I'm sometimes tempted to do that too. But a small voice always says "but, having decided to put the slow movement second, the conductor will play both it, and the scherzo, slightly differently than if he had decided to order them the other way about, so you can't really just switch those particular readings of the two movements".

At that point however another small voice usually butts in and says, "are you really claiming to be able to detect those subtle differences, chum? Pull the other one it's got tubular bells in it."

Should I worry about these voices?   

What makes matters worse is that just when you have convinced yourself that whether you can directly detect these subtle differences or not, they may still act at a subliminal level, along comes Sir Charles Mackerras and suggests, in relation to the recording of his direction of the symphony mounted as a cover disc on the BBC Music Magazine, that listeners can always use the programming function on their CD player to reverse the order he opted for. You can't sort out the missing exposition repeat so easily, however.

Apparently for his 1967 recording Barbirolli envisaged the work as Andante-Scherzo, but EMI decided they knew better and reversed the order for its intial release. As far as I know, the most recent incarnation has reverted to Barbirolli's original wishes.

Isn't it all down to whether you see this symphony as aiming for A major or E-flat major? I'm afraid I don't think I know any more, but I find some comments (Cooke, de la Grange, Matthews et al) a little too unequivocal. Did they get in touch with Gustav through a medium, perhaps?

It's difficult to see how it could ever be settled. But it is outrageous, isn't it? One would have imagined that the matter could be settled simply by examining the work's structure alone. I mean, imagine switching the order of virtually any other four-movement symphonic work and still seeing it as legitimate. Not that I've tried of course.

This particular issue also divides my mind about whether Mahler was the greatest or the worst composer of all time. For such a debate to ensue about something as fundamental as movement order, Mahler's Sixth Symphony is either an incredibly subtle or clod-hoppingly banal work.

Very interesting to see Mahler is on your agenda Richard-is this something to do with his chamber scoring exactitude amid the big picture?
I wonder if you guys have come across the Uk Mahler Society. This isn't a plug for them, but  when I had some
dealings with Jim Pritchard who runs it a couple of years ago I was impressed by the breadth of commentary
and the essayists etc that they attract. It ends up being about much more than Mahler in the same way that this
community is about much more than Radio 3. Google should have them hove into view if your'e interested; I think they sometimes have discounts on cds and tickets too as well as speakers, lunchges etc.

Tony, I know this is very late coming, and I have not read the whole thread, so I may be duplicating what someone else has already mentioned, but from what I have read, Mahler started the Fifth with that very movement and worked out from it. It is the very heart of the work. Without it there would be no Fifth, as it were. Then there would be no Adagietto for people to schmalz up.

You've just finished listening to it, eh? So that suggests you have access to a recording of some sort. Please do tell.

you have been pm'd!

but in the original orchestration, in the setting of 'der titan', it fits in extremely well.