六月，马六，纽约时报和越野跑
最近这段时间我听了好多遍的马六，以前我们称呼马六，都是在说马自达六，这才几年，这个型号的车好像已经从这个世界上消失了一样，当年也是后驱一代神车。
作为古典音乐史上最长的几首交响乐之一，这占据了我大量听音乐的时间。马六闻名于世主要是二，三乐章的顺序以及那几下大锤子给人造成的冲击力，以我个人自己的感受而言，马六就是英雄暮年的南柯一梦。午后昏昏沉沉入睡，第一乐章是年轻时候的金戈铁马意气风发，哪里有什么悲剧的意味，进行曲式的主题进展，你几乎能准确的听到主人公的得意洋洋志得意满，这个部分长达二十多分钟，可以看出马勒花了多少心血来描绘英雄有多伟大；第二乐章的开始部分和第一乐章一脉相承，英雄胜利之后的狂妄，征服之后的快乐，甚至跳起了舞，前面两个乐章听完你会感到诧异，为啥会被后人称之为「Tragic」；到了第三乐章事情开始出现变化，征服之后的破墙残垣逐渐展现，到了尾声总有一种山雨欲来风满楼的阴森感；当到了第四乐章就直奔主题了，第一乐章的进行曲主题恐怖的轻轻重复了几次，然后主角从英雄变成命运的收割者，那雄赳赳气昂昂的进行曲也变成了最终命运的向你步步迫近
关于马六的分析，我推荐这两期播客：
英雄的宿命｜马勒第六交响曲的末乐章
我有两个版本的马六黑胶，一个是 solti 在 1970 年和芝加哥交响乐团合作的现场录音，这是个套装，在盒子里居然有前任拥有者的剪报，我在互联网上查了查居然是纽约时报 2003 年 12 月 14 日的文章，意思是这张报纸已经二十多年了，当时一个爱乐者的动作把它留给了几千公里的我，这也许就是购买实体唱片的快乐吧。
我把网上找到的文章附在下面当做记录。
**MUSIC; Restoring Order in a Cataclysmic Symphony
**
By Gilbert Kaplan
Dec. 14, 2003
SHORTLY after conducting the premiere of his Sixth Symphony in 1906, Gustav Mahler concluded that the work was destined to be a ''hard nut, one that our critics' feeble little teeth cannot crack.'' And indeed, the Sixth continues to puzzle scholars and to shock listeners. It is Mahler's only symphony ending in utter despair. Naked death triumphs.
''When I describe what the catastrophe of man looks like, music comes into my mind,'' the philosopher Albert Camus wrote, ''the music of Gustav Mahler.'' Camus must surely have been thinking of the Sixth.
Among the many mysteries surrounding the work, two aspects of the score have been at the center of intense debate among Mahlerians: the order of the second and third movements and the number of fateful hammer blows in the fourth, that despairing finale. By now, most conductors accept Mahler's ultimate decision to delete the third, crushing hammer blow from the score. And a growing number are acknowledging his decision to reverse the order of the inner movements, putting the Andante before the Scherzo.
They include Mariss Jansons, Leonard Slatkin, Michael Tilson Thomas and Zubin Mehta, who will perform the work that way with the Israel Philharmonic at Carnegie Hall on Wednesday evening. What ties these conductors together is access to some remarkable detective work by Jerry Bruck, a New York-based recording engineer and longtime champion of Mahler, and to new disclosures by Reinhold Kubik, a Viennese musicologist and the chief editor of a critical edition of Mahler's works for the International Gustav Mahler Society.
A controversy has raged since 1963, when a new edition of the Sixth was published, reversing the accepted order of the movements. Some musicologists objected to the change for lack of evidence, but since the edition was approved by the society, it has been followed by almost all conductors. (One notable exception has been Simon Rattle.)
Now it has become clear that the transposition of movements was no mere mistake but a willful act of an editor, Erwin Ratz. As it turns out, Ratz distorted the facts and withheld evidence contradicting his opinion that according to musical theory, there could be only one correct order, Scherzo-Andante.
What is at stake musically? The symphony's opening movement pits an inexorable, dark funeral march against an aspiring, lyrical second subject, which Mahler said depicted his wife, Alma. Mahler closes the movement with a triumphant version of the Alma theme, momentarily raising the hope of a happy ending. As one musicologist has suggested, the structure of the Sixth resembles a classic Greek tragedy in four acts. (Mahler once titled the symphony ''Tragic.'') This reassuring moment then, the end of Act I, ''marks the high point by which one can later measure the extent of the fall -- the tragedy.''
Sure enough, a devastating 30-minute finale dashes any hope raised at the end of the first movement. Mahler described it as the saga of a hero who suffers three blows of fate, the last killing him.
Mahler composed the two middle movements first. The musicologist Deryck Cooke described the Scherzo as a ''relentless, devilish, stamping dance.'' It concludes with its second theme, a fragile melody that Alma Mahler said depicted toddlers at play, their voices dying out in a whimper.
The Andante moderato is one of Mahler's most serene creations. Its dreamy melody ''would be dangerous written by someone else,'' the philosopher Theodor Adorno said, but with Mahler ''cliché is turned into event.''
Mahler's initial idea was to place the Scherzo first, and that was how the score was originally published. With its opening timpani rhythm, the Scherzo sounds almost like a continuation of the funeral march of the first movement, now ''marching in three -- the death march as if it were redone in dance form,'' as the Mahler scholar Donald Mitchell wrote. The soothing Andante would then provide relief before the onslaught of the finale.
But during rehearsals for the premiere, in Essen, Germany, Mahler reversed the order. Perhaps he felt that the opening of the Scherzo was a bit too similar to the first movement. Perhaps he came to prefer the gentle Andante as a change of pace before returning to the turmoil of the Scherzo.
We will probably never know why Mahler made the switch (or why he dropped the third hammer blow), but no one questions that he did so, and a new score was published accordingly. This was the only way Mahler ever performed the symphony. And for more than 50 years, almost every conductor followed his lead, including Dimitri Mitropoulos at the American premiere, by the New York Philharmonic in 1947.
Then the editor Ratz entered the picture. A highly regarded musicologist and the author of a textbook on musical form still in use today, Ratz founded the International Gustav Mahler Society in 1955 and undertook the critical edition of Mahler's works five years later. According to his successor Mr. Kubik, who observed his work over the years, Ratz believed that one could determine the correctness of a musical structure simply through analysis.
''Should new facts alter the picture of a work,'' Mr. Kubik writes, ''Ratz was not infrequently inclined to rearrange the facts slightly to maintain his analysis.''
With the weight of his authority as chief editor, Ratz persuaded the publisher to return to the Scherzo-Andante order, claiming that although Mahler had later realized his mistake, the score had never been corrected, through ''an oversight of the publisher.'' Ratz offered no supporting evidence.
Against the overwhelming evidence that Mahler's change was permanent, the sole item to the contrary is a curious telegram sent by Alma Mahler to the Dutch conductor Willem Mengelberg in 1919. The cryptic four-word message read, ''First Scherzo, then Andante.'' Mengelberg copied Alma's message on the title page of his score, adding, ''according to Mahler's instructions.''
That inscription has been cited as proof that Mengelberg was given this information directly by Mahler. But as Mr. Bruck points out, Mengelberg performed the Sixth in 1916, five years after Mahler's death, placing the Andante first, ''clearly unaware of any 'instruction' to the contrary.''
As for Alma herself, Mahler scholars have never regarded her as a trustworthy source, especially on dates and performance details. As the biographer Henry-Louis de La Grange once wrote, ''Alma was never a scrupulous observer of her husband's creative life.''
If Mahler had changed his mind, why would Alma be the only person he told? After years of searching, Mr. Bruck has concluded that ''no record exists of any written or verbal instruction by Mahler to his friends, associates, other conductors or his publishers to indicate that he ever intended to revert to his earlier ordering of these movements.''
Moreover, Alma's general unreliability is compounded here. As Mr. Bruck notes, she contradicted herself in her memoirs, referring to the Scherzo as the third movement. And as Mr. Kubik notes, she informed Ratz that the correct order was the one Mahler followed when he conducted in Amsterdam. Mahler never conducted the Sixth in Amsterdam.
''Whether the telegram was a genuine mistake or an expression of Alma's own preference,'' Mr. Kubik writes, ''remains an open question.''
For years, Mr. Kubik and his predecessor as chief editor, Karl Heinz Füssl, supported Ratz's position. But Mr. Kubik found Mr. Bruck's fresh evidence so compelling that he delved into the society's archives, trying to determine what had gone wrong. He found correspondence revealing that Ratz, who died in 1973, had misrepresented the facts.
Ratz wrote to Alma Mahler, pressuring her to support his effort to compel Kahnt, the publisher, to revert to the original order. He claimed that Rudolf Mengelberg, the manager of the Concertgebouw Orchestra in Amsterdam (and cousin of the orchestra's conductor, Willem Mengelberg) had informed him that ''during his final years, Mahler decided in favor of the original sequence.'' This, Mr. Kubik reports, was a clear distortion of what Mengelberg had written.
Then in a letter to Kahnt demanding that the score be changed, Ratz wrote, ''Mahler later realized that the original order was the only right one and the only one that corresponds to the internal structure of the work.'' He offered no proof. In fact, Mr. Kubik asserts, he simply pulled this claim ''out of the air.''
Finally, in 1962, the year before the critical edition was published, Ratz learned of a letter by the conductor Bruno Walter, perhaps Mahler's closest confidant on musical matters. Walter said unequivocally that Mahler had never indicated any later misgivings about the Andante-Scherzo order. Ratz failed to disclose Walter's testimony.
From what Mr. Kubik observed to be an ''increasingly sharp tone'' in the correspondence, he concluded that Ratz ''was gradually working himself into the delusion that the Scherzo-Andante order was right and developing a 'blindness' with regard to the facts.''
''The sad thing,'' Mr. Kubik added, ''is that this semiconscious maneuvering into self-deception has had drastic consequences for scholarship and performance practice.''
In light of all this information, Mr. Kubik determined that a mistake had clearly been made and that the order Mahler intended for the inner movements was without doubt Andante-Scherzo. C. F. Peters, the current publisher, has been instructed to correct the edition. And Peters has placed a notice in the remaining scores declaring Andante-Scherzo the correct order ''in accordance with the will of the composer.''
Musicologists may continue to reflect on these matters. Some, determined to preserve the familiar order, have offered the novel theory that since Mahler composed the Sixth one way and performed it another, conductors can choose between them. But as noted, conductors formerly led astray by the old score have already begun turning to the new one, which is based on rock-solid evidence. And in performances like Mr. Mehta's, listeners can hear the musical results for themselves.
另外我也让 ChatGPT 帮忙翻译了附在这里：
*音乐；在一场灾难性交响曲中恢复秩序
作者：吉尔伯特·卡普兰
2003年12月14日
在1906年指挥完他的第六交响曲的首演后不久，古斯塔夫·马勒断定这部作品注定是“一个硬壳，我们的评论家的微弱牙齿无法咬开的硬壳。”事实上，第六交响曲继续令学者们感到困惑，震惊听众。这是马勒唯一以彻底绝望收尾的交响曲。赤裸的死亡占了上风。
“当我描述人类的灾难时，音乐涌入我的脑海”，哲学家阿尔贝·加缪写道，“古斯塔夫·马勒的音乐。”加缪无疑是在想第六交响曲。
在这部作品周围围绕的许多谜团中，两个乐章顺序和第四乐章中命运的锤击次数一直是马勒研究者们激烈辩论的焦点。现在，大多数指挥家接受马勒最终决定将第三次沉重的锤击从乐谱中删除。越来越多的人也承认他决定颠倒内部乐章的顺序，将安达恩特放在舞曲之前。
马里斯·扬松斯、伦纳德·斯拉特金、迈克尔·蒂尔森·托马斯和祖宾·梅塔都包括在内，他们将在周三晚上与以色列爱乐乐团在卡内基音乐厅演出这部作品。这些指挥家之间的共同点是他们可以访问杰里·布鲁克进行了一些出色的侦探工作，他是一位长期支持马勒的纽约录音工程师，以及维也纳音乐学家莱因霍尔德·库比克的新披露，他是国际古斯塔夫·马勒协会马勒作品临时版本的主编。
自从1963年出版新版第六交响曲以来，一场争议一直在进行，该版倒转了乐章的接受顺序。一些音乐学家因缺乏证据而反对这一变更，但自从该版本得到协会批准以来，几乎所有的指挥家都遵循了这一变更（一个显著的例外是西蒙·拉特尔）。
现在已经清楚，移动乐章的安排不是简单的错误，而是编辑埃尔文·拉茨的故意行为。事实证明，拉茨扭曲了事实，并隐瞒了与他观点相矛盾的证据，即根据音乐理论，只能有一个正确的顺序，即舞曲-安达恩特。
在音乐上有什么利害关系？交响曲的开场乐章将不可阻挡的黑暗葬礼进行曲与一个有抱负的抒情第二主题对比，马勒称这是他的妻子阿尔玛的写照。马勒用阿尔玛主题的凯旋作为乐章结尾，暂时地引起了一个美好结局的希望。正如一位音乐学家所建议的那样，第六交响曲的结构类似于四幕古希腊悲剧。（马勒曾经把这部交响曲标题为“悲剧”）这个令人安心的时刻，第一乐章的结尾，“标志着高点，后来可以测量悲剧的程度。”
果然，一个毁灭性的30分钟的结局粉碎了第一乐章结尾所引起的任何希望。马勒将其描述为一个英雄遭受三次命运打击，最后一击将他置于死地。
马勒首先作曲了两个中间乐章。音乐学家德里克·库克将舞曲描述为“无情的、魔鬼般的、重击的舞蹈。”它以其第二主题结束，一个脆弱的旋律，阿尔玛·马勒说描绘了孩子们在游戏中逐渐消失的声音。
安达恩特·莫德拉托是马勒最宁静的创作之一。它的梦幻旋律“如果由其他人写下，会很危险，”哲学家泰奥多·阿多诺说，但在马勒手中，“陈词滥调被转变成了事件。”
马勒最初的想法是把舞曲放在第一位，这也是乐谱最初的出版顺序。舞曲的开头定音鼓节奏几乎像是第一乐章的葬礼进行曲的延续，“以三拍进行，如同重新改编的舞蹈形式的葬礼进行曲，”马勒学者唐纳德·米切尔写道。然后是舒缓的安达恩特，提供了暂时的缓解，然后是结局的冲击。
但是在德国埃森的首演排练中，马勒颠倒了顺序。也许他觉得舞曲的开头与第一乐章太过相似。也许他后来更喜欢温和的安达恩特作为舞曲混乱之后的调整节奏。
我们可能永远不会知道为什么马勒做出这个改变（或者为什么他取消了第三次锤击），但没有人质疑他的决定，而新乐谱也相应地出版了。这是马勒演奏这部交响曲的唯一方式。50多年来，几乎每位指挥家都效仿他的做法，包括1947年纽约爱乐乐团首演的迪米特里·米特罗普洛斯。
然后是拉茨。拉茨是一位备受推崇的音乐学家，也是今天仍在使用的音乐形式教科书的作者，他于1955年创立了国际古斯塔夫·马勒协会，并在五年后开始了马勒作品的临时版本。根据他的继任者库比克先生多年来的观察，拉茨认为可以通过分析来确定音乐结构的正确性。
“如果新的事实改变了一个作品的形象”，库比克写道，“拉茨不时倾向于重新安排事实，以维持他的分析。”
作为首席编辑的权威，拉茨说服了出版商恢复舞曲-安达恩特的顺序，声称虽然马勒后来意识到了他的错误，但乐谱从未经过更正，“这是出版商的疏忽。”拉茨没有提供支持证据。
尽管有压倒性的证据表明马勒的改变是永久的，但唯一相反的事物是阿尔玛·马勒于1919年向荷兰指挥威廉·门格尔贝格发出的一条奇怪的电报。这条神秘的四字信息写道：“首先舞曲，然后安达恩特。”门格尔贝格把阿尔玛的信息抄在他的乐谱封面上，并加上“根据马勒的指示。”
这一记录被引用为证明门格尔贝格是马勒亲自告知的证据。但正如布鲁克指出的那样，门格尔贝格在1916年演奏第六交响曲时，并不知道有任何“相反的指示”。
至于阿尔玛本人，马勒研究者们从未将她视为一个可信的消息来源，尤其是关于日期和表演细节。正如传记作者亨利-路易斯·德·拉·格朗日曾经写过的，“阿尔玛从未是她丈夫创造性生活的严谨观察者。”
如果马勒改变了主意，为什么只有阿尔玛知道呢？经过多年的搜索，布鲁克得出结论：“没有记录显示马勒曾向他的朋友、同事、其他指挥或出版商书面或口头传达过他打算恢复乐章的早期顺序。”
此外，阿尔玛的普遍不可靠性在这里进一步加剧。正如布鲁克指出的那样，她在回忆录中自相矛盾，将舞曲称为第三乐章。正如库比克所指出的，她告诉拉茨，正确的顺序是马勒在阿姆斯特丹指挥时遵循的顺序。马勒从未在阿姆斯特丹指挥过第六交响曲。
“这封电报是真正的错误还是阿尔玛自己的偏爱表达，”库比克写道，“仍然是一个未解之谜。”
多年来，库比克及其前任首席编辑卡尔·海因茨·福塞尔支持了拉茨的立场。但库比克发现布鲁克的新证据如此令人信服，他深入研究了协会的档案，试图弄清楚出了什么问题。他发现了一些通信，显示拉茨在1973年去世后，曾扭曲了事实。
拉茨写信给阿尔玛·马勒，敦促她支持他努力迫使出版商Kahnt恢复原始顺序。他声称阿姆斯特丹音乐厅交响乐团经理鲁道夫·门格尔贝格（荷兰指挥威廉·门格尔贝格的堂兄）告诉他“马勒在他的最后几年里决定支持原始的顺序”。库比克先生报道说，这明显扭曲了门格尔贝格的原意。
然后在给Kahnt的信中，要求更改乐谱的信中，拉茨写道：“马勒后来意识到原始顺序是唯一正确的顺序，也是与作品内部结构相符的顺序。”他没有提供证据。实际上，库比克断言，他只是在“空中编造”这一说法。
最后，在1962年，即临时版本出版的前一年，拉茨得知指挥布鲁诺·瓦尔特的一封信。瓦尔特毫不含糊地说，马勒从未表示对安达恩特-舞曲顺序有任何后来的疑虑。拉茨没有透露瓦尔特的证词。
根据库比克的观察，通信中“日益尖锐的语调”，他得出结论认为拉茨“逐渐陷入以为舞曲-安达恩特顺序是正确的，并且在事实上开发了对事实的‘失明’。”
“可悲的是”，库比克补充道，“这种半意识的自我欺骗逐渐导致了对学术和表演实践的严重后果。”
根据所有这些信息，库比克断定明显地出现了错误，并且马勒意图内部乐章的顺序毫无疑问是安达恩特-舞曲。目前的出版商C.F.彼得斯已被指示更正了版本。彼得斯在剩余的乐谱上发表了一则声明，宣布安达恩特-舞曲顺序是“根据作曲家的意愿”。
音乐学家们可以继续思考这些问题。一些人决心保留熟悉的顺序，提出了一个新理论，即由于马勒创作了第六交响曲，并且将其演奏了另一种顺序，指挥家可以在它们之间进行选择。但正如上述，受到旧乐谱误导的指挥家已经开始转向新乐谱，这是基于坚实的证据。在梅塔先生等人的演出中，听众可以亲自听到音乐的结果。*
*
文章主要还是在纠缠二,三乐章的顺序，其实我个人到觉得无所谓，怎么放也都行，反而多点乐趣。
另外一个黑胶的版本是著名的伯恩施坦版本的重置，大家对这套重置的马勒交响曲颇具微词，认为效果和头版比较起来差异太大，我自己倒是听得不亦乐乎，关键头版也买不起。
这周周一开始恢复跑步，到今天为止跑了 45.53 公里，越来越觉得 713 的 24 公里越野够呛，到时候尽量完赛吧。
