Mahler: Symphony No.6 in A minor ("Tragic")

Introduction

The Symphony No. 6 in A minor by Gustav Mahler is an Austrian symphony in four movements, composed between 1903 and 1904 (rev. 1906; scoring repeatedly revised). Mahler conducted the work's first performance in Essen on May 27, 1906. , Sometimes referred to by the nickname Tragische ("Tragic"), Mahler composed the symphony at what was apparently an exceptionally happy time in his life, as he had married Alma Schindler in 1902, and during the course of the work's composition his second daughter was born. This contrasts with the tragic, even nihilistic, ending of No. 6. Both Alban Berg and Anton Webern praised the work when they first heard it. Berg expressed his opinion of the stature of this symphony in a 1908 letter to Webern as follows:

Es gibt doch nur eine VI. trotz der Pastorale. (There is only one Sixth, except for the Pastoral.)

Instrumentation

The symphony is written for a large orchestra comprising:

• woodwinds: piccolo (used only in the finale), 4 flutes (flutes 3, 4 doubling as piccolos 2, 3), 4 oboes (oboes 3, 4 doubling as English horns 2, 3) (1st English horn is used only in the Scherzo), English horn (used only in the finale), clarinet in E-flat and D (doubling as clarinet 4 in A for one short passage in the finale), 3 clarinets in B-flat and A, bass clarinet in B-flat and A, 4 bassoons (4th bassoon is used only in the finale), contrabassoon
• brass: 8 horns in F, 6 trumpets in B-flat and F (trumpets 5, 6 are used only in the finale), 4 trombones, tuba
• percussion: timpani (2 players), deep bells unpitched (used only at the finale offstage), cowbells (used offstage & onstage) (offstage at movement 1 & the finale, onstage at movement 3), bass drum, triangle, snare drum, cymbals, whip (used only in the finale), tam-tam, rute (used only in the finale), glockenspiel, hammer¹ (used only in the finale), xylophone
• keyboards: celesta
• strings: 2 harps, violins i, ii, violas, cellos, double basses

¹The sound of the hammer, which features in the last movement, was stipulated by Mahler to be "brief and mighty, but dull in resonance and with a non-metallic character (like the fall of an axe)." The sound achieved in the premiere did not quite carry far enough from the stage, and indeed the problem of achieving the proper volume while still remaining dull in resonance remains a challenge to the modern orchestra. Various methods of producing the sound have involved a wooden mallet striking a wooden surface, a sledgehammer striking a wooden box, or a particularly large bass drum, or sometimes simultaneous use of more than one of these methods.

As in many other of his compositions, Mahler indicates in several places that extra instruments should be added, including two or more celestas "if possible," "several" triangles at the end of the first movement, doubled snare drum (side drum) in certain passages, and in one place in the fourth movement "several" cymbals. While at the beginning of each movement Mahler calls for 2 harps, at one point in the Andante he calls for "several," and at one point in the Scherzo he writes "4 harps." Often he does not specify a set number, especially in the last movement, simply writing "harps."

While the first version of the score included slapstick and tambourine, these were removed over the course of Mahler's extensive revisions.

Nickname of 'Tragische'

The status of the symphony's nickname is problematic. The programme for the first Vienna performance (January 4, 1907) refers to the work as 'Sechste Sinfonie (Tragische)', but only the words 'Sechste Sinfonie' appeared on the programme for the earlier performance in Munich on November 8, 1906. Nor does the word Tragische appear on any of the scores that C.F. Kahnt published (first edition, 1906; revised edition, 1906), or in Richard Specht's officially approved Thematische Führer ('thematic guide') or on Alexander Zemlinsky's piano duet transcription (1906). In his Gustav Mahler memoir, Bruno Walter claimed that "Mahler called [the work] his Tragic Symphony", and this is often cited in support of a nickname that many people clearly find congenial. The fact remains, however, that Mahler did not so title the symphony when he composed it; when he first performed it; when he published it; when he allowed Specht to analyse it; or when he allowed Zemlinsky to arrange it. He had, moreover, decisively rejected and disavowed the titles (and programmes) of his earlier symphonies by 1900; and neither the "Lied der Nacht" subtitle of the Seventh Symphony, nor the "Sinfonie der Tausend" of the Eighth, stem from Mahler. For all these reasons, the Tragische nickname is not used in serious works of reference.

Structure

The work is in four movements, of duration around 80 minutes. The order of the inner movements is a matter of debate. The first published edition of the score (CF Kahnt, 1906) featured the movements in the following order:

1. Allegro energico, ma non troppo. Heftig, aber markig.
2. Scherzo: Wuchtig
3. Andante moderato
4. Finale: Sostenuto – Allegro moderato – Allegro energico

However, Mahler subsequently placed the Andante as the second movement, and this new order of the inner movements was reflected in the second and third published editions of the score, as well as the Essen premiere, as follows:

1. Allegro energico, ma non troppo. Heftig, aber markig.
2. Andante moderato
3. Scherzo: Wuchtig
4. Finale: Sostenuto – Allegro moderato – Allegro energico

Scholars such as Norman Del Mar have argued for the Andante/Scherzo order of the inner movements. The 1963 Erwin Ratz edition publishes the score with the movements ordered to Mahler's original conception. Del Mar, among others, has criticised the Ratz edition for its lack of documentary evidence to justify the Scherzo/Andante order. In contrast, scholars such as Theodor Adorno, Hans-Peter Jülg and Karl Heinz Füssl have argued for the original order as more appropriate, expostulating on the overall tonal scheme and the various relationships between the keys in the final 3 movements. British composer David Matthews was a former adherent of the Andante/Scherzo order, but has since changed his mind and now argues for Scherzo/Andante as the preferred order, again citing the overall tonal scheme of the symphony. Matthews and scholar Warren Darcy (the latter an advocate for the Andante/Scherzo order) have independently proposed the idea of two separate editions of the symphony, one to accommodate each version of the order of the inner movements.^[3]

^[6]

Formally, the symphony is one of Mahler's most outwardly conventional. The first three movements are relatively traditional in structure and character, with a standard sonata form first movement (even including an exact repeat of the exposition, unusual in Mahler) leading to the middle movements – one slow, the other a scherzo-with-trios. However, attempts to analyze the vast finale in terms of the sonata archetype have encountered serious difficulties. As Dika Newlin has pointed out: "it has elements of what is conventionally known as 'sonata form', but the music does not follow a set pattern [...] Thus, 'expositional' treatment merges directly into the type of contrapuntal and modulatory writing appropriate to 'elaboration' sections [...]; the beginning of the principal theme-group is recapitulated in C minor rather than in A minor, and the C minor chorale theme [...] of the exposition is never recapitulated at all"

Performance history

There is some controversy over the order of the two middle movements. Mahler conceived the work as having the scherzo second and the slow movement third, a somewhat unclassical arrangement adumbrated in such earlier gargantuan symphonies as Beethoven's Ninth, Bruckner's Eighth and (unfinished) Ninth, and Mahler's own four-movement First and Fourth. It was in this arrangement that the symphony was completed (in 1904) and published (in March 1906); and it was with a conducting score in which the scherzo preceded the slow movement that Mahler began rehearsals for the work's first performance, in May 1906. During those rehearsals, however, Mahler decided that the slow movement should precede the scherzo, and he instructed his publishers C.F. Kahnt to prepare a "second edition" of the work with the movements in that order, and meanwhile to insert errata slips indicating the change of order into all unsold copies of the existing edition. The seriousness of such a decision is not to be underestimated: as Jeffrey Gantz has pointed out, "A composer who premières his symphony Andante/Scherzo immediately after publishing it Scherzo/Andante can expect a degree of public ridicule, and [the reviewer of the first Vienna performance] didn't spare the sarcasm".

The first occasion on which the abandoned, original movement order was reverted to seems to have been in 1919, after Alma had sent a telegram to Willem Mengelberg which said "erst Scherzo dann Andante" ("First Scherzo then Andante"). Mengelberg, who had been in close touch with Mahler until the latter's death, and had conducted the symphony in the "Andante/Scherzo" arrangement up to 1916, then switched to the "Scherzo/Andante" order. In this he seems to have been alone: other conductors, such as Oskar Fried, continued to perform (and eventually record) the work as 'Andante/Scherzo', per Mahler's own second edition, right up to the early 1960s.

In 1963, Erwin Ratz's "Critical Edition" of the Sixth appeared, where the Scherzo preceded the Andante. Ratz, however, did not offer documented support, such as Alma Mahler's telegram, for his assertion that Mahler "changed his mind a second time" at some point before his death. One consequence of this edition was that conductors who recorded the work, and with a preference for the revised Andante/Scherzo order, would find their recordings with the middle movements in the order of Scherzo/Andante, in conformity with the 1963 Ratz Edition. The lack of documentary or other evidence in support of Ratz's (and Alma's) reverted ordering has caused the most recent Critical Edition to restore the Andante/Scherzo order. However, many conductors continue to perform the Scherzo before the Andante, in keeping with Mahler's original order. British conductor John Carewe has noted parallels between the tonal plan of Beethoven's Symphony No 7 and Mahler's Symphony No 6, with the Scherzo/Andante order of movements in the latter, where David Matthews has noted that performing the Mahler with the Andante/Scherzo order would damage the structure of the tonal key relationships and remove this parallel. Moreover, Henry-Louis de La Grange, Mahler's biographer, referring to the 1919 Mengelberg telegram, has questioned the notion of Alma simply expressing a personal view of the movement order:

It is far more likely ten years after Mahler's death and with a much clearer perspective on his life and career, Alma would have sought to be faithful to his artistic intentions... it is stretching the bounds of both language and reason to describe [Andante-Scherzo] as the 'only correct' one. Mahler's Sixth Symphony, like many other compositions in the repertory, will always remain a 'dual-version' work, but few of the others have attracted quite as much controversy.

The dual-version view is one echoed by another major Mahler writer, Donald Mitchell. The matter therefore remains under considerable debate.

An additional question is on whether to restore the third hammer blow. Both the Ratz edition and the most recent critical edition delete the third hammer blow. However, advocates on opposite sides of the inner movement debate, such as Del Mar and Matthews, have separately argued for restoration of the third hammer blow.