginallywrotenotthreehammerblowsinthefinale,butfive.Themissingtwooccurattheonslaughtofthe“fate”rhythminthetimpanibelowthemajor/minorchordrightattheoutset(measure9),andtheninthesamespotintherecapitulation,justafterthecollapsewithtam‐tamcrash,followingwhatisnowthesecondhammerblow.Inotherwords,theysimplyreinforcethefatemotives,exactlyasdoesthelasthammerstrokethatMahler,temporarily,allowedtoremaintointroducethecoda(beforeultimatelydeletingthatoneaswell).Theimplicationsofthisfactarefascinating,notbecausetheyshowAlma’saccounttobewrong,butbecausetheyconfirmthatwhatwemightcallthe“threeblowsoffatenarrative”wassomethingthatMahlermusthavecomeupwithatalaterstage,aftertheworkwasalreadycomplete.Itcertainlycouldnothavebeenaconceptualsourceofinspirationforthesymphonyrightfromthestart;else,whyfiveoriginalhammerblows?Seeninthiscontext,Mahler’sremovalofthethird(last)hammerblow,fromapurelymusicalvantagepoint,doesnotsomuchrepresentarevision‐‐thatis,arethinkingorimpositionofsomethingnew‐‐butratheraslightlymodifiedreturnto,andacknowledgmentof,hisoriginalconception;oneinwhichthe“threeblowsoffatenarrative”hadnoplace.Accordingly,intherevisedversion,onlytwohammerblowsremainbecause,asdelaGrangeandothers(includingthiswriter)havenoted,theyserveanactivemusical,asopposedtomerelysymbolic,function.Theyrepresentadramatic,developmentalevent,haltingthemusic’striumphantprogressandknockingitontoanotherpath.Allthreeoftheothersarejettisonedasmusicallyunnecessary.ThisproceduretypifiesMahler’stendencyonrevisiontoeliminateeverythingsuperfluous,anditmakesparticularsensegiventhestructureofthemovement.Evenconductorswhorestorethethirdhammerblow1inthemistakenbeliefthatthree,andnotfive,wasMahler’soriginalnumber,havetoconcedethattherationalefordoingso‐‐whetherit’stheBiblicalnumberthree,Mahler’ssuperstitiousfears,orsomesuch‐‐essentiallyliesoutsidetherealmofpurelymusicalconsiderations.1Somethingthepresenteditionisquitecorrectininsistingshouldneverbedonewithoutalsorestoringtheoriginalscoringanddynamicsoftheentirepassage.

13

Ifthisargumentiscorrect,then,it’slogicaltoviewthetwomajorcomponentsofMahler’sinitialrevision—changingthenumberofhammerblowsandtheorderoftheinnermovements—aspartofanattempttoforcethemusictoconformtoanexternalprogramornarrativethatwouldmakeitmorecomprehensibletoacontemporaryaudience,andperhapstoMahlerhimselfaswell,butwhichwasnotconsistentwithhisoriginalconception.It’satellingexampleofMahler’sdictumthat“Onedoesnotcompose,oneiscomposed.”Thecreativeprocessfollowsitsownpath,witheventhecomposersometimeslefttoplaycatch‐upafterthefact.TheroleoftherevisedmovementorderinfittingthesymphonyintoMahler’sevolvingprogrammaticnarrativeisnotdifficulttodiscern.ThisishisonlysymphonyaftertheFirstwithanexpositionrepeat,andtheonlyone(uptothispoint)originallyconceivedinfourmovements.ByarrangingthefirstthreemovementsinamoreconventionalorderasAllegro‐Andante‐Minuet(thelatterwithits“oldfashioned”triosections),thusemphasizingtheirindependenceand“backwardness”ratherthantheirinterrelatednessandmodernity,Mahlerasksthelistenertofocusonthework’soutwardhomagetotheClassicalsymphonictradition.Thistooconstitutesaprogram,anexternalreference;onethatMahlermightexpectareasonablyeducatedaudienceofhisdaytounderstandandhopefullyappreciate.Hethenoffersthe“threeblowsoffatenarrative”toexplainthefinale’sdeviationfromtheexpectedtriumphantorhappyconclusion.Takentogether,Mahler’soverallstrategypresentsthematerialofthesymphonyinamoreconservativelight.Wecannotargue,forexample,thathavingarousedcertainexpectationsbyadoptingamoretraditionalarrangementofthefirstthreemovements,thetragicfinalebecomesevenmoreshockingbydefeatingthoseexpectations.ThismightbethecasehadMahlernotattemptedtoexplainthepresenceofthehammerblowsprogrammatically,byreducingtheirnumbertothree.Alloftheevidencepointstoaneffortonhispartto“de‐radicalize”thesymphonyaheadofitsfirstperformances,inturnlendingfurtherweighttotheideathattheissueofmovementorderwasintimatelyrelatedtotheotherchangesthatMahlermade.This“doubleprogram”theorymaysoundfarfetchedorspeculative,butletusnotforgetthatitaccuratelytrackswhatMahleractuallydid,andtheorderinwhichhedidit.Ifthetheoryisweak,itmaywellbebecauseMahler’sprogrammaticsolutionisn’tterriblysatisfying,ashegraduallylearnedoverthesymphony’salltoobriefinitialrunofperformances.Howevermuchhemayhavetriedtosweetenthepill,adjustingandarrangingthesymphony’svariouscomponents,ultimatelythemusicspeaksforitselfanddefeatsanyattemptatprogrammaticrationalization.Hencetheremovalofthethirdandfinalhammerblow,anactwhichrepresentsnottheendoftherevisionprocess,butafirststepinthegradualrejectionandremovaloftheentireexternalnarrativeedificethatMahlerhaderectedinthemonthsleadinguptothepremiere.Wouldthenextstephavemeantrestoringtheoriginalmovementorder?Wedon’tknow,butitseemsthatMahlerwasheadinginthatdirection.

14

Thereislittlequestion,then,thatMahler’shandlingofthehammerblowsshowshimgraduallyreturningtohisoriginal,non‐(oratleastdifferently)programmaticconceptionoftheworkalongsidehismoreusual,ongoingprocessofrevision.Andifthisistrue,thenitisperfectlyreasonabletosuggestthattheinitialmovementorderalsowouldhaverepresentedhis“final”and“unequivocal”choicehadhebeengiventhetimeandopportunitytomakeit,allotherfactorsbeingequal.Thus,thefullhistoryofMahler’sworkontheSixthsupportsreturningtohisoriginalconceptionstructurallybecausetherecanbenodoubt,first,thathereallyhadone,andsecond,heevidentlyrealized,orwascomingtorealize,thatthechangeshefeltcompelledtomakeinordertoaccommodatetheworktotheprogrammaticnarrativeheconcoctedlaterwerejustnotconvincing.Ofcourse,itcanbeassertedthattheissueoftheorderoftheinnermovementsshouldbeconsideredseparatelyfromMahler’shandlingofthehammerblows,andthatthetwomattersarenotnecessarilyrelated.Althoughcertainlyapossibility(thefactthattwoeventshappencontemporaneouslydoesnotmeanthattheyareinterconnected),thelikelihoodofthisbeingtruediminishesdramaticallyasweconsiderallofthefacts,alongsidethevariousargumentsforretainingMahler’soriginalmovementorder.Theevidenceiscumulative.Allofthepiecesofthisparticularpuzzleneedtobeassembledinlogicalsequence.Furthermore,merelypretendingthattherearenosolidmusicalargumentsfavoringMahler’soriginalconcept,asthenewCriticalEditiondoes,won’tmakethemgoaway.Argument5:TheValueofMahler’sIntentionsinLightofSubsequentPerformanceHistoryFinally,weshouldrememberthatevenacomposer’sactionsandintentionswithregardtohisownworkscannotandshouldnotalwaysbeviewedasdispositive.Theyareonlyhuman;theymakemistakes.Musicalhistoryisfullofcasesofcomposersmutilatingtheirowncreationsinordertobringthemtoperformance,makethemmoresuccessful,oradaptthemtoexigentcircumstances.Examplesinclude:theFrenchversionofGluck’sOrfeo,itssecondactmangledasarrangedforatenorlead;Schumann’sFourthSymphony,withitspatentlyinferiorrevisedorchestration;andthefussyViennaversionofBruckner’sFirstSymphony.ThereisnoquestionthatthenewfinaletoBeethoven’sOp.130StringQuartetrepresentshis“final”and“unequivocal”decision.YetmanyquartetsreplaceitwiththeoriginalGrosseFugewithoutanyoneclaimingthattheyare“wrong”todoso.WhatisdispositiveaboutthesituationwithMahler’sSixthisnot,asKubikandBruckclaim,thatmostofthelamentablyfewsubsequentperformancesfollowedtheorderAndante/Scherzo.Thisisonlytobeexpected,sinceit’swhateveryoneuptothatpointthoughtMahlerwanted.No,whatremainsstrikingisthefactthatfromtheveryfirsttherewerethosewhoquestionedMahler’sdecision,anddecidedtoreturntotheoriginalmovementorderregardless.NoevidentiaryweightcanbeascribedtothosewhofollowedMahler’sprecedentbelievingthattheyhadnochoice

15

buttorespecthiswishesirrespectiveoftheirownpersonalfeelings.Ontheotherhand,thedegreetowhichtheoriginalmovementorderenjoyedimmediateacceptancefromthe1960son,despitethework’swell‐knownpriorperformancehistory,suggeststhatthereweremusicalissuesatstakesosignificantastosupersedeeventhecomposer’sownperformancepractice.Thistooisapointthatdeservestobetakenseriously.AsdelaGrangepointsout,therehavealwaysbeensomeverydistinguishedvoices,includingAntonWebern’s,whospokeupfortheintegrityofMahler’soriginalvision.HansRedlich,whoseEulenbergEditionofthesymphonywithmuchofitsoriginalorchestrationrestoredstillhasn’tbeenrecorded(andsurelydeservestobe),alsoofferedastrongcaseforstickingwithMahler’sfirstthoughtsstructurally.Thedangerinmakingthesortofdubiousclaimstodefinitivenessthatwefindinthecurrenteditionliesnotjustinthefactthattodosoissimplybadscholarship;italsofailstotakeintoaccountthepracticalrealitythatmanybusyperformerstodaylikelywillacceptthesespeciousargumentswithoutqualms.ItfallstoaCriticalEdition,then,toencourageinterpreterstocometoaworkwithoutpreconceptions,andtoofferacleantextalongsideafairassessmentofthevariousinterpretiveoptionsthatthecomposerleftopentoposterity.Justasimportantassolvingtheproblemsthatadmitofasolutionistheneedtospeakhonestlyofthequestionsthatmustremainunanswered,challengingperformerstocreatetheirowninterpretationswithinlegitimatescholarlyandstylisticparameters.Inthisrespect,forallitsusefulnessincorrectingtheactualtext,thecurrenteditionfailsinaverysignificantway.MahlercertainlycanbeexcusedfornotresolvingthestructuralquestionssurroundingtheorderoftheinnermovementsoftheSixthSymphony,buttheveryorganizationchargedwithsafeguardinghislegacydoesnotdeservesimilarindulgence.Clearly,onevidencehere,Mahlerscholarshiphasalongwaytogobeforeitachievesabalanceandintellectualrigorworthyofitssubject.DavidHurwitzMay2010