Mahler Symphony No. 6
Recordings in Review

by Stan Ruttenberg

Following are recordings I am listening to in preparation for MahlerFest XVI. However, I must note that I am following the first edition (Dover) and also checking against the newest critical edition. There are considerable discrepancies between these first and last scores and, in fact, I doubt that first edition was ever actually played, as Mahler started tinkering with the score immediately after it was published, e.g., removing all the winds in opening measures 2-5. I have not yet heard a recording in which the winds are playing there.

HISTORICAL

F. Charles Adler, Vienna Symphony Orchestra, issued originally on LP; digitally remastered 1997. Rehearsal numbers quoted here are from the Dover score, and are continuous, not starting fresh at each movement. Notice also that the RNs are disparate between the Scherzo and Andante, as the Dover score has them in their original order, not as reversed by Mahler. Adler's recording of the Sixth is the only one with a conductor who had a personal relationship with Mahler, helping at the rehearsals of the Eighth.. However, it is not known if he ever attended a performance of the Sixth but he does play it in Mahler's own preferred mode, i.e., Andante-Scherzo. It seems that neither Bruno Walter nor Otto Klemperer could come to grips with the Sixth, as they seldom if ever performed it.
1. Allegro. Adler opens with a sensible tempo, but the mood is not exactly "vehement" as Mahler calls for. The low brass marked ff at RN 1 are there but repressed. At RN 2 + 1 and 3, the eighth-note trombones marked mf are OK, but they do not "spit" out as do the Stockholm players under Horenstein. Alma's there, entering in just before RN 8, is not exaggerated as some, but "suddenly back to tempo, as marked," after a slight rit. Soon, the celeste, marked ff, is inaudible. In general Adler moves right along, not taking the repeat, but the recording is so unfocussed, and harsh, that it is difficult to hear much of the inner voicing. At RN 41 + 3, one of my touchstones of the first movement, the jaunty trumpet is good. From RN 42 one, Mahler wants it etwas drängend (somewhat pushed) but Adler actually seems to slow down
2. Andante. Adler adopts a sensible tempo, not dragging it. The strings observe nicely the many portamenti. The winds and horns carry on their dialogs very sweetly, and the striking octave portamento in the first violins at RN 99 is exquisite.
3. Scherzo. Here at the opening I have found a wide variety of how the timpani are played. It is marked f (evidently in all scores until the latest IGMS corrected critical edition) but the 4th and 7th notes are marked sf etc. Adler plays it here as marked. I will note later how some conductors have their own way with these passages. Adler's xylophone seems to be far from any microphones as it is hardly heard, as also in the first movement. He moves the rhythm along nicely and it is a powerful performance. Adler slows down, just right it seems to be, for the Áltväterisch section starting at RN 56. At the return of the original tempo and style, the horns at RN 63 + 2, are weak, but soon the xylophone comes in, this time strong. I find this movement very well played.
4. Finale. The opening is mysterious, and at measure 8 the fine harp glissando is heard clearly, whereas in the preceding movements the harp tended to be much recessed, as it is a few measures later. The next section is admirably played by winds, low brass, tuba, etc., but the great timpani strokes at RN 107 are recessed. Building up the first blow, Adler does not quite get the manic exuberance others do, and the first hammer blow is weak, no doubt a result of the microphone set-up. The brass passages leading up to RN 134 - 3 are quite good and Adler does get a good syncopation in the timpani, as good as most, but nowhere near the most striking [Horenstein, Olson!]. The second hammer blow is somewhat better and, fascinatingly, the second tam-tam blow at RN 140 + 1 is quite clear. I am not sure I ever noticed it before. The build-up to where the third hammer blow was to be is good, but Adler does not take the third blow. I do think, however, that he does use the revised score for that measure. The final measures are fine but not done justice by the recording.
The booklet explains that the original tapes had been lost in a fire, but a copy tape was found for Symphony No. 3. Symphonies 6 and 10, however, had to be processed starting from proof masters of the LPs, so they do not have the dynamic range of No. 3 and the sound is quite congested and rough, as contrasted with that of No 3 which, for its day, has quite good sound. Pity, for Adler certainly had his grip on this symphony and the recording has its historic significance.

MY TWO FAVORITES

Jascha Horenstein, Stockholm Phil. Music & Arts CD-785 (With Bruckner 9 & Mahler 9)
1. Allegro. JH, as usual, adopts a quite sensible tempo, fast enough to be "energetic" but not a galloping race. The orchestra is well balanced, the trombones at RN 1+ 5-7 are bright and cut through, and at RN 2+ 3 & 6 snap to attention. Trumpet at +10 could be more forceful, but this is a minor quibble. Mahler writes "forceful" for Alma's theme and JH plays it well, not overdoing any sentimentality. Mahlerites often complain about this orchestra being substandard. Up till RN 22 + 11, I heard no brass clams. Ok, there was then a break in ONE horn note, and here and there the strings are not voluptuous. But the orchestra plays with devotion to JH's leadership, - what more could be asked? I heard one more brass clam buried in thick texture. At RN 41 and following, my touchstone, the trumpet is jaunty, the damped horns fine and the celeste is clear. A very nicely played passage, leading into a strong ending. I don't ask for much more in this movement.
2. Scherzo. The Stockholm Phil's timpanist doesn't know how to read a score! He gets the accents and the dynamics all wrong in the opening. He's not alone, in the many recordings I have assayed. Outside of that JH moves along with a good steady pace, good trombones. The horns play their grace notes well. There is some contrast in the Altväterisch section, but this could have been a little more pronounced. Just before RN 63, the timpani player misreads totally the score (both Dover & the last Critical ed.); Either JH was asleep or just had to let it go. Soon afterwards we hear the horns with their repeated grace notes, not as emphatic as I think the music calls for. (Is this Mahler thumbing his nose at the critics who trashed so thoroughly his Fifth?) Upon hearing this movement again, with score, I must confess to some disappointment. As this recording stems from two concert performances, why didn't JH correct the timpanist for the repeat performance? Why was the recording not better edited?
3. Andante. Nicely played! JH observes carefully the subito pp markings, and the portamenti. The first horn redeems him(her)self with some lovely playing. The strings navigate well the passage at RN 95 + 4 and following, starting about 7:35; it seems that in this down-moving passage there are so many accidentals, plus tricky rhythm, that even some of the best orchestras never get it just right. When the MahlerFest orchestra struggled here ten years ago I winced, but since then have heard many name orchestras mess up also. The following passages with brass are well played, no clams, winds and strings fine. The coda, one of Mahler's most ethereal, leading to another of my touchstones, the chord at 9 measures before the end, 15:16, is well done, but I like Olson's better.
4. Finale. The opening is properly mysterious, good tuba, and the horn at 105 + 4-5, 2:05, does the portamenti beautifully, as does trumpet at 3 before 108, 2:17. The build-up to the first hammer blow (13:35) is excellent and the blow itself is strong and one can differentiate the thud of the hammer from the more resonant timpani stroke. Trombones are excellent, brassy, with bite, following the blow. The brass buildup to another of my touchstones at 134 - 3-2 is very well done and the strong rhythm in cymbal, bass drum, and snarling trombones, at 15:57 is excellent. Many conductors simply play through this striking passage but JH gives it its full due, the way he does a similar passage in the last movement of Bruckner 5. This passage alone proclaims, to me, JH's mastery of this movement. The second hammer blow is clear and good, with fine trombones afterwards. JH does not take the third hammer blow, and I think that he does not use the revised orchestration, but I am not sure. The final measures are dark and brooding enough - Death wins!
There is another Horenstein "recording," actually an underground tape from a performance at Bournemouth, UK. (do not know date but think it is later than the commercial release). The reading is similar, but the first movement has more energy and the rhythm is more concentrated and sharp. The trombones of Stockholm, however, are better. The Scherzo opens quite differently from that at Stockholm - the first note is a forte, f, timpani note, and it is strong. Then the cellos and basses enter in over the continued f of the timpani also marked forte and with sf on the first note of triplets. However, after the opening solo note on timpani, they disappear into the background in favor of the sharply accented cellos and basses, etc. Quite a different effect and, IMHO, NOT in accordance with the score. This time at RN 63, the Bournemouth timpanist plays what is in the score, so I can only think that at Stockholm the player made a terrible mistake and JH could not correct it. That is very odd with a conductor of Horenstein's experience and skill. Horenstein's opening of the scherzo is not unique, either - that interpretation is also on several other recordings, e.g., Boulez and the VPO, and Abbado and the Cleveland (broadcast). In the MahlerFest performance of n1993, the timpani are as written but the cellos and basses are almost lost (owing, I think, to the geometry of how the microphones were placed). We'll see what Olson does next January.

John Barbirolli, New Philharmonia Orchestra, EMI 7 67816 2 (Note, Barbirolli performed in the order Andante-Scherzo, but the published reversed the inner movements, apparently to conform with the Critical Edition. It has since been re-issued in the order in which it was actually performed.)

1. Allegro energico, ma non troppo. Sir John takes a very measured approach, the tread of giants. Mahler's marking calls for some comment. Energetic need not be hasty, as Sir John and Otto Klemperer time after time demonstrated. Also, Mahler's admonition "but not too much" allows the conductor much leeway. For my taste, I find this opening the most powerful (vehement) of any performance I have ever heard. At RN 6 + 4 (2:18), the basses growl better than in any other recording. At 3:10 or so Alma's theme enters very powerfully. Just after RN 21 (8:20) the cowbells are "perfect," sounding as if from hills at a distance, just what Mahler must have heard on his hikes, as I myself have heard many, many times in Switzerland, France and Austria. They have the right timbre, and the right tonal range; in many recordings these bells sound "tinny." The quiet tremolo strings behind the bells are wonderfully atmospheric. Sir John slides gracefully into the transition at RN 41 (19:06) and does that passage very well. Sir John allows himself a graceful rit. Just before pressing on to the end, as Mahler directs, and takes the marked rit at 2 before 42 before the strong closing. .The timing is just over 21 minutes, without the repeat. Adding the repeat would have brought the timing to maybe 26 1/2 minutes, not that much slower than Rattle, the slowest in Fülöp's catalog. Altogether, a powerful and sensitive performance, one that I would not be without, but I also can take it somewhat faster, but then I dislike those who rush it (e.g., Bernstein).
2, Andante (the way it was performed). This is a lovely reading, the strings are especially fine, and carry out their portamenti with grace. Starting at 7:52 the "dangerous" descending string passage is negotiated well, to Sir John's non-mellifluous accompaniment. Another lovely portamento at RN 99 (11:11). The lovely chord (a diminished version of a similar chord heard in I, ?) at 15:00 fades into a gentle closing. One cannot wish for a more sensitive reading of this movement.
Scherzo. Sir John elects to diminish the timpani between the sf markings, and let the cellos and basses sound, but as I read those 8 measures, the timpani dynamics stay the same, forte. But his reading is in better balance than others who try this. One can still hear the timpani beats below the strings. Sir John pounds out the rhythm inexorably and the brass is excellent. JB slows down a little at the Altväterisch and is somewhat deliberate, as marked. Thus far, however, no conductor has made sufficient contrast here as I think Mahler intended. In his day, "old fashioned" must have meant something somewhat different from what modern conductors think. Mahler adjusts tempo often, between "old fashioned" and "pressing" so the conductor and orchestra has to be on their toes, as they are here! Needless to say, the timpanist gets it right at RN 63 (5:15) as do the horns just following. To the end, this is an altogether exemplary performance, JB in positive control and the orchestra brilliant.
4. Finale. From the beginning one senses JB's very deliberate but forceful approach. The horn and trumpet wail mightily, and the timpanist knows what ff means. No wimpy playing here! JB, deliberate but powerful, moves along to the first hammer blow, which seems a little too resonant, not the "dull thud" Mahler asked for, but followed by blazing trombones. The horns and trombones lead strongly into the magic moment at 134 - 3 & 2, and the rhythmic effect here is good, perhaps not quite as striking in Horenstein's Bournemouth performance. The second hammer blow is again a little resonant, and one wonders if JB (to placate the engineers) just used a bass drum whack instead of a hammer. These hammer blows are the one weakness I find thus far, maybe not the fault of JB. The "false" third hammer blow, RN 164 (29:47), is fine, and where the third blow should be 10 measures later, JB follows the revised orchestration. The trombones and tuba leading up to the final mournful cry of the double basses are good, but do not really prepare one for the tremendous timpani job at the end. I must believe that this was ahler's own intention. No other recording is so stark and powerful.
Those who are followers of J. B. Tolkien will understand me when I assert that this performance is the "March of the Ents" - powerful in the extreme, deliberate but not dragging, resolutely driving forward to the pounding of the hammers of fate at the end. This would be my desert island Sixth, notwithstanding the missing repeat and hammer blows that are not the best.

John Barbirolli, Berlin Philharmonic. This is from a concert, and is slightly faster than his studio recording. It is very good but suffers from a metallic hammer blow, exactly what Mahler did NOT want.

OTHER RECORDINGS OF INTEREST

Harold Farberman, London Symphony Orchestra, VOX 2 7212, remastered from LP. This is another case where the publisher did the dubious favor to the conductor, without ever consulting him, of reversing the conductor's performance order of the inner movements, from A-S to S-A.
1. Allegro. The opening is ordinary, especially just after listening to the Barbirolli. The trombones at 2 + 2 & 4, however, are good, and very brassy. There is not enough contrast when the Alma theme enters (2:34). There are some remarkable trombones starting at 3:15, about RN 11. Most of this movement moves well. Horns obey Mahler's dynamics very well in one passage, but then, after a diminuendo, continue to play loud. The coda is OK. After hearing this performance on a cassette from the LP, I was very impressed. My evaluation has gone down to pretty good but nowhere near JH and JB. Farberman does nothing wrong, but there is a lack of urgency, drive, power, etc.
2. Scherzo. HF does emphasize the first timpani, and then the first note of the lower strings, but at the same time, the timpani disappears. I do not think that this is Mahler intended. But then, I have not yet heard this passage played as written. Is this another of Mahler's "jokes" as is measure 3 of the Fourth (i.e., tests of the conductor)? Also, I think that the tempo is a little too fast. Mahler wants "heavy" but not dragging. HF makes quite a contrast in tempo when he gets to the Altväterisch section, the best contrast thus far but without dragging the slow section. The timpani are quite good at RN 63, leading to the grace notes on the horns, which are played quite well, not as striking as JB. There are some lovely low tam-tams at RN 67 + 7 and following (6:15), and a fine growling tuba, not always heard on recordings. The Altväterisch section comes again, again in good contrast with the other sections, with some very nicely judged ceasuras. At RN 84 (12:10) there is a wonderful horn pedal note, not often heard so well. This is one of the most interesting version of this movement, with substantial contrasts, in keeping with the music.
3. Andante. Very lovely string and wind playing all along, with some marvelous horns, and the descending string passage at RN 96 - 4 (about 8:15) is played flawlessly by the LSO strings - best I have heard yet. However, the strings do not manage a smooth portamento at RN 99 (11:52).
4. Finale. HF opens appropriately mysteriously - the bass tuba growls, the horns and trumpets wail convincingly, and behind the trumpets at RN 106-3 (2:58) the horns (some of them stopped) play for the first time the jaunty tune that later on appears in a triumphal mode, and are heard clearly, which they are not in most recordings. The following passages develop the triumphal themes in brass and strings very well leading to the first hammer blow (13:59), quite pronounced and the hammer is delineated clearly, as opposed to the JB recording. The following trombones are not nearly as good as in JB. The following build up is good with horns and trombones and the climax of this section at RN 134 - 3 (16:04) is quite good. Horenstein, Bournemouth, still holds the gold star for these two measures. The swaggering, jaunty passages that follow lead nicely to the somewhat broadened out and quiet section that introduces the second hammer blow (18:56), where the cymbal (slightly out of synch.) and tam-tam add lots of bright upper partials. The trombones here are not as impressive as the New Philharmonia under JB. A few moments later, Mahler wants "somewhat pressed" (drängend) but HF seems to slow down to the point of almost seeming dragging (pun intended). At the end of this passage Mahler marked "Forwards," but HF does not obey. At RN 143 Mahler wants "somewhat held back) but HF maintains the previously too-slow tempo, as if he had started holding back too soon to anticipate Mahler's instruction. The build-up to the next climax is good, and the 'false" hammer blow at measure 773 is resonant and impressive, then the real third blow at measure 783 (with the non-revised orchestration at 30:21) is sharp, too sharp, in fact, as the hammer blow is a "thwack" not a "thud." The final timpani outcries are good, but not comparable to those of the JB recording.
All in all, a satisfactory and very good performance, rising to excellent in spots, with not too many disappointments. A bargain at the new VOX price.

Thomas Sanderling, St. Petersburg Philharmonic, RS label, available in USA via Amazon.com.

1. Allegro. TS takes a sensible tempo, forceful but not too fast. Trombones at RN1 + 5(00:19) excellent, but the following trombone notes are not as strong as JH-Stockholm. Alma's theme comes in with careful phrasing, the marked dynamics are observed well. The strings and brass acquit themselves very well in the following passages, and the chord at RN 13 + 4 (4:27) is nicely delineated. I always feel disappointed when this particular chord is not clear. In the repeat, the trombones are even better than before. At 11:06 the trombones, marked p are clearly heard, a nice touch, with nice horns and trombones following to the tam-tam low growl at 11:25 (19 + 4) followed by another a few seconds later. It is pleasant to hear these inner voices. The herdbells enter, a little distant, maybe the celeste a little too loud. At RN 24 (14:12) the duet between the bass clarinet and herdbells is very good, and clear, followed by a lovely duet between horns and celesta. At RN 25 (15:15) the tempos suddenly picks up in a solid march, good brass and winds, leading to the Alma reprise at 18:31. The opening march appears again, leading to the quick tempo at RN 37 (20:28)m The lovely passage of trumpet against celeste at 21:50 is good and Sanderling leads a triumphal march to the end. This is very well played, excellent in fact, if not quite as pointed as Horenstein or as powerful as Barbirolli.
2. Scherzo. A powerful opening with strong lower strings. The first timpani note, standing by itself, is strong, but the subsequent strokes are not f as marked. However, TS comes closer to the score than any thus far. Altväterisch, at 2:16, is quite good, with a good lilt and different character. It is hard to know just what Mahler meant here, but whatever it was, TS manages to make thi section a good contrast with the preceding driving rhythms. At 4:27 the horns bray out unmistakably Mahler's opinion of his critics. The second altväterisch section, marked to be the same as the first time, is a little faster, with somewhat less contrast. At 9:19 this sections mirrors, with different orchestration, the braying horns earlier, This time the horns are sarcastic and moaning, instead of braying. TS brings off this mood well. In the Dover score, there are no tempo changes in the following section, but in the latest critical edition there is a ritenuto at RN 82, which TS observes well (I assume that this marking is also in the earlier critical edition).
3. Andante. The tempo is moderate, as called for, the strings play lovingly, perhaps missing a few portamenti in the beginning, but the legato playing is excellent. Horn and winds are also excellent. Atabout 6 minutes, the strings take their portamenti very nicely. The herdbells, marked this tine im Orchester are barely heard. The treacherous descending string passage starting at about 7:00 is negotiated very well, hardly any sign of "off tune," or lack of synchronicity. The following passage, string, horns an winds, is very tender leading to the delicate upper string portamento at 10:21, exquisitely played. Then follows somewhat stronger passages leading to the beautiful strings introducing the final passages, ethereal music, darkened somewhat by the wonderful chord at 14:00.
4. Finale. Strong opening, and wonder harp glissando with all the notes heard clearly, instead of a smear, followed by strong brass, mournful tuba. A fine bass tuba, then excellent horns against the celeste and harp. Horn, then trumpet, wail convincingly. A fine wind and horn chorale introduce the pounding rhythm in timpani and the bassoons introduce the swaggering theme that later becomes the triumphal march. It is enough to say that the next section, powerful brass playing, comes though just fine, leading to the exhilarating wind triplets at 7;35 introducing a long lyrical passage, is under perfect control and not exaggerated. The herdbells, over the tuba, are perhaps a little too prominent, as again they are to be heard in the distance, an artifact, perhaps, of the engineering not the conducting. The passage leading to the first blow at 12:42 is quite measured and successful, and the hammer blow is well balanced with the rest of the orchestration. Fierce trombones follow, then equally fierce trumpets, solid horns, etc. The strong syncopated passage at 14:31 does not come off strongly, the first major weakness I find in this performance. TS, however, recaptures the swagger in the march to the second hammer stroke at 17:32, good but hardly overpowering, as it should be (listen to Zander, in the review following). Again excellent trombones and trumpets/horns. At 18:47 the timpani pound mightily, as in the beginning of this movement, foretelling the even greater moment at the end. The section leading to the "false' third blow is indeed powerful, and the tutti is powerful. TS does not take the third blow, and the slowing down and quieting of the orchestra is well controlled. The passage leading to the coda could have been more foreboding and grim, and the big tutti three bars before the end is somewhat anti-climatic. The final menacing timpani bars seem too quick to have their full effect.

Benjamin Zander, Philharmonia Orchestra, new release on Telarc, with a full CD lecture.

1. Allegro. Very nice opening tempo, strong but not rushed. Brass is good, perhaps a little genteel British, not the bite of the Stockholm brass nor the power in Barbirolli. This, in fact, may be a matter of the sound engineering - all well balanced but insufficient "presence." The Alma theme enters strongly, as Mahler indicated, with a small grunt from someone - Zander? At RN 10 Zander gets some good jaunty playing from the Philharmonia. My favorite chord, RN 13 + 4, at 4:42 seems to have been just played through with no attention to its structural significance - or am I all wet here? The side drum, marked p to be sure, is hardly audible, but then its crescendo is impressive. In the repeat, the Alma these is about the same, but "my" chord is better. However, the side drum is much less impressive the second time. The xylophone at about 11:00 seems weak and recessed, though marked ff, so maybe again that is the sound engineering. Just before RN 19, at 11:50; the Philharmonia strings execute perfectly Mahler's spring Bogen. At 12:43 the herdbells and celeste are just right. Zander judges well the next section, up to RN 25 at 16:61, Gracioso, immer ruhig, ohne zu schleppen, calmly but not dragging, and the solo horn against solo violin is very tender without being "milked." The return to tempo, very energetic, is well done, with some fine inner string voices displayed; however, the clear voicings here allow me to think that the recording was over-balanced in favor of the strings. Soon, trombones, however, are clear but always seem to be slightly in the background. The trumpets always shine through, so maybe there is much multi-miking here. The return of Alma at 19:00 is gentle. "My" chord at 21:00 is good, setting the stage for the return of the march rhythms in lower strings and the return of low trombones. Zander handles very well my little favorite passage at RN 41, 23:39, giving it a nice lilt, leading to a vigorous ending. All in all, this is a most satisfactory performance of this movement, equal to Thomas Sanderling but not quite up to what I like to hear in the Horenstein and Barbirolli readings.
2. Scherzo. Zander's reading is almost to the score. The first timpani note is accented, then the lower basses come in with proper accenting, but the intermediate timpani notes, all marked forte simply disappear in between accents. I really wonder what Mahler himself did, or intended here. Van Beinum in his 1955 performance with the Concertgebouw Orchestra, seems to be the only one closest to the score - strong timpani, albeit all the beats seem to have the same dynamics and accents, and with the lower strings clearly below, accented as marked. I am left wondering how Bob Olson will "solve" this problem next January. Surely, suppressing the intermediate timpani notes is an incorrect, but common, solution. Back to the following music, Zander marches along well, and takes a nice contrast for the altväterisch section at 2:17. Zander seems to interpret, here, many legato markings as portamenti, which the strings do with gusto, which seems in the spirit of the music so I do not object, but, strictly speaking, is not called for in the score. At 4:31 the Philhamonia's horns bray well at Mahler's critics and observe well the dynamics. The winds obey well Mahler's change in tempo just before RN 64. The second appearance of altväterisch at 7:14, is as good as the first time. All in all, this is a fine, energetic reading, seemingly more energetic than the preceding movement. The col legno strings are fine, the winds exemplary, the brass also, and this is one of the best readings off this movement I have heard yet.
3. Andante. Good tempo, nice string and wind playing. Zander has the strings take the portamenti at RN 87 +7, which is voiced well so that it is clear, usually not in most recordings. Now I'll cease pontificating on details and relax and let this lovely music wash over my consciousness. This is as fine a reading as one could wish for. Needless to say, the Philharmonia strings negotiate flawlessly the descending string passage at RN 95 + 4, and the delicious portamento at RN 99. The slightly dark chord near the end is evident, but I have heard it better delineated. Just too bad that one must change CDs here so the magical segue into the finale is lost.
Finale. This set contains on the second CD, the Finale first with the three blows, as originally composed and premièred at Essen, and then in the revised version with the third blow eliminated. When Mahler eliminated the third blow, he also re-orchestrated that bar, so of course that version should be played. But, it is a disputed what score to use when the original version is played, with the third blow present. It would seem logical to use the Essen score, but that version does not exist any longer, as far as we know, as Mahler continued to tinker with changes and the marked-up score in the Vienna Society, according to experts, cannot be de-convoluted to know just which changes were made when. Anyway, I shall comment here only on the "original" version appearing first on this CD. I like Zander's opening tempo, and the sound quality - mysterious, portending. If one had never heard this music before, one would immediately suspect that important things would be coming! The first horn theme is atmospheric, and the horn then wails convincingly. followed by the trumpet, leading to a well judged chorale in winds and horns. The build to the first climax is good and the hammer blow at 13:26 is most impressive, much more in tune to my ears with Mahler's intentions, as best we can infer them from his written or quoted comments, than Zander's earlier recording with the Boston Philharmonic. The forceful passage at RN 134 - 3 at 15:20 do not stand out, in fact I missed this the first two times through, a big disappointment. Of course, the score does not give any special emphasis to this passage but having heard Horenstein/Bournemouth and Olson/MahlerFest I expect a big moment here. The second blow at 18:18 is indeed magnificent, a standard by which others must be judged. The third blow, 29:16 is inserted in the revised orchestration, as far as I can tell, a mistaken judgement on Zander's part, I believe. The final measures are good, a big tutti but the final timpani strokes do not convey the terrible finality of Barbirolli's performance, in fact, the final measures are a letdown.
Overall, I would have to put this version behind JH, JB and Thomas Sanderling, in the class of quite good but with disappointments. There are great disappointments in Mr. Zander's lecture; his musical discussion is interesting and for the most part useful. What I do not find useful, however, is his allusion that Mahler may have "borrowed" from Strauss, e.g., Domestic Symphony and Dance of the Seven Veils.
Mr. Zander also flunks history. He repeats Alma's story about the Scherzo echoing the children in the yard, when, in fact, Mahler composed this movement before Anna was born and Marie was a babe in arms. Hard to figure out why Alma made up this story, but there it is, and needs to be squelched. Zander also repeats the canard that the violent anti-Semitism in Vienna "forced" him to resign from the Hofoper. In fact, he labored mightily with Prince Montenuovo, the representative of the Emperor to be relieved from his contract as Mahler had become sick and tired of the continuing administrative fights. Besides, he knew he had the heart defect (NOT FATAL) and a young family to care for. Thus, when he negotiated a contract with the Metropolitan Opera in New York at three times the salary and one-third the work he, being a practical husband, decided that that option was far better than staying in Vienna and continuing the enervating administrative haggling with the company. While I admire Mr. Zander's arguments in favor of re-installing the third hammer blow, I cavil at his examples of the "before" and "after." The example of the "original" hammer blow as Mahler composed it, does NOT include the celesta, but Mr. Zander's musical example does. I happen to admire Mr. Zander for his devotion to Mahler, his energetic performances, his ability to get wondrous playing from his Boston Philharmonic Orchestra, but I am dismayed that he makes such mistakes.

Herbert von Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic. I did listen to this with the score, but alas, did not take notes. I recall that it is a worthy performance, nothing at all to carp about, maybe slightly cool. To my taste, along with the Fourth, this is von K's best Mahler.

Robert Olson, MahlerFest VI, MahlerFest Orchestra, 1993, Boulder, Co. For this recording there was one set of crossed microphones, about 15 feet above the stage, about in the middle of the orchestra, i., e., behind most of the strings. Thus, the overall balance is biased against the strings.

1. Allegro. Olson's tempo is abut like that of the Horenstein Stockholm performance. Very clean trumpet playing at RN 2 + 7-9. Ditto for trumpets a little later, and horns. Trombones at RN6 4 + 4 & following, marked mf sound a little recessed. Double basses are good at RN6 + 4, but not as good as in the Barbirolli. Olson plays the Alma theme with feeling but it is not overdone, with nice horns behind. The chord at RN 13 + 4, is sounded clearly, comes back again at RN 36 + 5 (and, to my ears, is transformed again in the andante near the end). At RN #36 - 8 the double basses begin a mysterious ostenuto with growling trombones that usher in the big tempo change at RN 37 with a fine bass tuba underneath. The jaunty "joke" at RN 41 is played deliciously, for all its worth. Olson drives on to a deliberate and powerful coda, plenty of brass clams and string problems, but the orchestra is playing with full fervor.
2. Andante. (Note, this was the Sunday performance; on Saturday the inner movements were S-A, as first published). The movement starts out well, not dragging but tender, until the treacherous descending string passage at RN 95 + 4 and following, where the strings barely hang together, but many of the name orchestras also come a cropper here. However, the strings do very well in the next section leading to the delicious portamento at RN 99. The movement moves to a fine coda with my mysterious chord at 9 measures before the end.
3. Scherzo. The timpani measures are played well, with accents as marked, but the off-beat accents in the lower strings do not come through, possibly a result of how the microphones were placed. One can hear them playing but the sound is recessed. The horns do their grace notes well, and really rise to the occasion at RN 63 -Mahler thumbing his nose at the critics who so thoroughly trashed his Fourth and Fifth. There is too much going on, not that it is fast, but complex, with interplay between winds, brass and strings, to comment in detail. It is all deliciously played, ending in a fine bassoon cadence.
4. Finale. The opening is quite atmospheric-winds, brass (especially bass tuba) very fine, and the tempo is well judged, deliberate, not rushed but not dragged either. Leading up to RN 107, the conversation between winds, horn and bass tuba is very clean and clear, ending with a powerful chord at 107 and the ff timpani strokes leave no doubt about the strength of the playing to follow. The build to the first hammer blow is inexorable, not rushed, and at RN 129 the blow itself is palpable - though the hammer is a touch late, which gives the listener the chance to differentiate between it and the timpani stroke, not intentional, of course, but a useful mistake. The following trombones and tuba are brassy and fierce, maybe not quite up to the standard set by Barbirolli. The brass are outstanding in the passages that follow, especially the tuba at RN 134 -,7-8 (14:57) leading to the cataclysmic syncopated passage at 134 - 3, which thus far is only matched by Horenstein's Bournemouth performance. This passage is one of my sina qua non touchstones of this work. Olson and the MFest orchestra pass with flying colors. The following passages have a swagger and jauntiness; to me, this passage indicates that Mahler is saying "Oh, Ye Cruel Gods of Fate, do your worst, I shall prevail!" In such march-like passages Olson always seem to get the orchestra with him perfectly in a stirring rhythm that is seldom matched by any one else (strong personal opinion, of course). The triumphal march culminates in strong brass-string passages leading to the second blow at RN 140 (18:16), this time perfectly together, followed again by strong, fierce brass and horns. The intervening development is quite fierce, sometimes quite agitated (but never rushed) leading up to the calmer passages starting just before RN 163 (26:11), with noble horns and trombones leading to the "false" third hammer blow at RN 164 (29:34) and then the "virtual" third blow ( actually missing here but with Mahler's revised orchestration) ten measures later at 28:59. The tam-tam and bass tuba-trombones-horns announce the final "death sentence" (according to most commentators, and, and Donald Mitchell writes, "Mahler lets Death win," in the coda and pounding timpani. But I am not so sure. To me this is Mahler getting up again and shaking his fist yet one more time at fate (and his critics) and, after all, he does win, at least for a time. Olson and the MahlerFest orchestra here provide an ending equal in all ways to the shattering ending produced in the Barbirolli performance.
This ten-year old performance promises much to be anticipated at MahlerFest XVI, 2003.

Some brief first impressions, from listening in 2000

Simon Rattle, CBSO. Bravo for playing the inner movements andante-scherzo, Mahler's own preference, but the performance is so mannered, even wayward, that it simply does not hang together. Sir Simon's motto seems to be, "slow 'er down, speed 'er up." The scherzo is particularly annoying in being so mannered. Sir Simon uses three hammer strokes. Interesting for its good effects but a failure as a coherent reading.

Pierre Boulez, Vienna. This one cranks along at a middle pace, with no extremes of tempo changes. Orchestra playing is good. PB lets the music speak for itself. However, I would wish for a touch more expression and shaping of phrases. Good reading for a first time listener, as it presents the music (notes) and not an interpretation. Then go on to JH or JB to hear the MUSIC (notes plus). Remember, Mahler is said to have said, "The most important [he does not specify what?] is not in the notes."

Leif Segerstam, Danish NRSO. I had given this one away to the library, as at first hearing I didn't care for it. On rehearing a tape I kept, I liked it better, but the scherzo is almost too mannered, not up to the excesses of the Bernstein NYPO or Simon Rattle, but a little excessive, with a slowdown almost to a stop at places near the end of the movement. I'll not comment further.

Klauss Tennstedt, LPO. This is not great but not bad, and has fewer of KT's usual mannerisms. I have been playing some of the KT multiple set lately and find this among the better ones. I'll not comment further.

Claudio Abbado, RAI orchestra of Rome, 15 April, 1967, FONITCETRA CDE 1061, recorded in concert at La Scala. Excellent opening tempo, even if slightly on the brisk side. The Italians under the young Abbado play with verve and precision, sounding like an experienced Mahler orchestra. This movement works very well. The Scherzo is rather brisk, but allows Abbado a good contrast with the Altväterisch sections. Abbado understood well Mahler's intentions in the off-set timpani/low string accents and gets it just right. The horns could bray with more irony and contempt at RN 63. The Andante is tenderly played, not over sentimental, just right. The Finale is strong, the brass good, the hammer blows quite acceptable, but Abbado quickens the tempo in the strong section between blows # 1 and #2, and the big moment at 2/3 measures before RN 134 is somewhat lost in the rush. This is a fine performance, a real sleeper, and worth looking for. There is also a performance at about the same time with the Vienna PO. Worth looking for.

Claudio Abbado, Cleveland Orchestra (in concert, broadcast). Similar reading to the Rome performance but falls far behind in intensity and care, a big surprise considering the excellence of the Cleveland Orchestra.

Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic. LB is much too fast, for my taste, in the opening and I think that the first movement, while exciting, fails to do justice to the wonderfully upbeat music. The Scherzo is brisk, and the lower accented strings are not heard. LB goes for broke with string portamenti, effective but I think he overdoes it. LB does not make too much of the braying horns, but he does slow to a walk as the cadences continue. The Adagio is lovely, milked somewhat, but within bounds. The Finale is manic-depressive, as was Bernstein himself, and possibly Mahler. The first hammer blow is very good and LB takes a broad tempo for the following trombone passage. LB speeds up for the "battle" scene (horns, trombones in fast cadences) and then slows down for the big moment 2 measures before RN 134. It sort of works, albeit a little exaggerated. The build up to the third blow is rather frenetic, vintage Bernstein. He takes the third blow where it should be but it seems to be in the revised orchestration, instead of going back to the original orchestration. The final measures are good. All in all, this is a good performance if you like your Mahler very emotional and heart-on-sleeve. I slightly prefer LB's later reading, below.

Leonard Bernstein and the Vienna Philharmonic, DGG 427 697-2. LB is more relaxed here, and I think that the first movement works better, Except for the slow passages. There, Lennie slows down to a walk, milking the music and losing the structural coherence. The Scherzo opens well and Lennie gets it almost right, but the timpani beats between the accented beats fade away, even though the score says forte. The andante is well played albeit a little slow. The opening of the Finale is strong and well paced. Lennie plays this for drama, slow and ponderous, but it does work. Lennie, contrary to his usual habit, avoids speeding up for the exuberant section, and the build to the first hammer blow is good, the blow itself is excellent. Lennie does speed up for what Kelly Hansen, our Note Author, calls the "Battle Scene." Then he slows down almost lugubriously for the big moment at 2-3 measures before RN 134. Does not work, at least for me. The second hammer blow is fine, with a ringing tam-tam. Then it sounds as if Lennie does insert the third hammer at RN 164, where it should not be. However, it may be that the timpani and bass drum, both marked f, are really too loud and it sounds like the hammer. Ten measures later, where the original third hammer had been, it does sound as if LB uses the revised orchestration, without hammer. The big chord introducing the last timpani fate strokes is good, but the timpani strokes do not have the dread aspect of the Barbirolli recording. I regard this later effort as surpassing the earlier NYPO reading, and it is good, even very good if one likes the Bernstein approach.

M. Inoue, Royal Philharmonic. This is a good, solid Sixth, not reaching the excellence of the same conductor's Fifth. It is hard to find, usually coupled with the Fifth, which is worth having in any case.

Günther Herbig, Saarbrücken Radio Symphony Orchestra. Quite a good reading and recording. Never anything to be wary of, but then it never quite reaches the heights.

Zubin Mehta, Israel Philharmonic, broadcast of a concert in Tel Aviv. I heard Mehta do an ordinary Sixth in Los Angeles, but this one is a superior reading - quite vigorous and well paced. It should be released commercially, it is that good. The Israeli musicians seem to have this music in their hearts, perhaps reminding them of the dark times in Germany. Mehta gets exactly right the tricky opening of the Scherzo. He lets down only in the last two measures, which have no punch whatsoever. Pity, for that is the part that tends to leave the lasting impression.

Lorin Maazel, Vienna Philharmonic, notes by Jack Diether (1982). Diether, usually a reliable writer and researcher, makes several curious mistakes in his notes: first, that Mahler changed his mind twice about the order o the inner movements; second, that the Sixth is one of the most popular and most often played Mahler symphony; third, that Mahler died of rheumatic heart disease; fourth, that Mahler told Alma that he had composed her into the symphony (this was Alma writing this, NOT Mahler); and, fifth, that Mahler said that the Scherzo described the children running around the yard (This again is Alma, and besides Anna had not yet been born when Mahler composed the Scherzo). This is just how myths are promulgated. On the other hand Diether says, rightfully, that this is not a gloomy symphony.

Notwithstanding the notes, Maazel gives a fine performance. the first movement is straight and powerful, with a good tempo, and, none of the annoying tempo idiosyncrasies for which he is famous. The opening of the Scherzo is almost right - the off-accent timpani notes are too weak. The braying horns are excellent, and the slight slow-down when they finish is appropriate. The Andante (notice the inner movement order!) opens with a good tempo and of course the Viennese know how to play this lovely music. Nice bass clarinet below the strings. The diminished chord near the end is lovingly played.

Pierre Boulez, London Symphony Orchestra, in concert. This is an altogether excellent performance, ranking with the best. Boulez is evidently a conductor who does best in concert, as here he is totally involved with the music - nothing cool or cerebral about this reading. Quite different from the somewhat detached reading with the Vienna Philharmonic made recently. I cannot find out if this broadcast was ever released on a minor label.

Vaclav Neuman, Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra, Berlin Classics. This was a pleasant surprise. The orchestra is excellent, the recording is very good, and the reading quite powerful, for the most part, with essentially nothing about which to complain. Not at the top but a commendable recording. A worth bonus are strong performances of Fidelio and Leonore no. 2 overtures.

Bernard Haitink, Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra, Phillips box set. Contrary to some reports, who think that this is somewhat dull and held back, I found it an exciting performance, in Haitink's usual straight-forward but very-much-in-command style, and no extra Bernsteinian extravagances. The ACO has Mahler in its soul and heart, having played more Mahler than any other orchestra in the world, maybe more than the other top five combined! This box set of all the symphonies can sometimes he had for a good price and is highly recommended. As a bonus, the CD disks contain one if the best Mahler 20 Adagios I have heard.

SUMMARY

Go for the John Barbirolli EMI or Great Recordings of the Century and the Horenstein Stockholm Orchestra recordings for the most searing and satisfactory (to me) account of the music. These are what I pull off the shelf when I need a Mahler 6 fix.

Other worthy recordings are by Thomas Sanderling, Harold Farberman, Herbert von Karajan, Benjamin Zander, Vaclav Neuman, Bernard Haitink and Pierre Boulez.

Return