Listening Fatigue
Thu, May 9 2013, 11:01PM
#2
RE: Listening Fatigue
I wonder if the desire of some to own multiple versions of some works (something to which I plead guilty) is to try to get new freshness to familiar works.
I think you are probably right, phlogiston. The issue of multiple versions, along with the quasi-pathological collecting bug, is probably worth a thread in itself. But I am sure one reason we keep adding to our Mahler 5s or our Matthew Passions is to try and keep the music alive a little longer......
And it works. The Chailly set gave me a new lease on life where Mahler is concerned, your husband's recording of Harold in Italy revived that work for me, Deneve's recordings of Roussel re-awakened enthusiasm for that composer. I'm a recording industry marketing man's dream.
I agree with all of the above. There is something rather ridicuous about all ths collecting but I do find that a new recording might often spark my interesting in listening to a piece again. Then again, sometimes the new recording makes you drag out older copies and reminds you about why you really liked that original recording.
Does any body have the issue that sometimes the version you heard first is a favourite through thick and thin? I know that when I was a student and short of money I never bought a alterative version. I think this is why to this day I like Karajan's Bruckner 2 so much... it s kind of illogical.
Fri, May 10 2013, 3:01AM
#3
RE: Listening Fatigue
Isn't this question of relative movement sizes rather abstract? It may be apparent from looking at the score or the movement timings (or your watch), but if the material and performance are good, I think most listeners in practice wouldn't notice or care. There is also the matter of terrible works/performances seeming endless, while a good one is satisfying whatever its length.
Mahler 6:
I tend to prefer the scherzo 2nd, but that's probably because I heard it that way first.
The fact that people have been listening to this order for 50 years (exactly 50 years, as it turns out - the Critical Edition was published in 1963) is undoubtedly part of the reason for the preference. But I think that if Alma hadn't made her error (one of many errors, misrememberings, omissions & untruths on her part), or if Ratz hadn't told his lie (did an editor ever have a more appropriate name?), it wouldn't even be an issue. The world would be at peace....
People should have the option of exercising their own preference at least - Pappano was very naughty in this respect.
Fri, May 10 2013, 4:07AM
#4
RE: Listening Fatigue
Re Naupilus' last post: yes, the first kiss tends to be the best, tends to prevail. So, a wise music lover takes about 20% off from the credits the first recording of a work has (or more if it was the first contact with such a work).Those first recordings can be valuable for one's appraisal of the readings available knowing that:
1.you can keep your first reference after listening to another but refrain from doing that on the grounds that the performer(s) betrayed the spirit of the work;
2. if another gives you the same good impression, that one is certainly better due to the above mentioned credit policy;
3.if every other recording gives you the same good impression please give us the recipe;
4.if every source says your beloved reference is rubbish perhaps you should keep your love in secret or face the challenge;
5. if your first reference has a strong sonic appeal, be careful, chances are that you are replacing the contents for the container and your preference has a name: audiophilia (it will be very difficult for you to admit it though);
6. if after years listening to several other readings you keep your first preference then probably this is a great recording indeed and CERTAINLY many will agree w/ you on your first choice.
I'm kidding of course but those first recordings deserve special attention: they can be misleading sometimes.
Fri, May 10 2013, 9:17AM
#5
RE: Listening Fatigue
But I think that if Alma hadn't made her error (one of many errors, misrememberings, omissions & untruths on her part), or if Ratz hadn't told his lie (did an editor ever have a more appropriate name?), it wouldn't even be an issue. The world would be at peace....
We can accuse Alma of a lot of things, but lying about somthing her husband said to her. I presume you were present at the bedside throughout their relationship. No. The strongest case for the scherzo second is, apart from the fact it sounds better that way, that Mahler wrote it that way. The rest is performance history.
Fri, May 10 2013, 9:49AM
#6
RE: Listening Fatigue
What an apt forum name for his latest!
Vic.
Fri, May 10 2013, 10:17AM
#7
RE: Listening Fatigue
We can accuse Alma of a lot of things, but lying about somthing her husband said to her. I presume you were present at the bedside throughout their relationship.
Just Google "the Alma problem" - fun times.
Fri, May 10 2013, 10:44AM
#8
RE: Listening Fatigue
A quick question.....
Just looked up Alma Problem - very, very interesting.
The wikipedia entry states that Alma doctored and supressed many of his letters. Are these letters now available "undoctored" and generally in proper order?
Fri, May 10 2013, 11:11AM
#9
RE: Listening Fatigue
Alma may of lied about a few things, she may have lied ( for whatever reason(s) ) about a lot of things, but she is a valuable source for information on Mahler. It seems, as usual, people are prepared to believe her when it suits THEIR argument and call her a liar when it suits THEIR argument. We expect that sort of behaviour from BBC Panorama journalists but as historians we should rise above forcing the facts to fit OUR story.
Fri, May 10 2013, 11:29AM
#10
RE: Listening Fatigue
We expect that sort of behaviour from BBC Panorama journalists
Yep, I thought so. (Is anyone keeping count? I think I got up to ten or twelve before my sabbatical. Is it four or five since? And why?!!!)
Vic.
Fri, May 10 2013, 11:31AM
#11
RE: Listening Fatigue
As for Vic and Parla, I'm off to get a bucket of cold water.
Tee hee! But come on T. Surely it's worth a brownie point for effort?
Vic.
Fri, May 10 2013, 11:52AM
#12
RE: Listening Fatigue
The strongest case for the scherzo second is, apart from the fact it sounds better that way, that Mahler wrote it that way. The rest is performance history.
How does it "sound better", exactly? People have given detailed reasons why the andante-scherzo order works better (no succession of two march-like movements, slow introduction of the finale is more effective if the scherzo precedes it...). What reasons do you have?
Also, "Mahler wrote it that way" is hardly a good argument. Mahler wrote the middle movements of the 7th before he finished the 6th, and still you never hear someone claim we should insert those into the 6th, before the finale - just because Mahler wrote the music in that order.
Fri, May 10 2013, 12:53PM
#13
RE: Listening Fatigue
Also, "Mahler wrote it that way" is hardly a good argument. Mahler wrote the middle movements of the 7th before he finished the 6th, and still you never hear someone claim we should insert those into the 6th, before the finale - just because Mahler wrote the music in that order.
Oh come on, you are just being silly now, silliness will get you nowhere. We are not advocating that Shakespeare should mix up his plays because he worked on many different one's at a time, we are simply stating that Mahler wrote the 6th symphony with the intention of the scherzo being the second movement. The scherzo following a long andante simply doesn't work. As 'Romeo, Romeo, where for art thou Romeo' should not be followed by 'on some strange island trying it on with Miranda' so the scherzo should not follow the andante.
Fri, May 10 2013, 1:53PM
#14
RE: Listening Fatigue
... we are simply stating that Mahler wrote the 6th symphony with the intention of the scherzo being the second movement.
And then he changed his mind, and even before the first performance he decided the order should be altered. He even demanded that errata slips should be inserted in the already printed scores and that a new edition should be prepared with the movements in the right order. The symphony was NEVER performed with the scherzo-andante order during his lifetime and long after.
Why is it so hard to respect the composer's own wishes? If we should go back to the first versions of every Mahler symphony, we should include the Blumine movement in every performance of the 1st as well. Still, that's hardly ever done. And how about having the 4th's finale following the 3rd's, as Mahler originally intended it?
Mahler always changed a lot in his scores during the rehearsals for the first performances. See Klemperer's account of the Prague premiere of the 7th. But his final verdict is what matters. So I find it hard to understand why this issue still divides the minds.
Fri, May 10 2013, 4:28PM
#15
RE: Listening Fatigue
I suppose one more member's penny-worth won't hurt. After all, I seemed to start it off in this thread with my semi-facetious comment that I have been known to listen to Mahler's 6th Symphony without the scherzo!
Well, excuse me but I think 50m, like Robert Matthew-Walker to some extent misses the point.
The point being that the discussion arises because there is a problem.
Team Brodsky are quite right in saying that Mahler wrote the 6th symphony with the intention of the scherzo being the second movement and the andante third. This position was unchanged from June 1903 when he started work (the two middle movements, and sketch of the first) until at least August 1904 when he reported that the work was complete. John Carewe in a letter published in IRR, December 2011) laid out clearly Mahler's tonal scheme, as does La Grange.
Now, there is no doubt that sometime in 1906, before the first performance Mahler realised that there was a problem and, during the rehearsals for the premiere that he conducted in Essen, Germany, he reversed the order.
Is it really fair to say that 14 months of work on a carefully constructed tonal scheme are worth nothing and only his decision at that late stage merits consideration. The fact most probably is something to do with what Naupilus correctly writes (above) that by then Mahler was pre-occupied with his (even more problematic) 7th symphony and required a quick fix. Perhaps if he'd lived another 20 years he would have made a revision that solved all the problems, but as it is he never did. So the problem remains however vociferous the shouts of proponents of one unsatisfactory solution or the other.
Chris
PS: Unanswered is just why Alma insisted later that the Scherzo should be second..
I have it on reliable information from an old friend who was lying under the bed at the time, that one night Alma said to her hubbie, "Darling, I think the Scherzo should be second. Mahler being very tired by then, whispered in her ear "Anything you say, my love." Next morning he heard of her affair with Gropius. Furious, he realised it had not been Alma's idea at all, and changed his mind again - Andante second.
That's it. At least I think that's right. Hang on: was it the other way round....
Mahler 6th scherzo then andante
Bruckner 2nd scherzo then andante.