Ravinia 2026 Issue 2

children, Mahler accomplished an astounding amount of work before the end of August, in- cluding correcting proofs of the Fifth Sympho- ny, drafting two movements of the Seventh, and completing the finale of the Sixth, which he had sketched (along with the first movement) the previous summer. On August 30, Mahler announced to Guido Adler, “My Sixth is finished and I am gradually getting ready to come back to Vienna with wife and children.” One ceremonial act remained: the unveiling of his new symphony for Alma. Husband and wife processed arm-in-arm up the hill to his composition hut ( Häuschen ) for the private debut. As Alma later wrote, “We both wept that day.” Mahler polished the orchestration during the winter of 1905, sending the completed orches- tral score to his copyist on May 1. The following autumn, the copyist transmitted his fair copy to C.F. Kahnt in Leipzig, who published the full or- chestral score, a study score, a thematic analysis by Richard Specht (commissioned by the pub- lisher), and a four-hand piano reduction by Al- exander Zemlinsky. Mahler made extensive revi- sions during rehearsals for the world premiere at the Allgemeiner Deutscher Musikverein festival in Essen’s Saalbau concert hall on May 27, 1906. One rehearsal change stirred a major contro- versy: the reversal of the middle movements. Kahnt’s first edition, which was printed before the premiere, reflected the original sequence, Scherzo followed by Andante moderato . Upon hearing the work in rehearsal, Mahler changed the order to Andante moderato then Scherzo . His subsequent performances of the Sixth always observed this order, as did most other conduc- tors during his lifetime. Mahler sent numer- ous revisions, including the re-ordered middle movements, to Kahnt in August. The publisher initially inserted errata slips into the already printed scores, but eventually issued completely revised orchestral, study, and piano scores in ad- vance of the Vienna premiere on January 4, 1907. Alma Mahler Evidently, not all Viennese critics consulted the same version of the score, as their reviews dif- fer over the movement sequence of Mahler’s performance. These discrepancies exacerbated the already conflicting evidence offered by Kahnt’s two print editions. Alma added to the confusion by endorsing the Scherzo—Andante moderato order in 1909; only one year later, in Gustav Mahler: Memories and Letters , she iden- tified the Scherzo as the third movement. The 1963 critical edition published under the aus- pices of the Internationale Gustav Mahler Ge- sellschaft gave the inner movements as Scher- zo—Andante moderato . More recently, scholars preparing the new critical edition of Symphony No. 6 presented compelling arguments for re- storing the movement sequence that Mahler favored in his own performances, Andante moderato—Scherzo , which is the order per- formed on this occasion. Another legacy of the symphony’s early history is the popular nickname “Tragic.” Mahler took an unprecedented step in ending the Sixth on a note of despair; his other symphonies all con- clude triumphantly. Perhaps the Kindertotenlie- der , completed immediately before Mahler tack- led the symphony’s finale, had left its mark on his psyche. Though not overtly programmatic, this symphony bore deep personal meaning for its composer. The principal theme of the Allegro energico, ma non troppo was Mahler’s melodic portrayal of his wife: “I’ve tried to personify you in a theme. I don’t know if I’ve succeeded, but you will have to be content with it!” The sparing use of cowbells recalls his solitary walks in the mountains. More germane to the “tragic” moniker are the hammer blows in the finale. Mahler originally included five hammer blows but reduced the number to three before the premiere and the A satire of Mahler’s instrumentation for the Symphony No. 6 (“Tragic”), including the “Mahler Hammer,” published in Die Muskete (January 19, 1907) release of Kahnt’s first published edition. Ac- cording to Alma, these represented three blows of Fate inflicted upon a hero, “the third of which fells him like a tree.” The unnamed hero— Mahler—would himself suffer three devastating losses the following year: the death of his eldest daughter Maria Anna, his resignation as direc- tor of Vienna’s Hofoper, and the diagnosis of his heart disease. By the time Kahnt issued a revised edition of the Sixth Symphony later in 1906, the composer had decided to omit the third ham- mer blow, leaving only two strikes. Mahler described the ideal sound of a hammer blow as a “short, powerful, but dull-sounding strike of a non-metallic nature (like an axe blow).” No instrument existed for that purpose, and he was dissatisfied with the solution used at a read-through with the Vienna Philharmonic in March 1906. In Gustav Mahler: Memories and Letters , Alma recorded the composer’s amusing and ultimately failed attempt to create the prop- er sound: “The notes of the big drum in the last movement were not loud enough for him, so he had an enormous chest made and stretched with hide. It was to be beaten with clubs. …The members of the orchestra crowded round the monster on the lighted stage—the rest of the house was in darkness. There was the breath- less silence of suspense. The drummer raised his arm and smote: the answer was a dull, subdued boom. Once more—with all his strength: the re- sult was the same. Mahler lost patience. Seizing the bludgeon from the man’s hand, he whirled it aloft and brought it down with a mighty whack. The answering boom was no louder than before. Everyone laughed. And now they brought out the old, big drum again—and the true thun- der came. Nevertheless, Mahler had this chest dispatched at great cost to Essen, where it was again tried out, and finally rejected as unfit for service.” Orchestral percussionists have devised various solutions to the hammer blows over the years: sledgehammer on wood, an oversized bass drum struck with a heavy hammer, and a large wooden mallet and resonant wooden box (the aptly named “Mahler box and hammer”). The Sixth remains one of Mahler’s most glori- ous musical accomplishments, despite, or partly because of, its many unsolved mysteries. His younger contemporaries who were leading the charge toward Modernism—Alban Berg and Anton Webern, in particular—fully compre- hended its importance. Webern conducted this symphony on numerous occasions. Berg, writ- ing to his friend Webern, declared that Mahler’s was the “only Sixth, apart from [Beethoven’s] ‘Pastoral.’ ” –Program notes © 2026 Todd E. Sullivan MARINALSOP, Ravinia Chief Conductor For Marin Alsop’s biography, see page 97. RAVINIA.ORG • RAVINIAMAGAZINE 73